DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Food for Progress FY15 Safe 
Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Project
Final Evaluation
11/13/2021
2
Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Project: Final Evaluation
Program: Food for Progress
Agreement Number: FCC-517-2015/008-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2015
Project Duration: 09/29/2015-12/31/2021
Implemented by: National Cooperative Business Association CLUSA International 
(NCBA CLUSA)
Evaluation Authored by: Just Results 
Evaluation Core Team:
Lara Goldmark – Team Leader
Santiago Soler – Agricultural Economist
Gabriel Schneider – Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist
Alex Macdonald – Data Collection and Database Specialist
Katja Spur – Team Facilitator
Joshua Tavares Peralta – Field Coordinator
Tanushri Majumdar – Research Analyst
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of 
Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views 
expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of 
Agriculture or the United States Government.
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov
Cover photo: Cow at a farm in San Juan visited by the evaluation team
Introduction and Purpose section photo: Mural from COOPAGARESTE store in Hato Mayor
Evaluation Design and Methodology section photo: Enumerators testing tools with a female farmer in Monte Plata 
Findings section photo: Farmer with cows in Dajabon
Conclusions section photo: Cow at a farm in San Juan visited by the evaluation team
Recommendations section photo: Herd of cows at a farm in Dajabon visited by the evaluation team
3
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms............................................................................................................................................ 6
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Project Background and Purpose.............................................................................................................. 8
Evaluation Design, Methods and Limitations, and Questions.................................................................. 9
Findings and Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 10
Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 11
1. Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................................... 15
1.1. Project Context ........................................................................................................................... 15
Livestock Value Chain ......................................................................................................................... 15
Value Chain Framework...................................................................................................................... 16
Value Chain Dynamics......................................................................................................................... 19
Value Chain Constraints ..................................................................................................................... 22
1.2. Project Description...................................................................................................................... 25
1.3. Results Framework...................................................................................................................... 26
1.4. Purpose of the Evaluation and Research Questions................................................................... 28
2. Evaluation Design and Methodology.................................................................................................. 32
2.1. Evaluation Design ....................................................................................................................... 32
Phase 1: Inception and Preparation for Field Work............................................................................ 32
Phase 2: Field Work ............................................................................................................................ 33
Phase 3: Analysis and Report.............................................................................................................. 34
2.2. Sampling Methods...................................................................................................................... 34
2.3. Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................................ 39
2.4. Data Analysis Methods ............................................................................................................... 40
2.5. Evaluation Limitations................................................................................................................. 41
3. Findings............................................................................................................................................... 44
3.1. Overall Findings........................................................................................................................... 44
3.2. Relevance.................................................................................................................................... 50
A. Alignment with Sector/Value Chain Needs .................................................................................... 50
B. Alignment with Government Priorities and Strategy ..................................................................... 51
C. Relevance: Conclusions................................................................................................................... 52
3.3. Effectiveness............................................................................................................................... 52
4
A. Overview of Project Effectiveness and Adaptation ........................................................................ 52
B. FSIS Equivalence.............................................................................................................................. 53
C. Strengthened HACCP Systems and Private Investments in Slaughterhouses ................................54
D. Livestock Field Schools ................................................................................................................... 55
E. Seal of Quality ................................................................................................................................. 56
F. Grants program and access to finance............................................................................................ 57
G. Effectiveness: Conclusions.............................................................................................................. 60
3.4. Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 64
A. Organizational Challenges .............................................................................................................. 64
B. Scale and Implementation.............................................................................................................. 66
C. Efficiency: Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 67
3.5. Impact ......................................................................................................................................... 68
A. Project Impact................................................................................................................................. 68
B. Project Legacy ................................................................................................................................. 72
3.6. Sustainability............................................................................................................................... 74
A. Technical Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 74
B. Financial Sustainability.................................................................................................................... 75
C. Institutional Sustainability .............................................................................................................. 75
D. Sustainability: Conclusions............................................................................................................. 76
4. Conclusions......................................................................................................................................... 81
5. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 84
 
5
List of Figures Figure 1. Cattle Farm in Puerto Plata.......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2. Dairy Value Chain Map................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 3. Beef Value Chain Map.................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 4. MCC in Maria Trinidad Sanchez................................................................................................... 19
Figure 5. Example of How New Technologies Enhanced Productivity of Milk Processors and MCCs........21
Figure 6. SAFE Project Implementation Areas............................................................................................ 25
Figure 7. SAFE Project’s Results Frameworks............................................................................................. 27
Figure 8. Training at the JAD office in Santo Domingo ............................................................................... 33
Figure 9. Distribution of Producer Types in Beneficiary and Comparison Group Farmers.........................36
Figure 10. Data Collection Approach .......................................................................................................... 39
Figure 11. Beneficiary Producers Tended to be Small-Scale Farmers with Few Employees (Survey)........51
Figure 12. Team Leader Lara Goldmark Speaking with Eduardo Alvarez at MERCARNE ...........................55
Figure 13. Feeding Cattle at a Farm in Hato Mayor.................................................................................... 55
Figure 14. Milking Parlor in Puerto Plata Funded by SAFE ......................................................................... 59
Figure 15. Increase in Activity Following New Project Leadership in 2018, Demonstrated by Key Data...65
Figure 16. Differing Results in Productivity Increases by Province May Reflect Differences in TA Quality 66
Figure 17. Processors Survey - your relationship with the following actors increased..............................68
Figure 18. Milk Productivity Growth, with Farm Visits as a Proxy for Level of Technical Assistance.........70
Figure 19. Dropping Off Milk at a MCC in Dajabon..................................................................................... 71
Figure 20. Team Leader Lara Goldmark Interviewing ADHA President Ricardo Barcelo............................76
Figure 21. Potential Activities for Future Projects...................................................................................... 93
List of Tables Table 1. Constraints in the Livestock Value Chain by Function .................................................................. 22
Table 2. Final Evaluation Questions (EQ).................................................................................................... 28
Table 3. Producer Sampling Frame by Province ......................................................................................... 36
Table 4. Sampling Frame for Processors..................................................................................................... 38
Table 5. Survey Response Rates.................................................................................................................. 40
Table 6. Percentage Progress of Activity Indicators ................................................................................... 45
Table 7. Key Activity Indicator Progress...................................................................................................... 45
Table 8. Percentage Project Progress by Periods ....................................................................................... 47
Table 9. Key Results Indicator Progress...................................................................................................... 48
Table 10. Summary of SAFE Project Grants by Type and Calendar Year .................................................... 58
Table 11. Baseline vs End-line Milk Productivity ........................................................................................ 69
Table 12. Comparison Group vs Beneficiary Milk Productivity................................................................... 69
Table 13. Perceptions of Impact on Milk Productivity and Household Income Vary by Province .............71
Table 14. Producer Perceptions of Increased Quality Due to SAFE Project Activities................................72
Table 15. Impacts Most Likely to be Sustained or Scaled Post-Project ..................................................... 78
Table 16. Successful vs. Unsuccessful Activities and Recommendations for Future Projects....................88
6
List of Acronyms 
Acronym Full Term
ADHA Asociación Dominicana de Hacendados y Agricultores
AGAMPTA Asociación de Ganaderos de Monte Plata
ADIL Asociación Dominicana de Industrias Lácteas
ADOPROLAC Asociación de Procesadores de Lácteos y Derivados
AGRODOSA Aseguradora Agropecuaria Dominicana
APHIS USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
APROLECHE Asociación de Productores de Leche
BAGRICOLA Banco Agricola
COMINOR Comisión Nacional de Normas del Ministerio de Industria Comercio y Mipymes
CONALECHE Consejo Nacional para la Reglamentación y Fomento de la Industria Lechera
COOPAGAMPTA Cooperativa de Ganaderos de Monte Plata
COOPESUR Cooperativa Agropecuaria de Ganaderos del Sur
COOPFEDEGANO Cooperativa de Ganaderos de Fedegano
CRI/GENEX Cooperative Resources International
DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse
DIGEGA Dirección General de Ganadería, Ministry of Agriculture
DIGEMAPS Dirección General de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Productos Sanitarios, Ministry of Health
DR Dominican Republic
EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria
FEDA Fondo Especial para el Desarrollo Agropecuario
FEDEGANO Federación De Ganaderos del Noroeste
FEGACIBAO Federación de Ganaderos del Cibao Central y el Nordeste
FENACERD Federación Nacional de Comerciantes y Empresarios de la República Dominicana 
FGD Focus group discussion
FFPr Food for Progress
FSIS USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
7
IDIAF Instituto de Desarrollo de Investigación Agrícola y Forestal
INDOCAL Instituto Dominicano de Calidad in the Ministry of Industry and Trade
JAD Junta Agroempresarial Dominicana
KII Key informant interview
LAVECEN Laboratorio Veterinario Central, Ministry of Agriculture
LFS Livestock field schools
M&E Monitoring & Evaluation
MCCs Milk Collection Centers
NCBA CLUSA National Cooperative Business Association – Cooperative League of the USA
OIRSA Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria
ONE Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas 
PO Producer Organization
PRO CONSUMIDOR Organismo de Defensa al Consumidor
PROGANA Local name of the SAFE project
REDDOM Fundación Rural Economic Development Dominicana
SAFE Safe Agriculture/Food Export Program – DR
SIDOCAL Sistema Dominicano para la Calidad
SPS Sanitation Performance Standards
TA Technical assistance
TAMU Texas A&M Agrilife Research, a member of the Texas A&M University system
US United States of America
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
 
 
8
Executive Summary 
Project Background and Purpose 
The Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) project, known as PROGANA in Spanish, is a five-year project 
funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) 
through the Food for Progress (FFPr) program. The project was funded by commodity donations through 
a Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), with an initial estimated worth of US$16,212,121 and 
implemented by the National Cooperative Business Association CLUSA International (NCBA CLUSA), 
along with its partners, the Junta Agroempresarial Dominicana (JAD), the Borlaug Institute for 
International Agriculture and its Center for Food Safety at Texas A&M University (TAMU), and 
Cooperative Resources International (CRI/GENEX). 
The livestock value chain (beef and dairy) in the Dominican Republic is characterized by low levels of 
formality, weak value chain linkages, and lack of know-how on best practices. This has led to low 
productivity and quality and poor health and safety measures in the sector. For the dairy value chain, 
the majority of the stakeholders in the dairy sector see the improvement in productivity and quality of 
milk as the most achievable goal in the near term. This includes increased ability to meet domestic 
demand by addressing structural issues in the value chain – such as a lack of economies of scale and low 
levels of organization and cooperation among producers and other value chain stakeholders. For the 
beef value chain there is a greater opportunity for developing exports, especially if DR can achieve 
equivalence with US standards to allow exports to Puerto Rican markets. 
Against this background, USDA launched the SAFE project which targeted 14,407 individuals in the value 
chain, including 13,200 producers and 1,207 public and private extension workers, beef and dairy 
processors, decision makers, public and private stakeholder representatives, and 60 producer 
organizations. The project targeted 11 dairy and beef producing provinces in the Dominican Republic 
(Santiago Rodríguez, Dajabón, Independencia, San Juan, Monte Plata, La Altagracia, Hato Mayor, El 
Seibo, María Trinidad Sánchez, Duarte and Puerto Plata), with two overall objectives:
1. Improve agricultural productivity in the livestock (beef and dairy) value chain by increasing 
the use of improved techniques and technologies; improving farm management; increasing 
the availability of improved inputs and use of financial services; strengthening the capacity 
of government institutions and key groups; and increasing the leverage of private sector 
resources. 
2. Expand trade of beef and dairy products by adding value to post-production; increasing the 
adoption of established standards; increasing access to markets; building linkages between 
buyers and sellers; improving post-harvest infrastructure; increasing the use and efficiency 
of post- production processes; improving the policy and regulatory framework; and 
strengthening the capacity of key organizations in the trade sector.
9
Evaluation Design, Methods and Limitations, and Questions 
The purpose of the final evaluation is to provide an independent, third-party assessment of the 
performance of the SAFE project in achieving its objectives. The evaluation is focused on answering key 
questions related to the SAFE project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability 
and includes metrics on the project’s progress against its targets for 89 project indicators (58 activity 
indicators and 31 results indicators as of the writing of this report). The also assesses adjustments made 
over the course of the project including those based on the midterm evaluation, identifies and 
documents lessons learned over the course of implementation, and makes recommendations for the 
future. The final evaluation of the SAFE project was conducted in three phases, as described below: 
• Phase 1. Inception and Preparation for Field Work: The evaluation team reviewed project 
documentation and secondary information, finalized the research methodology, and prepared 
and delivered to the SAFE team an inception presentation including an implementation plan. 
Data collection tools were drafted including surveys, key informant interview (KII) guides, and 
guides for focus group discussions (FGDs). 
• Phase 2. Field Work: Field work took place over a six-week period in the 11 target provinces and 
in Santo Domingo. Initial training and iteration and testing of the tools was conducted during the 
first week in Santo Domingo, before the evaluation team traveled to the provinces for primary 
data collection. Data was collected through a variety of means, including surveys, KIIs, and FGDs 
with key stakeholders and beneficiaries of the SAFE project. Figure E1 shows the approach used 
to collect data from each category of stakeholders:
E1. Data Collection Approach
• Phase 3. Analysis and Report: Following data collection, initial analysis was carried out over the 
next two weeks, and a presentation on the preliminary findings was made to NCBA CLUSA and 
SAFE project staff. Following the presentation and subsequent discussions including a few 
additional key informant interviews and recommended readings, the Just Results team drafted 
10
this report to provide the findings of the final evaluation to USDA, the SAFE project team, and 
other relevant stakeholders.
While the evaluation methodology was robust there are, as with any methodology, certain limitations 
and opportunities for errors and bias. This includes reliance on secondary performance information and 
data reported by the project. The evaluation team has attempted to mitigate any errors which might be 
present through triangulating information from multiple sources to inform our findings. In terms of 
primary data collection, some of the most relevant potential biases in this evaluation include positive 
response bias, selection bias, volunteer bias, and dominant response bias. 
The data collection included project beneficiaries and a comparison group of producers that were 
eligible to participate in the project but did not receive any technical assistance or interventions. An 
analysis of data collected through surveys of the beneficiary and comparison group samples showed 
that differences between the groups in key characteristics including regional distribution, sex 
distribution, producer type, total land used, and average number of cows milked daily, was nominal (See 
Annex 2 for detailed analysis). The comparison group was effective for triangulating data collected on 
outcomes linked to project interventions collected through surveys, project M&E data, and other 
sources including interviews. However, because of study limitations, difference in outcomes between 
the participants and the comparison group cannot be attributed to project activities. More detail is 
provided on the approach and limitations of the study in the methodology section below.
Findings and Conclusions 
The findings of the Final Evaluation of the SAFE project make clear that despite a slow start and external 
challenges posed by recurring droughts and the COVID-19 pandemic, the project achieved some 
significant accomplishments. These include most prominently:
1. Progress made towards achieving FSIS Equivalence for beef exports to the US, which most likely 
would have been achieved had not the pandemic delayed the audit scheduled for March 2020.
2. Improvements in HACCP, and sanitary practices and norms and through private co-investments 
in slaughterhouses participating in the SAFE project.
3. Proof of concept of the livestock field school methodology, enhanced by the use of private 
extensionists to provide hands-on training, technical assistance, and accompaniment for 
livestock producers.
Relevance: Seventy-eight percent of the beneficiary producers surveyed reported livestock field schools 
as being beneficial to them and 79% of processors and MCCs reported that they received high quality 
services from the project. However, challenges were also reported like low multi-stakeholder 
participation in project design, no early-stage foundational value chain assessments, and a lack of clarity 
of beneficiary focus in the design phase. Additionally, a failure to anchor program interventions upon an 
initial agreement with public sector and private sector stakeholders on goals and project design reduced 
stakeholder buy-in and sustainability of the project.
Effectiveness: Activities were effectively implemented with 90% of key activity indicators met at a 100% 
level or more. However, results achievement has been lower (68% of results indicators met at 100% 
level or more) due to delays owing to COVID-19. Progress towards achieving FSIS equivalence and high 
standards of sanitation in participating slaughterhouses, livestock field schools and private extensionists 
co-financed by the project, and adoption of practices to improve milk productivity were key 
11
achievements of the project. Activities relating to improved access to finance and Seal of Quality for 
dairy products were less effective. 
Efficiency: Delays in the first phase, challenges with the project’s M&E systems, large scale of the 
project’s implementation area, and lack of clear criteria for distributing grants were hard to overcome 
entirely and contributed to the shortfall in achieving the project’s results indicator targets. However, 
staffing changes made in 2018 accelerated project activities and delivery of results was improved.
Impact: For producers participating in livestock field schools and associated technical assistance, impact 
on productivity has been significant, along with increased household incomes. Introduction of co￾financed private extensionists has been well-received. Milk quality has improved, however, 
transportation and infrastructure at the MCCs remain challenging. Beef exports and trade has not seen 
significant market access growth, however, achieving equivalence could create significant positive 
impact. FSIS equivalence continues to be a driver of project impact and sustainability. 
Sustainability: Techniques taught in the livestock field schools and improvements made in the 
slaughterhouses are still being used today. However, long-term sustainability will require continued 
engagement by local stakeholders; and if possible continued investments in project interventions. Most 
extensionists hired by the project have stopped providing support to the producers with project funding 
coming to a close. As of yet, no local actors have taken the lead, and while the technical capacities of 
POs have been strengthened, they have not embraced a leadership role in moving forward the project’s 
objectives. JAD and APROLECHE, a local organization, has expressed interest in continuing support to the 
private extension program. The SAFE project should initiate and/or continue conversations with these 
organizations and the new government of DR to ensure the continuation the project’s successful 
interventions.
Recommendations 
The recommendations are designed to take the accomplishments of the SAFE project and build upon 
them in a way that leads to sustainable interventions that grow the beef and dairy sectors through 
increased productivity, quality, and trade. To develop them, the team drew from the findings of this 
evaluation, the lessons learned, and the insights of stakeholders we interviewed from the project team, 
the government, and the livestock (beef and dairy) value chain. 
There are five recommendations for future projects in this area:
1. Collect data all along the value chain as a baseline for the project and for partners.
2. Continue to support livestock field schools and private extension services - with a partner (such 
as a milk buyer) that provides resources and commits to continue efforts.
3. Continue light support to beef value chain and other potential exporters.
4. Use grant funds to catalyze specific, project-based investment opportunities in both value 
chains. Meanwhile, encourage the private sector to offer financial services.
5. Lead a collective visioning process involving all stakeholders.
E2 below presents specific recommendations linked to SAFE project activities, including supporting data 
for which activities were more versus less successful. 
12
E2. Successful vs. Unsuccessful Activities and Additional Recommendations for Future Projects
Successful Activities Supporting Data Recommendations
Livestock Field 
Schools
78% of producers surveyed said 
the livestock field schools were 
beneficial for them.
Finding sustainable financing sources for this 
activity (such as buyer contributions), and 
mainstreaming methodology with 
MEGALECHE in addition to the private 
extensionists.
Private Extension Surveys show a 15% higher 
productivity for beneficiary 
producers than comparison 
group, in line with gains shown 
by farm visit data. Banks 
mentioned they considered the 
presence of high-quality 
extension services as a factor that 
reduced their credit risk.
More work with cooperatives to 
institutionalize the private extension 
services, and perhaps develop a system 
whereby cooperatives and/or members who
provide/use these extension services can 
access funds.
More discussion with government actors on 
how to organize extension and ensure the 
right incentives. 
Selected grants to
local organizations, 
that reinforce the 
practices taught in 
livestock field schools.
300+ milking parlors built with 
project financing. 
Inputs for producers.
Grants supporting international 
TA 
Better communication linked to grant and 
reimbursable funding. Allocate international 
TA effectively by responding directly to 
specific producer needs and supporting the 
adoption and follow up of new learning with 
producers.
Developing a 
Workaround for 
LAVECEN
Interviews and visits to 
laboratories; project records.
Possible ad hoc responsive support to 
encourage continued upgrading of local 
capacity. Important that this be done 
without taking on the large institutional 
issues that still exist.
Support to DIGEMAPS DIGEMAPS own ability to tell 
their story is exceptional.
Review support to software for inspectors. A 
good initiative but appears back-office 
centric (a common issue with e-government 
software). Will require testing and iteration 
to ensure that the process for the enterprises
is streamlined. 
Support to 
Slaughterhouses
(including mock 
audits, grants, HAACP 
training)
Two participating 
slaughterhouses (AGROCARNE 
and MERCARNE) passed the 
mock audit for FSIS Equivalence 
conducted by TAMU.
Network with Dominican Ambassador in 
Washington (as is being done) to make sure 
FSIS conducts the official audit soon.
Market Study (Puerto 
Rico)
Conducted by ASOCARNE 
President Enrique de Castro and 
Professor Greg Sullivan of Texas 
A&M University (TAMU). 
Conduct additional market studies and follow 
up to what was done.
13
Activities that were 
not Successful
Supporting Data Recommendations
Access to Finance Only 41% of producers and 63% 
of processors we surveyed said 
they had access to finance after 
participation in project activities.
Needs to be designed in coordination with 
CONALECHE, Banco Agrícola, and private 
financial institutions. One intervention which 
may have potential would be to pilot 
financial products with savings and loan 
cooperatives linked to the associations of 
producers and buyers of milk. In partnership 
with private banks or microfinance 
institutions, technical assistance could be 
provided to one or two savings and credit 
cooperatives that want to work on the issue, 
financing product startup costs until break￾even is reached.
Support to LAVECEN Interview notes and project 
records.
It may be better not to engage with LAVECEN 
until the institutional issues have been 
resolved. Note that IDB is planning 
comprehensive support to LAVECEN.
Monitoring and 
Evaluation (M&E)
Every interview with project staff 
referenced the issues with M&E. 
Identify possible conflicts and gray areas 
among multiple project objectives and clarify 
them. Allow for customization of results 
frameworks and ground-truthing with 
external stakeholders. Develop a value chain 
data framework with indicators that make 
sense to track from the perspective of local 
stakeholders; from those derive project-level 
data points, and only after that develop 
project-level targets and indicators. Budget 
for data collection about the value chain at 
the time of the baseline, the mid-term, and 
the final evaluation. Ensure project 
indicators adequately reflect changes in 
farming practices resulting from specific 
interventions, for example activities 
related to genetics and animal 
reproductive health, milk quality, animal 
feed, animal health, and farm 
management.
14
 
15
1.Introduction and Purpose 
1.1. Project Context 
Livestock Value Chain 
The livestock sector (beef and dairy) in the Dominican Republic (DR) is an important source of local 
employment and considered to have high potential for growth. However, the sector has historically 
been underdeveloped and unproductive, providing 13.4% of employment but only contributing 5.8% to 
GDP, in large part due to low milk productivity and low exports.1 No livestock census has been 
conducted since 1982, though we were informed that funding has now been secured to finally carry out 
an updated census (possibly in early 2022). This contributes to the generally poor quality of available 
data in the livestock sector.
For the dairy value chain, low levels of formality and know-how leading to low productivity (compared 
to peer countries) and low quality of milk have prevented the sector from growing and meeting 
domestic demand, despite laws in place for over 20 years mandating self-sufficiency in milk production.2
Even with the COVID-19 pandemic reducing demand from the DR’s burgeoning tourism industry, 
imports of dairy products have increased while prices have fallen, putting even more pressure on 
domestic producers.3 The majority of the stakeholders in the dairy sector see the improvement in 
productivity and quality of milk as the most achievable goal in the near term. This includes increased 
ability to meet domestic demand by addressing structural issues in the value chain – such as a lack of
economies of scale and low levels of organization and cooperation among producers and other value 
chain stakeholders.
The beef value chain is likewise characterized by informality, with most beef-producing farms also dairy 
farms as well. Beef produced in the DR is mostly consumed domestically. However, unlike with dairy 
there is a greater opportunity for developing exports. Due to this perception among those in the sector 
and in the government, there has been a strong desire for the DR to achieve equivalence with US
standards to qualify for exports to US, particularly with Puerto Rico. 
It is in this context that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funded the Safe 
Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) project, to work with the government of DR and stakeholders in the 
sector to improve productivity, quality and to take actions necessary to achieve equivalence with USDA 
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) standards. This includes meeting prerequisites for beef exports 
to the US. To provide context for this final evaluation of the SAFE project, we first take a deeper look at the 
livestock value chain and its components (beef and dairy).
1 OTSCORP. “Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program Dominican Republic Project Baseline Survey,” October 13, 2016.
Sistema Presupuestario Dominicano, “Presupuesto Orientado a Resultados 2020-2023,” 2019, pg 259. 
https://www.digepres.gob.do/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Presupuesto-Orientado-a-Resultados-2020-2023.pdf 2 USDA FAS. “Opportunities and Challenges in the Dominican Dairy Sector,” May 6 2019. 3 USDA FAS. “United States Agricultural Exports to the Dominican Republic Reached an All-Time High During 2020 in Spite of the 
COVID-19 Pandemic,” February 22, 2021. 
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=United%20States%20Agricultural%2
0Exports%20to%20the%20Dominican%20Republic%20Reached%20an%20All￾Time%20High%20During%202020%20in%20Spite%20of%20the%20COVID￾19%20Pandemic%20_Santo%20Domingo_Dominican%20Republic_02-10-2021
16
Value Chain Framework 
Projects such as SAFE, which operate at the value chain level, are most likely to be effective when grounded 
in a value chain framework, supported by robust data collection at each level of the chain. A value chain 
project, to achieve its goals, requires the participation of stakeholders at all levels of the value chain and
therefore should be founded on a shared vision agreed upon by these actors. Based on this data and shared 
vision, the management team can then prioritize interventions that address points of leverage4 within the 
value chain. While the SAFE project successfully completed activities at many different points of the beef and 
dairy value chains, there were gaps in the design as originally conceived, and in implementation over the 
project period that hindered the results and impact from adding up to be “greater than the sum of their parts” 
as a leveraged value chain intervention. We identify these design and implementation challenges in our 
recommendations and highlight that there is still potential to achieve leveraged impact. 
The value chainsfor the beef and dairy subsectors in the 
Dominican Republic comprise a series of stakeholders 
(producers, processors, and buyers) that are aligned 
into vertical channels. Actors at different stages of each 
channel are linked to the next stage from production to 
commercialization. There are players that horizontally 
support the subsector participants; but the main 
dynamic involves relationships along the vertical axis, 
spanning industry functions from the farm level to the 
final consumer. While some farms specialize specifically 
in either dairy or beef, it is common for much of the 
local beef production to come from aging milk cows 
who are no longer as productive for milk. 
Value chains are typically mapped with vertical channels flowing from the producer level at the base of the 
value chain up towards end markets (consumers and exports). The beef value chain in DR is comprised of two 
channels: (i) small family-owned farms – tending to be lower in productivity; and (ii) larger farms usually 
owning land over 300 hectares – and tending to be more highly productive. In turn, the dairy value chain can 
be divided into three channels: (i) small farms with less than 20 cows; (ii) medium farms owning between 20 
and 50 cows; and (iii) large farms with more than 50 cows.5
4 This term comes from the literature beginning as early as the 1980’s at Michigan State University, as concepts from 
agricultural marketing schools were adapted for use in international development under the term “subsector analysis.” A point 
of leverage in a value chain may be the point where a large number of small producers come into contact with a single large 
buyer or type of buyer under certain conditions, or where a single government regulation affects the prices and/or production 
practices in the whole chain. These are prime points for intervention, where the cost of the intervention is small but the 
impact, because of the leverage effect, is much larger. See, for example: James Boomgard et. al. “Subsector Analysis: Its Nature, 
Conduct and Potential Contribution to Small Enterprise Development,” MSU International development Series Working Paper 
no. 26, 1986. https://www.canr.msu.edu/fsg/publications/idwp-documents/idwp26.pdf
and Donald C.Mead and Carl Liedholm. “The dynamics of micro and small enterprises in developing countries,” World 
Development, Volume 26, Issue 1, January 1998, Pages 61-74. 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X97100109
5 In a forthcoming report “Los Pequeños Ganaderos en la RD: Una mirada prospectiva a este conjunto productivo” by Eduardo 
Ottenwalder and Roberto Pepin (TBA), mapping is based on production capacity, level of formality, and dependencies, including 
vulnerability to climate change impacts.
Figure 1. Cattle Farm in Puerto Plata
17
Dairy Value Chain: We have approached the dairy subsector through a value chain map consisting of a 
number of different vertical functions, as well as relevant services at one or more levels (see Figure 2 below). 
Information is drawn from secondary research as well as from our evaluation team’s KIIs and surveys. Our 
analysis focuses on:
• Production
• Transport
• Bulk collection and storage
• Direct trading by farmers
• Artisanal processing
• Industrial processing
• Distribution
• Retail
• Importing
• Domestic consumption
• Exporting
At the farmer level, regardless of the size, the vertical value chain also includes support service providers 
that cut across one or more levels, including stakeholders such as: hired laborers (150,000+ employees); 
veterinarians; extensionists from MEGALECHE under DIGEGA in the Ministry of Agriculture, supported by 
CONALECHE; feed suppliers; farm and dairy equipment providers; genetic services; financial services 
(Banco Agrícola, CONALECHE and private lending from big processors); government agencies (CONALECHE 
Figure 2. Dairy Value Chain Map
18
responsible for dairy policy development and implementation; DIGEGA responsible for livestock policy 
development and implementation; IDIAF responsible for investigation; ONE responsible for statistics); 
approximately 120 producer organizations, including JAD (80% of farmers are affiliated to a PO, and 
project grants and technical assistance and training were in great part delivered through them) and; 
federations such as FEDEGANO and FEGACIBAO that provide training.
Beef Value Chain: The beef subsector includes different vertical functions and services that cut across one 
or more levels of the value chain (see Figure 3 below). Our analysis focuses on: 
• Production
• Intra-farmer trade
• Small processors and meat packing facilities
• Slaughterhouses
• Industrial processing
• Distribution
• Retail
• Importing
• Domestic consumption
• Exporting
At the producer level, regardless of the size, the vertical value chain also includes Support Service 
Providers that cut across one or more levels, including stakeholders such as: hired laborers; veterinaries; 
laboratories (LAVECEN and LANA); extensionists (DIGEGA, PROGANA, and Cooperatives); feed suppliers; 
farm equipment providers; genetic services; product labeling and registry (COMINOR); financial services 
(Banco Agricola); government agencies (DIGEGA, responsible for livestock policy development and 
implementation); and producer organizations.
Figure 3. Beef Value Chain Map
19
Value Chain Dynamics 
If there are going to be changes in the dairy and beef subsectors, we must study the forces and constraints 
that drive these changes, and see which channels are growing or have the potential to grow most rapidly. By 
doing this, it should be easier to understand how we can control those forces and recommend possible ways 
for making changes. This section is based on the evaluation team’s review of the literature supplemented by 
the evaluation interviews and surveys.
1. Primary Driving Forces
(i) Product demand and marketing strategies
Domestic demand is one of the principal driving forces for producing milk and beef cattle; selling fresh milk 
and meat; and producing other by-products. The domestic market for dairy products has room to grow, as 
long as the quality of local milk improves, and is able to compete with imported products already present 
nationally. In addition, there is ample room for the beef production to grow, as long as the Dominican 
Republic reaches equivalence and the industrial type of meat can be exported, allowing farmers to breed 
more heads of cattle in their current properties. In an overall increase output of cattle heads, all other meat 
cuts could be sold to the tourism sector that today consumes quality imported beef in quantities that 
currently outgrow national production. In addition, the specialty market could be tapped by marketing 
strategies, such as promoting products produced by low-income farmers in a developing country, or by 
certifying the product as being organic, among others.
All major players, with a few exceptional cases, commercialize beef and dairy products in the local market; 
these products don’t have the quality to access the export market. Local prices are usually higher than 
international prices, due to structural sector limitations such as low production levels, lacking economies of 
scale and critical mass needed to access production factors at competitive costs. 
(ii) Vertical Integration
The best socioeconomic results have occurred in the channels that efficiently integrate the highest number 
of functions from production to commercialization. Clear benefits can be seen in medium and large producers 
that reach quality and are able to supply consistent volume, therefore accessing the best prices. Grade A milk 
can fetch a premium price of $0.56 (or RD$32) per liter.
In the channels that are more vertically 
integrated, comprising medium and large 
producers, there is a better distribution of 
profits, with a higher proportion trickling
down from the commercialization stage to 
the producers. Some differences can be seen 
between prices paid to cooperative member 
producers or those that have private supply 
agreements with large dairy buyers such as 
Rica and Nestlé, or one of the three largest 
slaughterhouses that produce the highest 
quality of meat currently commercialized to 
high-end supermarkets and distributors that 
Figure 4. MCC in Maria Trinidad Sanchez
20
reach the tourism sector. For milk, this price difference can be between $0.47 (RD$27) and $0.56 (RD$32) per 
liter.
Jobs are created in a value chain, and the agricultural economy transformed, when people, goods, and 
processes move from left to right, from small farms on the left to medium sized and industrial farm channels 
on the right. The higher the producer can get in the vertical channel, the more he/she typically can participate 
in the labor force, and the more value is added to the product, resulting in increased socioeconomic benefits.6
for him. In channels 1 and 2 of the dairy value chain, the producer is closely linked to the MCC; in channel 3 
some producers have private agreement with large processors that consistently buy their production and 
premium prices. 
(iii) Value Added
The higher the producer can get in each of the five vertical channels, the more value is added to his/her
product, resulting in an economic benefit for him/her. If SAFE had been designed at the outset with the right 
indicators to track this monetary return, we would have information about the total amounts of financial 
resources that are transferred from the intermediaries (processors-marketers) to the producers, and from 
the final buyers to the intermediaries. The difference in these amounts transferred is the value added as a 
result of the processing-commercialization functions in each channel. Having that information, the amount 
transferred to the intermediaries can be divided into the amount transferred to the producers, resulting in a 
“multiplier index” that could show how many times the value of the raw material was increased when sold 
to the final market. This data was not collected by the project and was outside the scope of the evaluation. 
In future projects, this data should be collected.
In all three channels the farmer has the opportunity to add value to its product when the fresh milk is 
transformed into by-products (cheese, yogurt, etc.), resulting in a financial benefit for the producer. The 
product is then sold to the colmados or, in case of higher quality products, to large supermarkets. There is 
low cooperative participation in adding value to the fresh milk, preventing a larger redistribution of profits 
among primary producers. Therefore, though there are some social factors considered in how the 
cooperative operations are set up, there is limited vertical integration to capture the value added by other 
stakeholder functions higher in the vertical chain. The “Small Channel” in both value chains is the one with 
the least vertical integration and, especially in the beef value chain, in part depends on coordination 
mechanisms with other stakeholders of the subsector. It is worth noting that these small producer channels 
are relevant – especially in the eyes of the government - not necessarily for economic and commercial 
reasons, but for reasons linked to food security, income stability, and slowing immigration towards urban 
areas. 
2. Secondary Driving Forces
(i) Technological Change
The SAFE project aimed to vertically link producers to processing activities, therefore adding value to their 
products and increasing their financial return. An example is the dairy producers and their relationship with 
6 Man-Kwun Chan. “Making Agricultural Value Chain Programmes Work for Workers: A Practical Guide for Development Donors 
and Practitioners,” Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO) Technical Brief 4, January 2012. 
http://www.fao.org/3/at405e/at405e.pdf
World Bank. “Sector Competitive Analysis Tools (SCAT),” pp. 140-144
21
MCCs: some simply submit their product, and others are part of POs that own MCCs. Under the program, this 
last group was more interested in incorporating new production technologies to improve quality, therefore 
influencing the price paid by the industrial processors. 
(ii) Increased Revenue
Every producer interviewed, without necessarily having performed a cash flow analysis (most of them were 
small producers without financial knowledge), agreed that producing higher grade milk and more liters-per￾cow-per-day (l/c/d) increased their revenue. Interviews with Nestlé agronomists indicated that project 
beneficiary producers were able to, on average, move up from grade “C” to grade “B” milk and above in 
quality. According to indicators collected by the SAFE project team, there was a 36% increase in the volume 
of grade “A” milk sold to processors by USDA supported milk collection centers indicating an increased 
production of higher-grade milk during the project period. With Nestlé, a large buyer for MCCs, buying milk 
at RD$31 for the highest-grade milk and RD$ 27 for the lowest grade milk (as indicated in interviews with 
Nestlé agronomists), improvement in grade led to a rise in revenue for the producers. The results indicators 
collected by the project indicated that 1022 dairy farmers were supplying grade “A” milk to USDA supported 
MCCs by the end of the project period. By incorporating production technologies and by changing supply 
relationships between the farmer and the MCCs, increased revenues were achieved. For instance, Figure 5, 
below shows how investments in technologies like cooling tanks, appropriate milk containers, etc. through 
the SAFE project led to improvements in productivity for MCCs and milk processors, as described by them in 
surveys conducted by the evaluation team.
Figure 5. Example of How New Technologies Enhanced Productivity of Milk Processors and MCCs
The higher the producer is integrated in the vertical channels, the more profitable their operation becomes. 
The multiplier effect of value added confirms this assumption. In addition, those channels that 
commercialized their product to market niches such as special yogurt and cheese were also more profitable. 
(iii) Large Firm Characteristics
22
Large organizations, mainly at the processing and marketing functions, have opened new opportunities for
small producers. At the production level most of the producers are small; at the consolidation level MCCs are 
considered small too. But at the processing and commercialization level there are all kinds of stakeholder 
sizes; some large organizations play the role of anchor companies, providing “demand-pull” in a market￾driven value chain from producers to consumers.
Value Chain Constraints 
Every level of the value chain faces its own set constraints and challenges. Table 1, below, lays out the 
constraints faced by value chain function as well as the organizations involved at each level to address these 
constraints, based on the evaluation team’s review of the literature and evaluation interviews. This table is 
an inventory, but further analysis should be done by projects working in the value chain, based on data 
collected at each level, to analyze these constraints and identify points of leverage where interventions can 
make the most impact.
Table 1. Constraints in the Livestock Value Chain by Function
Functions Constraints Organizations Involved
Whole Value Chain
Governance of the 
subsector value 
chain 
1. Lack of statistical information to 
make decisions at the subsector 
level
2. Lack of intra and inter￾institutional coordination between 
the links
1. CONALECHE, DIGEGA, Oficina Nacional 
de Estadísticas (ONE)
CONALECHE: Industry regulation and
facilitating spaces for dialogue and
intermediation between producers,
processors, and suppliers of inputs.
Provides resources to producers on soft
loans
Support Services
Support services 
and inputs 
1. Low genetic improvement
and limited technology in the
extension system
2. Limited access to financing
3. Warehouses and supply 
businesses without financing 
alternatives such as agreement with 
industrial processors to deduct 
invoices from the milk remission
4. Production of alternative feed for 
livestock (for greater productivity 
and pasture quality)
1. DIGEGA and Instituto de Desarrollo de 
Investigación Agrícola y Forestal (IDIAF)
2. Lines of credit from CONALECHE, Fondo 
Especial para el Desarrollo Agropecuario
(FEDA), and Banco Agrícola. 
3. CONALECHE 
4. CONALECHE y DIGEGA
Vertical Levels of the Value Chain
Producers 1. Low milk quality
2. Lack of universal traceability of 
livestock at the level of production, 
health, marketing, planning levels
2. Lack of training in good practices 
(associativity, federations and 
1. CONALECHE 
1. Departamento de Sanidad Animal de la 
Dirección General de Ganadería (DIGEGA) in 
the Ministry of Agriculture.
2. DIGEGA, MIC and CONALECHE
3. FEDA and del Banco Agrícola
23
organizations of producers and 
processors)
3. Lack of financing
4. Non-existent insurance adapted 
to the sectors (very limited products 
through AGRODOSA, with no 
support for private livestock 
insurance)
5. Seasonal price variability due to 
lack of heat synchronization (i.e.,
concentration of livestock births in 
certain periods of the year)
6. Lack of knowledge of the cold 
chain and logistics
7. Use of unsuitable packaging
8. Lack of technical know-how in 
sustainable use of natural resources, 
pasture and forage management
9. Lack of associativity among 
producers
4. Fundación REDDOM, Aseguradora 
Agropecuaria Dominicana (AGRODOSA)
5, 6, 7. Extension services of DIGEGA
8. Asociación de Productores de Leche 
(APROLECHE)
9. Cooperatives (e.g. COOPAGAMPTA, 
COOPESUR, COOPFEDEGANO)
Associations: (e.g. Asociación Dominicana 
de Industrias Lácteas (ADIL), Asociación de 
Procesadores de Lácteos y Derivados
(ADOPROLAC), Asociación de Queseros, 
Asociación de Importadores de Leche; Junta 
Agroempresarial Dominicana (JAD).
Intermediaries 1. Inadequate cold chain and 
logistics
2. Inefficient collection routes
1 and 2. Intermediation (East Region),
which mostly sells to cheese
manufacturers, and provide finance to and 
sell to truckers
Milk Collection 
Centers (MCCs)
1. Low milk quality due to lack of 
microbiological control, lack of 
certification in GAP and GMP.
2. Need for group purchases of 
inputs and contracting of services
3. Lack of infrastructure to 
disaggregate milk qualities
(Currently MCCs take the price of 
the lowest quality aggregated milk)
1. DIGEGA
2. Alliance with universities and tech 
institutes. Processing cooperatives
COOPAGAMPTA in Monte Plata; and
COOPESUR in Santiago Rodriguez. Nestlé is
the one that most encourages this
concept. CONALECHE wants to replicate
it.
3. Producer organizations (POs)
Intermediation (East 
Region)
1. Inadequate cold chain and 
logistics
They mostly sell to cheese
manufacturers, and sell to truckers
who finance
Artisanal processing 
(cheese)
1. Health and safety regulations not 
followed/enforced
2. Cheeses not differentiated 
3. Inadequate cold chain and 
logistics
1. Instituto Dominicano de Calidad
(INDOCAL) in the Ministry of Industry and 
Trade
5. INDOCAL
24
4. Lack of cooperation among 
cheese producers; lack of 
associativity to develop collective 
brands, with quality and origin 
identification.
5. Lack of technical standards
Industrial 
processing
1. Dominance of large processors
2. Lack of strong producer 
organizations (POs)
1. Large milk processors (northeast and 
south): Rica, Induveca, Nestlé, 
Pasteurizadora María
Pasteurized cheese and yogurt: MilkAgro, 
owned by Grupo Mejía Arcalá, Geo, San 
Juan, Michel, Cambre, El Banilejo, and
Oleaga
2. There are three large cooperatives of
small and medium-sized livestock farms: 
COOPAGAMPTA in Monte Plata, COOPESUR
in Azua (with partners throughout the
southern region) and COOPFEDEGANO, 
based in Santiago Rodríguez. 
National 
commercialization
1. Differential payment based on 
quality not always applied correctly
1. Federación Nacional de Comerciantes y 
Empresarios de la República Dominicana
(FENACERD) represents 65k colmados = 
70% of domestic trade
Imports 1. Lack of appropriate labeling 
standards for milk imports.
1. Dirección General de
Aduanas y Pro Consumidor.
Final consumption 1. Lack of a massive campaign to 
consume Dominican milk
1. Organismo de Defensa al Consumidor
(PRO CONSUMIDOR), Ministry of Health, 
CONALECHE, SIDOCAL (Sistema Dominicano 
de la Calidad)
Exports 1. Dairy: The sector’s lack of 
economies of scale, critical mass of 
production, as well as high costs of 
production and low quality prevent 
it from being a competitive sector 
for exports in the near term.
2. Beef: Has potential to become a 
competitive export sector, especially 
if FSIS Equivalence can be achieved 
to allow exports to US (especially 
Puerto Rico)
1 &2. USDA, DIGEGA
25
1.2. Project Description 
The Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) project (known as PROGANA in Spanish) is a five-year project 
funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) 
through the Food for Progress (FFPr) program. On September 29, 2015 the SAFE project was awarded to 
the National Cooperative Business Association CLUSA International (NCBA CLUSA) as the leading
implementer, along with its implementing partners. 
The Junta Agroempresarial Dominicana (JAD) is the primary local partner, responsible for the provision 
of extension services and building producer capacity. Additional technical assistance was provided 
through two international partners, the Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture and its Center for 
Food Safety at Texas A&M (TAMU) – responsible for providing technical assistance on Sanitation 
Performance Standards (SPS) measures and food safety systems – and Cooperative Resources 
International (CRI/GENEX) – responsible for providing technical assistance on genetics and breeding. The 
project was funded by commodity donations through a Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), initially 
estimated to be worth US$16,212,121 once monetized.7 The project targeted 14,407 individuals, out of 
which 13,200 were producers and 1,207 public and private extension workers, beef and dairy 
processors, decision makers, public and private stakeholder representatives, and 60 producer 
organizations.
Figure 6. SAFE Project Implementation Areas
7 Commodities donated for initial project funding included 2,120 MT of yellow grease, 2,200 MT of inedible tallow, and 16,100 
MT of crude degummed soybean oil (CDSO). Unfortunately, due to monetization shortfalls the project only received 
$16,026,920.17 of the estimated total even after being awarded additional commodity by USDA in September 2020.
26
The project targeted 11 dairy and beef producing provinces in the Dominican Republic (Santiago 
Rodríguez, Dajabón, Independencia, San Juan, Monte Plata, La Altagracia, Hato Mayor, El Seibo, María 
Trinidad Sánchez, Duarte and Puerto Plata), with two overall objectives:
1. Improve agricultural productivity in the livestock (beef and dairy) value chain by increasing 
the use of improved techniques and technologies; improving farm management; increasing 
the availability of improved inputs and use of financial services; strengthen the capacity of 
government institutions and key groups; and increasing the leverage of private sector 
resources. 
2. Expand trade of beef and dairy products by adding value to post-production; increasing the 
adoption of established standards; increasing access to markets; building linkages between 
buyers and sellers; improving post-harvest infrastructure; increasing the use and efficiency 
of post- production processes; improving the policy and regulatory framework; and 
strengthening the capacity of key organizations in the trade sector.
1.3. Results Framework 
The SAFE project’s approach to achieving its two objectives of increased agricultural productivity and 
increased trade, are articulated in the dual results frameworks shown in Figure 7 below. These 
frameworks represent the project’s theory of change and are directly linked to the expected results for 
the Food for Progress projects. They draw closely from the Food for Progress program-wide results￾framework.
To achieve these objectives, the project relied on 12 activities including: 1) improving farm 
management; 2) increasing the availability of improved inputs and use of financial services; 3) 
strengthening the capacity of government institutions and key groups; 4) increasing the leverage of 
private sector resources; 5) adding value to post-production; 6) increasing the adoption of established 
standards; 7) increasing access to markets; 8) building linkages between buyers and sellers; 9) improving 
post-harvest infrastructure; 10) increasing the use and efficiency of post- production processes; 11) 
improving the policy and regulatory framework; and 12) strengthening the capacity of key organizations 
in the trade sector. 
27
Figure 7. SAFE Project’s Results Frameworks
28
1.4. Purpose of the Evaluation and Research Questions 
The purpose of this final evaluation is to provide an independent, third party assessment of the 
performance of the SAFE project in achieving its objectives. Previous evaluations of the SAFE project 
included a baseline study conducted by OTSCORPS and a mid-term evaluation conducted by J.E. Austin 
Associates.
The final evaluation is focused on answering key questions related to the SAFE project’s relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability and will include metrics on the project’s progress 
against its original targets for 89 project indicators (58 activity indicators and 31 results indicators as of 
the writing of this report). This evaluation will also assess the adjustments made over the course of the 
project including those based on mid-term evaluation, identify and document lessons learned over the 
course of the implementation, and make recommendations for the future. This final evaluation will also 
advance the broader Learning Agenda for USDA’s Food for Progress program by contributing findings to 
the dairy and beef value chains in the Dominican Republic related to priority agenda items including 
value creation (i.e., trade expansion and market development), market linkages, and quality and 
standards.8
The research questions for this Final Evaluation ask about the relevance of project design and activities 
for the stakeholders, the effectiveness of implementation, the efficiency of project organization and 
implementation, the impact of project activities on participants, and the sustainability of successful 
project interventions going forward. Table 2 below lists the key research questions for this evaluation.
Table 2. Final Evaluation Questions (EQ)
EQ Relevance
1.1 To what extent has the project responded to the actual needs and interests of the target farmers, associations, 
groups, and other stakeholders? 
1.2
To what extent does the project integrated or strengthen the national sectoral strategy to improve production 
and market access?
1.3 To what extent does the project fit into the strategies of the DR government?
1.4 What was the added value of the project considering perspectives from key stakeholders such as USDA/W, 
USDA/Santo Domingo, POs, and implementing partners?
Effectiveness
2.1 To what extent have the expected results of the project been achieved?
2.2 What factors have been critical to the achievement or nonachievement of project objectives? 
2.3 Has the project led the planned activities? Has it achieved the expected results?
2.4 What adaptations, if any, were made to the project’s implementation process in order to achieve project 
objectives and targets based on mid-term evaluation findings?
2.5 To what extent the activity changes after midterm evaluation results and recommendations were successful in 
improving effectiveness and ability of the project to achieve its expected results?
2.6 What were the planned and unplanned outcomes that can be attributed to the project?
2.7 What are the evolutions of the project indicators?
2.8 Has the implementation process (approach - methodology) been effective?
8 The Food for Progress Learning Agenda is available here: https://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
03/learning_agenda_final.pdf#:~:text=Food%20for%20Progress%20Learning%20Agenda%20on%20Trade%20Expansion,timely
%20research%20questions%20to%20inform%20evaluation%20and%20policy
29
2.9 What is the evidence and estimate by how much agricultural productivity and the marketing of agricultural 
products have been improved through project actions?
2.10
To what extent did the Livestock Farmer Field School methodology contribute to improved agrobusiness 
management, production and quality compared to traditional adult education methodologies? 
2.11 To what extent did project activities prepare stakeholders to participate in virtual activities versus in-person as a 
result of the global pandemic from the novel coronavirus COVID-19? 
2.12
To what extent did stakeholders benefit from the project’s attempts to provide virtual trainings as a result of the 
pandemic?
2.13
To what extent did the technical assistance received by beneficiaries improve the management of their 
agrobusinesses, production and quality?
2.14 To what extent did beneficiaries adopt the project’s improved practices and technologies and improve their 
agrobusiness’s management, production, and quality?
Efficiency
3.1
To what extent, appropriateness, and functionality have the various units/ levels of management and coordination 
(grants, project staff, M&E, local committees, USDA/W, USDA/Santo Domingo and others) supported the 
implementation of the project? 
3.2 To what extent were the size and composition of the teams appropriate to the strategies? 
3.3 To what extent do the various project activities support each other? 
3.4 To what extent has the process of project implementation including finance and administration optimized time 
and resources?
Impact
4.1
What was the impact of the project on: 1) Increased household income, 2) Increased agricultural productivity, 3) 
Increased market access and expanded trade, 4) Increased quality of agricultural products, 5) Increased public and 
private extension services 
4.2
How does the beneficiaries’ perception of the project’s achievements, especially the increase in productivity and 
income vary across value chains and regions?
4.3 What is the legacy of the project? Organize achievement categories from most significant impact to least 
significant impact. 
4.4 Which activities were the most successful and the least successful? Why? Breakdown by intervention / activity. 
4.5
To what extent have beef and dairy ranchers’ capacity to respond to on-farm shocks and daily activities improved 
as a result of the project, and why? 
4.6 How has the project’s activities strengthened local producer organization’s governance, member services and 
equity, as well as incomes?
Sustainability
5.1 To what extent have local actors (JAD, cooperatives and farmers' organizations, MCCs, Slaughterhouses, local 
government and civil society groups) been involved in the management of the project? 
5.2 Which local counterparts have increased their capabilities to continue with the project’s actions, and why? 
5.3 Which partnerships were the strongest and why? 
5.4 What is the probability that these actors will be able to provide succession? 
5.5
Are the techniques and technologies used in the project easy to maintain locally? To what extent are the 
conditions for local control of these techniques and technologies guaranteed? Are people facing any additional 
challenges in light of the pandemic? Prioritize activities to continue after the project closes from most likely to 
least likely.
5.6 To what extent do the project interventions support and stimulate the local economy? When possible, consider 
adding tools to get insight on quantifying the project’s impact on the local economy. 
5.7
Which of the following project impacts are likely to be sustained and/or scaled-up after the project closes? 1) 
Increased household income, 2) Increased agricultural productivity, 3) Increased market access and trade, 4) 
Increased quality of products. 
30
5.8 Identify and explain short and mid-term challenges to sustain program results, and what actions could be taken 
before the end of the project to mitigate those challenges, if any. 
5.9 To what extent are local government actors likely to achieve FSIS equivalence and continue strengthening the 
food safety inspection system?
5.10
To what extent did modifying the traditional training methodology to the methodology in the “Collective Efficiency 
Schools” permit improved learning and application of the concepts?
31
32
2.Evaluation Design and Methodology 
2.1. Evaluation Design 
The design of the final evaluation of the SAFE project followed a mixed methods approach using 
qualitative and quantitative analysis to address the evaluation’s research questions. A quasi-experimental 
design was not employed since control group data was not collected during the early stages of the project. 
However, in agreement with NCBA CLUSA, the pre-post research design was supplemented with data 
collected from a comparison group (non-beneficiary producers). This was a helpful benchmark for the 
data collected from beneficiary producers. While not as robust, this comparison group provided useful 
insights. The process of creating the comparison group, its composition, and its limitations are discussed 
further below. 
The evaluation implementation was organized into three main phases of work:
● Phase No. 1: Inception and Preparation for Field Work
● Phase No. 2: Fieldwork
● Phase No. 3: Analysis and Report
Because the evaluation was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, the following principles were 
followed by the evaluation team:
Phase 1: Inception and Preparation for Field Work 
In preparation for the field work for the final evaluation of the SAFE project, the evaluation team followed 
these steps:
Just Results guiding principles for field work during the COVID-19 pandemic
1. Whenever work can be conducted remotely, it should be done so to avoid the risk of COVID-19 
exposure.
2. All team members have the right to withdraw from the field or country, at any time.
3. PCR testing is required by all team members before entering the country and/or at the 
beginning of activities, even when not required by airlines and/or country guidelines.
4. Using protective personal equipment (PPE), using outdoor amenities, and social distancing is 
required whenever possible.
5. Large meetings must be generally avoided, and during in-person meetings, wearing masks and 
social distancing is mandatory for the team, including enumerators.
6. In the case of a positive COVID-19 test, or exposure to an individual who tests positive, team 
members are required to self-quarantine. 
7. Dominican Republic specific: Curfews and local government regulations must be respected and 
adhered to, local media updates must be monitored, and government mask and social 
distancing mandates must be followed at all times.
33
● Review of Project Documentation and Secondary Information: Following an initial kick-off 
meeting, the SAFE team shared background materials which were reviewed and analyzed by the 
evaluation team. This included all relevant project documentation and secondary sources 
related to SAFE, including baseline and midterm evaluations, studies carried out under the 
project’s auspices, contracts and other administrative documents, reports on 
progress/monitoring/implementation of the project, and the SAFE project’s M&E database and 
indicators. 
● Finalization of Methodology and Inception Presentation: The evaluation team also further 
refined and finalized the evaluation methodology, sampling approach, and plan for the field 
work. The methodology and approach, including a plan articulating clear steps for 
implementation was presented to the NCBA CLUSA team. This replaced a full inception report, 
due to an accelerated timeline to get to the field. 
● Finalization of Data Collection Tools: Prior to field work, all data collections tools were finalized, 
including surveys, interview guides, and guides for focus group discussions (FGDs). Training
materials for the initial enumerator training, held at the SAFE project and JAD offices in Santo 
Domingo, were also prepared.
Phase 2: Field Work 
Field work included data collection in all 11 provinces targeted within the SAFE project, along with key 
stakeholders in Santo Domingo and elsewhere as required. Data collection and training of the 
enumerators took place over a six-week period. During the course of the evaluation team’s fieldwork, the 
following steps were taken:
● Training: Training was 
conducted at the SAFE and JAD 
offices in Santo Domingo over a 
4-day period, as a joint learning 
and iterative editing process, to 
ensure the enumerators had a
complete understanding of all 
the data collection tools to be 
used as well as to ensure the 
tools reflected the local 
context, and language 
commonly used by project 
stakeholders. Following training a day of testing and validation of the tools was carried out in 
Monte Plata, after which all tools were finalized. 
Figure 8. Training at the JAD office in Santo Domingo
34
● Data Collection: Data was collected through a variety of means, including surveys, KIIs, and FGDs 
with key stakeholders and beneficiaries of the SAFE projects (as described in detail in the section
below).
Phase 3: Analysis and Report 
Following the completion of data collection, initial data analysis was carried out over the next two
weeks, and a presentation on the preliminary findings and conclusions of the evaluation was presented 
to NCBA CLUSA and SAFE project staff. Following this presentation, the Just Results team drafted this 
report to provide the findings of the final evaluation to USDA, the SAFE project team, and other relevant 
stakeholders.
2.2. Sampling Methods 
Producer Surveys
For the producer surveys we used probabilistic sampling to obtain a random representative sample of 
beneficiary and comparison groups, using a multistage stratified approach to account for distribution by 
province. For beneficiaries, additional strata were used to account for the distribution by herd size, and 
number of follow up visits over the course of the project. The beneficiary and comparison group lists 
were drawn from the same two sources: SAFE beneficiary list developed since project inception, and the 
list of suppliers of the milk collection centers. Data cleaning was needed to select only the farmers. 
Beneficiaries were defined as producers with whom the SAFE project worked and participated in at least 
one intervention and received at least one farm visit by project extensionists. 
Comparison Group
The project baseline survey was sampled from the Precenso Nacional Agropecuario (ONE, 2016), a 
preliminary farm census conducted in 2015 which included a count of all farmers in the country through 
which all livestock farms in the 11 project provinces could be identified. From the cattle farms in the 
project provinces, a sample frame was defined – all farms of less than one Ha (16 tareas) in size and 
those larger than 312.5 Ha (5000 tareas) were excluded. This yielded a sample of 20,235 for the baseline 
survey, which was further stratified by farm size to yield a final sample of 476 farms – 513 were survey 
and 505 responded in the baseline survey9
. 
For the beneficiary group of farmers to be included in the project, NCBA CLUSA prioritized farmers that 
attended initial workshops and maintained sustained interest in the project activities, focusing on 
farmers that resided in the geographic scope of the project, owned their own or communal land, and 
supplied the milk collection centers or meat processors10. Because project participants were prioritized 
during selection based on their indications of willingness to participate in the project, it is possible that 
these participants exhibited higher willingness to seek project training and opportunities, which could 
have affected outcomes and also introduce bias into the sample of beneficiaries. 
9 OTSCORP. “Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program Dominican Republic Project Baseline Survey,” October 13, 2016.
10 Proyecto Fortaleciendo la Cadena de Valor de la Ganadería Dominicana (Progana) Safe Agriculture / Food Export Project 
(Safe) (USDA - DR). 27 March 2019. Estrategia Y Plan De Trabajo Componente: Servicios Financieros
35
During the evaluation, the team realized that a pre-post only research design would limit the full 
understanding of the project outcomes. Due to this, a comparison group approach was added with 
agreement with the NCBA CLUSA team. The comparison group comprised producers that were eligible 
to participate in the project but did not receive any of the interventions. These producers were similar 
to the beneficiary producers; however, the project lacked the resources to bring technical assistance 
and inputs for more producers and thus, they were not included in the project. In 2019, the project 
signed a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Agriculture of the Dominican Republic to 
provide resources to include more producers. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic these resources 
had to be redirected to pandemic relief and thus, additional producers could not be added. 
The comparison group sample was determined using the same methodology as the beneficiary 
producers’ sample and drawn from producers whose contact information was already captured in the 
SAFE project’s database, but who were not beneficiaries of the project. It is important to note that prior 
to sampling, data on farmers’ provinces was available but farm size was unavailable.
An analysis of data collected through surveys of the beneficiary and comparison group samples showed 
that differences between the groups in key characteristics including regional distribution, sex 
distribution, producer type, total land used, and average number of cows milked daily, was nominal (See 
Annex 2 for detailed analysis). Farmers from the comparison group and farmers from the beneficiary 
group were distributed similarly across provinces. The same was true for sex distribution, with 90.2% of 
the beneficiary group reporting as male, and 86% of the comparison group reporting as male. The 
comparison group and beneficiary groups were also similarly disaggregated by producer type – whether 
the farmers produced milk, meat, or both milk and meat (See Figure 9). Looking at other metrics like 
total land use, the beneficiary group reported a mean total land use of 544 tareas and the comparison 
group reported a mean total land use of 498 tareas. Both groups also had similar average number of 
cows milked, with the beneficiary group averaging 19.4 cows milked and the comparison group 
averaging 20.9 cows milked. The difference in means for these two metrics (land use and cows milked) 
was not statistically significant (See Annex 2). 
While the comparison group provides an otherwise similar set of producers to the beneficiary group, 
there still is a potential for some bias due to the fact that the comparison group can only be compared 
to the beneficiary group at one point in time (especially relevant, for example, is the lack of prior 
information on farm size). The comparison group is statistically valid across the metrics discussed above. 
However, there is possibility of selection bias since the comparison group producers were initially 
expected to be project participants but were not included in the final beneficiaries (See Limitations
section). As stated earlier, due to study limitations, difference in outcomes between comparison and 
beneficiary groups cannot be attributed to project activities. Despite this, the comparison was effective 
in that it provided useful information to triangulate with data collected by the project through 
extensionist farm visits and project surveys (see discussion in Findings section).
36
Figure 9. Distribution of Producer Types in Beneficiary and Comparison Group Farmers
Table 3. Producer Sampling Frame by Province
Province Beneficiary Group Comparison Group
Population Sample Sample
Dajabón 1008 18% 99 18% 90 18%
Duarte 244 4% 24 4% 22 4%
El Seibo 324 6% 32 6% 29 6%
Hato Mayor 276 5% 27 5% 25 5%
Independencia 186 3% 18 3% 17 3%
La Altagracia 383 7% 37 7% 34 7%
Maria Trinidad Sanchez 134 2% 13 2% 12 2%
Monte Plata 434 8% 43 8% 39 8%
Puerto Plata 848 15% 83 15% 76 15%
San Juan 1036 19% 101 19% 93 19%
Santiago Rodriguez 647 12% 64 12% 58 12%
Total 5520 541 493
The sampling methodology followed a three-step process. In the first step we used the formula below to 
calculate the sample size, n, where p is the p-value, e is the error value, Ne is the population, and z is the 
z-score.
𝑛𝑛 = 𝑝𝑝 ∗ (1 − 𝑝𝑝) ∗ 𝑧𝑧2
𝑒𝑒
� 2
1 + �𝑝𝑝 ∗ (1 − 𝑝𝑝)� ∗ 𝑧𝑧2
𝑁𝑁 2
�
Calculated at 95% confidence interval and 4% error, we arrived at a sample sizes of 541 for beneficiary 
producers. For the comparison group, the sample was calculated based on a theoretocal population of 
37
50% of the beneficiary population which compares conservatively within what would be best practice if 
a control group had been taken.11
In the second step, the size of each stratum was calcualted using proportional allocation. Proportional 
allocation of sub-sample sizes is determined relative to their sizes in the total population using the 
following formula, where nh is the sample size for the stratum, Nh is the population size for stratum h, N 
the total population size and n is the total sample size.
nh = (Nh/N) * n
For both beneficiary producers the stratum used to calculate the sample included: province, herd size, 
and number of visits by project extensionists. For the comparison group only province was used, since 
information on herd size was not avilable and no visits were made to these producers by project 
extensionists.
In the final step, random samples were drawn according to the proportionate multi-stage random 
sampling technique described. Producers were selected randomly accorrding to each stratum in the 
following stages: province, Farm size, Number of visits. We use the random value function in Excel to 
assign a random value which was used to draw the sample. 
During implementation of the evaluation, issues with some of the contacts in the SAFE project’s M&E 
database were determined which required a replacement sample to be drawn for producers who were 
not in fact beneficiaries of the project. These problems with the M&E database were the result of 
changing systems and data collection challenges early in the project. While the second leadership team 
had led a data audit which had fixed many of the problems, some issues remained (see the Efficiency 
section for further discussion).
Following additional information provided by the project team, a replacement sample was drawn to 
substitute those individuals in the original sample which were shown to not be producers or which could 
not be contacted after completing the series of required steps (i.e. contact by phone, physical address,
asking extensionists for help, asking producer organizations for help). Those who were successfully 
contacted and were in fact producers, but chose not respond to the survey, were not replaced.The same 
stratified random sampling method was used to make replacements in such a way as to keep 
proportions nearly identical, while only drawing from farms with contact info and which are shown to be 
producers. These measures were taken to ensure that only producers were included and to maximize 
the enumerators chances of being able to contact them. These challenges and this replacement sample 
process led the field work to extend to six weeks rather than the original four weeks planned. As shown 
in Table 5 below, from a sample of 541 beneficiary producers contacted, 322 responded (60% response 
rate). From a sample of 493 comparison group producers contacted, 212 responded (43% response 
rate).
Processor Surveys
In addition to the surveys of producers, a smaller survey of all processors which were involved in some 
way with the project was also conducted. In this case, processors are defined to include milk collection 
centers (MCCs), milk processors (e.g., queserías and yogurt makers), and beef processors (e.g.,
slaughterhouses, meat packing). Because the number of processors included in the SAFE project’s 
11 Mark H. White. “How Big Should the Control Group be in a Randomized Field Experiment?” April 20, 2018. 
https://www.markhw.com/blog/control-size
38
database was relatively small, the sample for the processor survey is equal to the entire population of 
those included in the SAFE project’s database.
Table 4. Sampling Frame for Processors
Breakdown of Sample Type
Province Total MCCs Milk Processors Beef Processors
Dajabón 14 11 3 0
Duarte 6 2 4 0
El Seibo 4 4 0 0
Hato Mayor 5 4 1 0
Independencia 0 0 0 0
La Altagracia 7 0 7 0
Maria Trinidad Sanchez 1 1 0 0
Monte Plata 8 5 3 0
Puerto Plata 16 11 5 0
San Juan 7 7 0 0
Santiago Rodriguez 16 15 1 0
Distrito Nacional 4 0 0 4
Total 88 60 24 4
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
KIIs consisted of in-depth interviews with individuals or small groups of 2-4 people from a single 
organization. Participants were chosen through purposive sampling starting with project staff, project 
partners, and key stakeholders involved in project activities including government stakeholders, 
producer organizations (POs), financial institutions, and various value chain actors. A snowball approach 
was used to access the largest number of relevant stakeholders, rather than defining an exact number of 
KIIs from the start. 
Purposive methods were also used to select FGD locations and participants for FGDs with private 
extensionists and producers, taking into account location distribution and ease of access. SAFE project 
staff and extensionists who worked in the provinces with the project helped identify and gather 
participants. One FGD was also conducted at the SAFE project offices in Santo Domingo with 
MEGALECHE extensionists involved in the project. A summary of FGDs conducted is included in Annex 5.
39
2.3. Data Collection Methods 
The evaluation team arrived in Santo Domingo the weekend of February 20-21, 2021 to train a team of 
nine enumerators and begin data collection. Training was conducted as a joint learning and iterative 
editing process, to ensure the enumerators had a complete understanding of all the data collection tools 
to be used and to ensure the tools reflected the local context, and vocabulary commonly used by project 
stakeholders. Testing and validation of the tools was carried out in Monte Plata, following the training, 
after which all tools were finalized for use. All tools including surveys, KII and FGD guides are provided in 
Annexes 4 and 5.
Figure 10. Data Collection Approach
Figure 10 above shows the approach used to collect data from each category of stakeholders:
● Producers: Data collected from producers came from two sets of tools, surveys of 322 
beneficiary producers and 212 comparison group producers (as described in the Sampling 
Methods section above) and FGDs, to focus in on producer perceptions of value chain challenges
as well as project performance. 
● Processors: We received 64 responses for our survey of processors – defined as milk collection 
centers (MCCs), milk processors (e.g., queserias and yogurt makers), and beef processors (e.g.,
slaughterhouses, meat packing). KIIs were also conducted with key processors who had been 
involved in some way with eth SAFE project, to gain more in-depth understanding of their 
perspectives. This included both smaller processors such as queserias (including Deliciel and 
Queseria Rottis) and larger entities like MERCARNE.
● Businesses and Financial Institutions: Other businesses in the value chain who were connected 
to the project activities in some way, were also interviewed. This included domestic and 
international companies including Nestlé, Grupo Rica, and Organic Valley. KIIs with financial 
40
institutions included those with some connection with the project or others active in the value 
chain (e.g., Banco ADOPEM, ADEMI). Banco Agrícola was contacted but declined to be 
interviewed.
● Producer Organizations (POs): KIIs were held with staff from dairy and beef associations, 
cooperatives, and federations both in Santo Domingo and in each of the provinces. FGDs were 
also held with private extensionists hired by POs through the project in select provinces.
● Government: KIIs with representatives of numerous government agencies related to the 
livestock value chain were conducted. This included Dirección General de Ganadería (DIGEGA), 
Dirección General de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Productos Sanitarios (DIGEMAPS), and Instituto 
Dominicano para la Calidad (INDOCAL) among others. An FGD was also conducted with 
MEGALECHE extension staff.
● Project and Partner Staff: KIIs with project and partner staff included NCBACLUSA and JAD staff 
based in DR as well as NCBA CLUSA headquarters staff, USDA counterparts, and international 
partners from GENEX and TAMU.
Table 5, below, shows the response rates for each of the surveys collected. For beneficiary producers 
and processors, the response rates were well within the expected range for this kind of survey. The 
comparison group response rate was somewhat lower than was hoped due to the quality of contact 
information available and a higher rate of unwillingness to take the time to be surveyed by the 
evaluation team.
Table 5. Survey Response Rates
Survey Type Sample Size Responses Response Rate
Beneficiary Producers 541 322 60%
Comparison Group Producers 493 212 43%
Processors 88 64 73%
2.4. Data Analysis Methods 
Quantitative data was collected through surveys using the Qualtrics platform, allowing for responses to 
be directly entered via smartphones or tablets to the platform, through an offline data collection 
application. In most cases, data was entered by enumerators during face-to-face sessions with 
respondents. However, for some respondents who could not participate in face-to-face surveys, they 
were either conducted over the phone or in a few cases sent a link to complete it themselves. Upon 
completion, survey data was aggregated into Excel spreadsheets for cleaning and analysis. Quantitative 
analysis was carried out using the following steps:
● Data Validation and Cleaning: Responses were first screened to ensure that answers were from 
the correct respondents identified through the sampling process. Responses were reviewed for 
completeness (mostly relevant for a small number of responses where the link had been sent to 
the respondent and the survey had been started but no answers inputted). Finally, the data was 
cleaned to ensure the removal of errors from the data set and ensure consistency (e.g. spelling 
of location names).
● Descriptive Analysis: An initial cut of the survey data was done to provide a first level of analysis 
on topics covered in the survey. This included look at descriptive statistics such as mean, 
median, percentage, and frequency. Data was disaggregated where applicable, by gender, 
41
respondent type, and province. Basic comparisons of province, sex, and producer type 
distribution, as well as significance tests for difference in mean total land use and average 
number of cows milked, were used to ensure that the differences between the comparison 
group and beneficiary group were nominal (See Annex 2 for detailed analysis).
● Inferential Analysis: Based on initial insights from the descriptive analysis as well those derived 
from qualitative analysis and insights from the field work, multivariate analysis on select topics 
(e.g. milk productivity) was conducted. This included, in some cases, cross-applying survey data 
with other data, such as that collected over the course of the project and that collected in 
baseline and midline surveys.
Qualitative analysis was also conducted on data collected through KIIs, FGDs, and desk review. Coding of 
the KII notes was conducted using Dedoose to identify insights on specific topic areas and to better 
organize and cross-apply findings. This included codes for location, participant type, questions and 
response categories. An initial data reduction phase included selecting, focusing, simplifying, 
abstracting, and transforming the data that appeared in written-up field notes and transcripts. This 
allowed the evaluation team, using content analysis, to start identifying themes, looking for the most 
common responses to questions, identifying data and patterns related to the research questions. 
Triangulation of a data from multiple sources allowed the team to cross-verify findings and fill in gaps. 
2.5. Evaluation Limitations 
Due to the complexity of different components of the project, the geographical location of its activities,
and certain limitations of the evaluation methodology, opportunities for errors and biases exist. This 
evaluation relies in part on secondary performance information reported in quarterly and annual 
reports as well as data from the SAFE project’s M&E database. The quality of performance data will 
affect the accuracy of the findings in this evaluation. While the evaluation team believes in the general
validity and the reliability of the performance data, it is important to note that issues with the M&E 
database (discussed above) may have led to potential distortions in some of the data, especially from 
the first two years of the project. The evaluation team has attempted to mitigate this by triangulating 
information from multiple sources to inform our findings.
A lack of available project data limited the type and quantity of questions that could be effectively asked 
during the evaluation. Had the relevant baseline, mid-term, and program level information been 
gathered, checked, cleaned, meticulously stored from the beginning of the project, and made available 
to the evaluation team prior to field work, more effective comparisons could be made. Questions like 
changes in household income, or proxies to measure the same, could have been measured to bolster 
the perception surveys conducted. A mitigation attempt for this lack of data was made in the form of 
the comparison group discussed previously.
Prior to the start and during the baseline data collection, there was no control or comparison group. This 
limited the evaluation team to the option of later constituting a comparison group, made up of 
producers that shared similar characteristics like total land use, number of cows milked, and province, 
sex, and producer type distribution with the beneficiary group. This provided useful data point to 
triangulate findings between the evaluation team’s primary data collection, the project’s M&E data, 
data collected by project extensionists, and other secondary data sources. However, in line with the 
42
discussion in the limitations section, the results of this study should not be interpreted as showing 
causal impact.
As with all forms of data collection, potential for bias exists. Several of the biases most relevant for this 
evaluation include: 
● Positive response bias: Certain questions about project outcomes may unintentionally lead to 
positive response bias where respondents may focus primarily on positive outcomes. This may 
be exacerbated by the fact that project beneficiaries may feel that positive responses may make 
assistance in the future more likely. The evaluation team did its best to mitigate this by framing 
questions in ways which were as objective as possible and cross-referencing responses with data 
from other sources.
● Selection bias: While great care was taken to ensure that survey samples closely reflected the 
population of project beneficiaries (as outlined under Sampling Methods above), the sampling 
frame is based only on data which was available on the project beneficiaries. While the 
evaluation believes this information was sufficient to provide a sample that closely reflected the 
population (e.g., disaggregation by province, type, herd size), it is possible that other factors that 
are not measured may have introduced bias into the selection. Because willingness to 
participate in project activities was a selection criterion for beneficiary farmers, there is a 
chance for selection bias. Their willingness to participate may have impacted the success of 
project outcomes. Thus, the difference in outcomes between the project beneficiaries and non￾beneficiaries cannot be attributed to project activities.
● Volunteer bias: When it is not possible to enforce 100% response rate to the surveys, it is 
always possible that there is some level of volunteer bias present in the data. This would be the 
case if there were ways in which those in the sample who chose not to respond were different 
than the respondents; for example, if those with more negative views of project performance 
chose not to respond. The evaluation team’s comparison of responses with the original samples 
does not indicate any obvious volunteer bias based on factors included in the sampling 
methodology, but the possibility cannot be eliminated entirely. 
● Dominant respondent bias: Primary data collected from beneficiaries, especially when collected 
in group settings, may reflect the opinions of the most dominant groups without capturing the 
perceptions of less vocal groups. The evaluation team did its best to mitigate this potential bias 
in FGDs and group interviews by making sure that all parties understood they were free to
express their views, by composing homogenous focus groups, and ensuring that moderators did 
their best to elicit equal participation.
43
 
44
3.Findings 
3.1. Overall Findings 
The evaluation team found that the SAFE project made progress towards its two overall objectives of 
the project improving productivity and expanding trade, but that continued work will be needed to 
achieve sustainable impact. Directly below we provide a high-level overview of progress towards the 
two overarching goals of the project, followed by a more in-depth look at the performance of the 
project related to questions of Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability:
1. Improve agricultural productivity in the livestock (beef and dairy) value chain: The livestock 
field schools, technologies, and technical assistance provided at the producer level were 
demonstrated by SAFE to contribute to substantial productivity improvements. However, the 
level of technical assistance and accompaniment which the project was able to provide and the
results of the activities were less than anticipated due to organizational and design issues in the 
first two years of the project and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the later years.
2. Expand trade of beef and dairy products: Key milestones towards achieving FSIS equivalence 
for beef exports to the US are among the most important achievements of the SAFE project. 
While equivalence has not yet been achieved, this is in large part due to the indefinite 
postponement of the in-person audit because of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is optimism 
that the process will continue to move forward and equivalence will be granted, if the right 
actions are taken.
To monitor progress towards these objectives, the SAFE project tracked indicators related to the 
project’s 12 activities as well as results indicators measuring outcomes of these activities (the 11 results 
included in the projects results framework). These 89 indicators, as of the time of the final evaluation, 
had been reduced from an initial 112 indicators originally approved by USDA for the project in 2016, 
based on recommendations from the baseline study12.High-level indicators that measured the above 
objectives focused on changes in productivity through l/c/d and progress towards achieving FSIS 
equivalence. However, the vast majority of the indicators focused on trainings, assessments, and 
meetings. Changes in farming practices were measured but only in regard to governance, 
administration, and financial management.
The SAFE project has a high compliance with the final goals of the project’s activity indicators. Of the 40 
key activity indicators, 36 (90%) had 100% or greater achievement towards the original goals set by the 
project. Of the four remaining activity indicators, one shows 87% progress, another 74% progress, and
the last two show 21% and 10% progress. In other words, at the time of the evaluation, almost all 
project activities demonstrated a high level of progress. 
12 The project contains 12 main indicators with 89 sub-indicators. However, these 89 indicators are markedly 
different and analyze and require separate data collection. These 89 indicators, while reduced from the initial 112, 
are still a very significant undertaking for monitoring and evaluations. For the purposes of this evaluation, we 
follow the terms employed by the SAFE project (“activity” and “results” indicator). The number of indicators in 
each category are also drawn from project documentation.
45
Table 6. Percentage Progress of Activity Indicators
Achievement Indicators % Reaching Level of Achievement
0% 0 0%
1 to 25% 2 5%
25 to 50% 0 0%
50 to 75% 1 2.5%
75 to 99% 1 2.5%
100% 36 90%
Total 40
For several activities, the project far surpassed the initial targets. Table 7 below presents activities that 
exceeded the expected targets by up to 200%, with some activities achieving targets of up to 6,000% 
such as producer productivity training activities (target of 40 and achievement of 2,426) or financial 
services training sessions that were met in 2,150% (planned 8 sessions and 172 were achieved). Table 7
below presents the activity indicators that made the most progress, where the progress column shows 
the % progress compared with the original goal and in the last column the normalized progress with a 
maximum 100% progress allowed.
Table 7. Key Activity Indicator Progress
Num. Indicator Project 
Goal
Progress to 
date
% Progress 
towards the
Goals
Progress 
(100% Max 
Curve)
6.14 Number of people who have received short￾term training in agricultural productivity or 
food security as a result of USDA assistance 
13,500 18,227 135% 100%
5.10 Number of training sessions in access to 
financial services for post-harvest 
technologies provided to companies
8 172 2,150% 100%
10.05 Number of employees of meat processors 
trained in healthcare systems and standards 42 368 876% 100%
8.50 Number of USDA-supported events aimed at 
promoting public-private partnerships to 
improve the dairy and meat chain at the 
farm, processor, and exporter level
8 50 625% 100%
8.20 Number of value chain linking meetings held 
between buyers and sellers in the dairy and 
beef sector
10 56 560% 100%
6.12 Number of people who have received short￾term training (FFPr Indicator 16) (people in 
firms)
250 1,367 547% 100%
3.30 Number of partners in dairy 
producer/processor associations trained to 
establish or improve milk collection centers
320 1,353 423% 100%
46
6.13 Number of people who have received short￾term training (FFPr Indicator 16) 
(government)
200 704 352% 100%
4.20 Number of meetings on regulatory policy and 
the regulatory framework for beef for public 
debate and/or consultation with 
stakeholders on the new policy or the new 
revised administrative regulation/procedure
87 228 262% 100%
12.05 Total individuals who benefit directly as a 
result of USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator 17) 14,406 25,397 215% 100%
10.08 Number of dairy processing facilities audited 
for SPS compliance 30 64 213% 100%
10.02 Number of employees in charge of 
processing dairy products trained in health 
standards
288 611 212% 100%
2.30 Value of grants provided to businesses (POs, 
dairy processors, and meat processors) to 
establish or improve an extension system
270,000 558,089 206% 100%
2.20 Number of grants provided to businesses 
(POs, dairy processors, and meat processors) 
to establish or improve an extension system
15 31 206% 100%
10.06 Number of milking and milk management 
training sessions conducted for milk 
producers
400 804 201% 100%
9.30 Number of public-private partnerships 
formed as a result of USDA assistance 
(FFPr Indicator 8)
20 40 200% 100%
There were a few lagging activity indicators. For example, one of the activity indicators with the lowest 
level of progress was that of "Number of people reached through the public information campaign of 
the quality seal." The seal of quality activities never fully got off the ground, due to lack of market 
readiness and political will (see the Effectiveness section below for further discussion). Another activity 
indicator with showing limited progress was "Number of business plans produced for meat and milk 
with USDA assistance" where the project planned to reach 3,750 but only reached 791 (21% progress). 
This was due to delays in the early years of implementation of the project and the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Analyzing the project in stages of implementation, considering the periods 2016-2018 and 2019-2021, it 
can be seen that the project managed to significantly increase the level of progress as reflected by 
activity indicators. This coincided with project staff changes made in 2018, discussed further under the 
Efficiency section below. Table 8 clearly shows the acceleration of implementation, reflecting a much 
higher level of activity progress during the second period, from 175% of unnormalized target progress in 
the first period to 6,959% in the second period. When indicator target achievement is normalized to 
100% maximum per activity indicator, we get a much more useful comparison, showing an improvement 
in average progress from 63 to 91% in the second period. It is important to clarify that in this table the 
activities achieved in each period are compared without accumulating in the second period the goals 
met in the first.
47
Table 8. Percentage Project Progress by Periods
Period % of Average Progress Progress (100% Max Curve)
2016 - 2018 175% 63%
2019 - 2021 6,959% 91%
% Change Between Periods 3,885% 45%
While the level of achievement for the activity indicators was high, the results indicators show more 
mixed results, due in part to unforeseen circumstances such as recurring droughts and the COVID-19 
pandemic. Recurring droughts in 2016 and 2018, were reported in evaluation KIIs as well as previously in 
the midterm evaluation, as a major challenge for the livestock value chain. In particular, the droughts 
have had major implications for achieving targeted results related to increasing milk productivity.13
The COVID-19 pandemic was another external factor which has had a significant impact on achieving the 
project’s targeted results. The new project leadership (discussed further below under Relevance) made 
strides to make up for lost time in 2019 and early 2020, including setting up a campaign to increase the 
number of farms visited in late 2019. However, the arrival of the COVID pandemic in March 2020 brough 
all field work to a complete stop for three months, and when farm visits were finally allowed to continue 
it was at a slower pace due to COVID-related restrictions. Additional impact of COVID-19 includes the 
indefinite postponement of the FSIS audit to confirm equivalence (see Effectiveness below), and a 
significant slowdown of field activities generally. In addition, the pandemic had direct economic impact 
on the value chain due to reduced demand for dairy products from the tourism sector. Adaptations such 
as remote trainings, remote work, and safety measures including masking and social distancing were 
adopted by the project, as indicated in the key informant interviews.
Table 9 below, shows key indicators tracked by the SAFE project for each of the 11 results under the 
project’s Food for Progress Results Framework. As can be seen in Table 8 below, at the time of this 
evaluation six of these key indicators had not been met:
• R1. Percentage increase in the average number of liters produced per cow per day: This key 
measure of dairy productivity has a goal of 50% improvement by the end of the project. As will 
be explained further in the Impact section, milk productivity results were in fact quite positive 
for producers who received the full package of assistance. However, the limited scale of 
implementation, as well as potential issues with the original baseline measurement, has kept 
the project from meeting the original goal to date.
• R5. Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or technologies as a result of 
USDA Assistance (FFPr indicator 2) (Total): This indicator reached 83% achievement. The goal 
was not met, due to the inability to meet the goal for the sub-indicator for women (only 20% 
achievement). The reason for the gender disparity on this specific indicator was not found but 
may be due to the low relative number of female producers.
• R5. Percentage increase in volume of grade "A" milk sold to processors by USDA-supported 
milk collection centers: This is the key indicator for milk quality. Despite improvements in milk 
13 J.E. Austin & Associates. “Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Project Midterm Evaluation Report,” April 30, 2019, p. 61-65.
48
quality, progress fell short of the 50% improvement target, due to the shortened period of 
implementation of the livestock field schools as well as a continued need for infrastructure and 
management improvements at MCCs.
• R7. Number of dairy farmers using improved milking and milk handling techniques as a result 
of USDA assistance: Project delays in the first two years as well as the impact of the pandemic 
led to slower uptake in milking and milk handling techniques, resulting in only 58% achievement. 
• R9. Number of new markets to which beef is exported: This is the key result indicator for 
equivalence, with a goal of 1 (Puerto Rico). It remains at 0% achievement until equivalence is 
obtained, although it should be noted that the project did provide technical assistance to a meat 
processor that began exporting to Guatemala.
• R10. Number of agreements signed (Contracts, MOUs, etc.) between beef or dairy exporters 
and buyers in the US as a result of USDA assistance: This indicator in large part relies on the 
previous indicator and the achievement of equivalence. The goal is 14 and achievement remains 
at 0% until equivalence can be achieved. 
Table 9. Key Results Indicator Progress14
14 The complete table of results and activity indicators can be found in Annex 1.
Indicator Project 
Goal
Progress 
to Date
% Progress 
Towards 
Goals
Progress 
(100% 
max)
Result 1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
Percentage increase in the average number of liters 
produced per cow per day
50 12 24% 24%
Total number of individuals benefitting directly as a 
result of USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator 17) 14,430 25,397 176% 100%
Result 2: Private Sector Contribution
Number of private sector institutions that are 
providing monetary or in-kind resources in support 
of agriculture productivity (e.g., in areas including 
research, market information, agricultural inputs, 
etc.) as a result of USDA assistance
60 60 100% 100%
Value of private sector investment/resources 
supporting agriculture research/extension that is 
consistent with government priorities as a result of 
USDA assistance
$712,320 $3,219,735 452% 100%
Result 3: Policies
Number of policies, regulations and/or 
administrative procedures in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance (Stage 5) (FFPr indicator 12)
6 11 183% 100%
49
Result 4: Improved Capacity of Key Groups in the Agriculture Production Sector (coops and 
smallholder farmers)
Volume of milk supplied (million liters) by farmers 
to USDA supported milk collection centers
80 226 283% 100%
Result 5: Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Techniques and Technologies
Number of farmers in the dairy and/or beef sector 
making farm decisions based on economic 
considerations or analysis as a result of USDA 
assistance
3,690 11,150 302% 100%
Number of individuals who have applied new 
techniques or technologies as a result of USDA 
Assistance (FFPr indicator 2) (Total)
11,875 9,856 83% 83%
Number of hectares under improved techniques or 
technologies as a result of USDA assistance. (FFPr 
Indicator 1) (Total)
4,802 12,726 265% 100%
Number of private enterprises, producer’s 
organizations, water user’s associations, women's 
groups, trade and business associations, and 
community-based organizations (CBOs) that 
applied improved techniques and technologies as a 
result of USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator 7) (Total)
54 172 319% 100%
Percentage increase in volume of grade "A" milk 
sold to processors by USDA supported milk 
collection centers
100 36 36% 72%
Result 6: Improved Capacity of Key Organizations in the Trade Sector (processing organizations and 
trade associations)
Number of beef Regulatory Policy and Regulatory 
Framework meetings for public debate and/or 
consultation with stakeholders on the proposed 
new or revised policy/regulation/administrative 
procedure
87 228 262% 100%
Result 7: Increased Use of Improved Post-Production Processing and Handling Practices
Number of dairy farmers using improved milking 
and milk handling techniques as a result of USDA 
assistance
7,000 4033 58% 58%
Result 8: Improved post-harvest infrastructure
Number of milk collection centers with USDA 
support using improved equipment to collect and 
chill milk
50 60 120% 100%
Result 9: Increased Access to Markets to Sell Agricultural Products
Number of new markets to which beef is exported 1 0 0% 0%
Result 10: Improved Linkages between Buyers and Sellers
Number of agreements signed (Contracts, MOUs, 
etc.) between beef or dairy exporters and buyers in 
the US because of USDA assistance
14 0 0% 0%
50
The following sections cover in detail the findings of the evaluation team regarding the relevance of the 
SAFE project’s design, effectiveness of its activities, the efficiency with which its interventions were 
implemented, the impact which the project has had so far, and the sustainability of these impacts and 
their legacy.
3.2. Relevance 
A. Alignment with Sector/Value Chain Needs 
It is clear from this evaluation that the SAFE project provided a comprehensive program design and that 
its activities were relevant to the needs of the livestock sector (dairy and beef). Specifically, the project 
addressed major value chain challenges including low productivity, inconsistent milk quality, low access 
to extension services, and health and sanitary issues.
This view is widely evidenced by the positive perceptions of the project by a majority of the beneficiaries 
with whom the evaluation team spoke. KIIs with Producer Organizations showed overwhelming positive 
feedback on the project, with several specifically pointing out how the SAFE project has been one of the 
first projects in the Dominican Republic to work directly with producers. A key activity which met a need 
previously largely unmet, were the livestock field schools and associated technical assistance to 
producers. 78% of the beneficiary producers we surveyed reported the livestock field school
methodology as being beneficial to them. MCCs and queserias also reported overall satisfaction with the 
technical assistance they received with 79% reporting that they received high quality services from the 
project.
However, project design also posed some challenges to project implementation and goal achievement. 
The first major challenge was that despite the breadth of the project’s scope with its whole-of-value 
chain approach, activities were not buyer-driven nor were design and implementation characterized by 
multi-stakeholder participation, to the extent which would be expected from a value chain project. 
Additionally, there was no foundational value chain assessment conducted at the early stages of the 
project, something that is typically a component of Food for Progress projects according to USDA 
stakeholders interviewed. SAFE project staff with whom we spoke also felt that an in-depth value chain 
analysis should have been done during the design stage of the project which would have helped clarify 
the value chain strategy to be used to achieve the goals of the project – to improve productivity and 
expand trade. Some measures were taken by the second project team in 2018-2019 to remedy some of 
these design issues, but by that point a significant amount of time had passed (see Efficiency section).
A second challenge with the project design is lack of clarity of beneficiary focus: an explicit decision was 
not taken about whether to target smaller producers with the most to gain in terms of productivity but 
with little potential to export, versus large and medium-sized producers with real export potential. In the 
end, at the producer level the project ended up focusing primarily on small farms (86% with less 50 cows 
or fewer, see Figure 11 below) based on the logic that they offered the largest gains to be made in terms 
of improving milk productivity and quality. The focus on small farms, many of which were described as 
Result 11: Increased Use of Financial Services
Number of firms who are accessing credit through 
formal financial products as a result of USDA 
assistance
40 131 328% 100%
51
“subsistence” level farms, was critiqued by some agricultural experts involved in the project as being 
less effective than if the focus had been placed more on medium-sized farms. According to project staff, 
some opportunities were identified to have medium and large farmers serve as examples for smaller 
farmers. Indeed, this is an example of a viable strategy, that could have potential if it were explicitly 
articulated and consistently implemented.
Figure 11. Beneficiary Producers Tended to be Small-Scale Farmers with Few Employees (Survey)
. 
A final design challenge was geographic scope, which covered 11 provinces all over the country. An 
unclear logic behind breadth and focus of provinces chosen for project intervention, which led to
unequal results and inconsistent delivery across provinces. Some project staff as well as others with 
whom we spoke believed project interventions should have been focused on fewer specific provinces 
where a proof of concept could have been more thoroughly developed and then expanded to the rest of 
the country. Additionally, once the 11 provinces were selected, some interviewees noted that there was 
little flexibility. For example, one of the leading queserías in the country asked if the project could 
include some of the producers that supplied him in the technical assistance activities. These farms were 
located just across the provincial border in a province not included in the province design. The business 
owner claims the request was denied because the two farms were not in the intervention area.
B. Alignment with Government Priorities and Strategy 
Project activities were clearly in line with government priorities, especially regarding achieving FSIS 
equivalence for beef exports to the US. This so far seems to have remained a priority with the ascension 
of the new government in August 2020. The new government also has emphasized increased attention 
to producers and improving milk productivity, which is in line with the SAFE project’s activities. 
A key challenge early in the project was the failure to anchor program interventions upon an initial
agreement with public sector and private sector stakeholders on key goals and aspects of measurement.
A number of key government stakeholders we spoke with failed to appreciate the project, in part 
because they had a poor understanding of its activities and seemingly had not been involved with goal 
setting. 
52
C. Relevance: Conclusions 
• EQ1.1 To what extent has the project responded to the actual needs and interests of the 
target farmers, associations, groups, and other stakeholders?
The SAFE project’s comprehensive design responds to the needs of value chain stakeholders, 
especially at the producer level, though project design should have included more multi￾stakeholder participation in goal setting and definition of the scope.
• EQ1.2 To what extent does the project integrate or strengthen the national sectoral strategy 
to improve production and market access?
The SAFE project strengthened the national sectoral strategy for US market access, especially 
regarding the equivalence process, by skillfully moving the process forward, effectively 
maneuvering through long-standing obstacles (more on this in the section below).
• EQ1.3 To what extent does the project fit into the strategies of the DR government?
SAFE project activities align with government priorities regarding the equivalence process and 
improvements in dairy productivity. However, the government changed during the 
implementation of the project with President Abinader coming to power in August 2020. Efforts 
should be made to ensure the new government’s buy-in if sustainability is to be achieved. 
• EQ1.4 What was the added value of the project considering perspectives from key 
stakeholders such as USDA Washington USDA DR, POs, and implementing partners?
SAFE project activities align with USDA/USG development goals, objectives, and strategies. POs 
were very positive about the project’s activities, on the whole, especially noting that it was the 
rare project to work substantially with producers. Government stakeholders and implementing 
partners had more mixed opinions, but generally considered the SAFE project to have provided 
quality technical expertise and positive impact.
3.3. Effectiveness 
A. Overview of Project Effectiveness and Adaptation 
In terms of implementing project activities, the SAFE project showed high effectiveness, with 90% of key 
activity indicators reaching 100% or greater achievement towards the original goals set by the project.
However, achievement of the desired outcomes of the project have made slower progress, with only 
68% of results indicators reaching 100% or greater achievement towards the original goals set by the 
project.
While the SAFE project got off to a slow start, without the COVID-19 pandemic the extent of the 
project’s achievements would likely have been much greater in scale and scope. The lost social capital 
and credibility due to the initial years of struggling within the SAFE project limited what could be 
achieved by the second highly qualified and motivated team. Rebuilding credibility with the local 
community while working within local cultural norms that lean towards non-confrontational problem 
solving meant longer periods of required problem-solving efforts by the project team. This was 
mentioned in the KIIs with project staff and confirmed by the leader of the Dominican data collection 
team. However, the new leadership team hired in 2018 achieved rapid progress up until the start of the 
53
COVID-19 pandemic (see the section on Efficiency below for further details). An audit to determine FSIS 
certification was scheduled for March 2020, but then delayed indefinitely as the pandemic lockdowns 
began. Lockdowns also slowed the progress being made in the field with extensionist farm visits and 
provision of technical assistance. Beyond the effects on the project itself, COVID-19 also had severe 
impact on the value chain as a whole with government budgets for supporting producers reduced, 
financial institution lending temporarily curtailed, and a drop in demand in dairy products due to the 
impact of the pandemic on the tourism sector, as indicated by key informant interviews.
B. FSIS Equivalence 
Perhaps the most important objective of the SAFE project in the eyes of the DR government and many 
other stakeholders, was the second strategic objective of the project to expand exports of beef, through 
achieving equivalence with US food safety regulations under USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service 
(FSIS). The equivalence process ensures that a country’s food safety inspection and certain non-food 
safety requirements are equivalent with those of the US as a prerequisite for exports.
While the project has not yet met the two related results indicators for equivalence (“Number of new 
markets to which beef is exported” and “Number of agreements signed (Contracts, MOUs, etc.) 
between beef or dairy exporters and buyers in the US as a result of USDA assistance”), substantial 
progress has been made and it is likely that equivalence is imminent as long as the new government of 
DR continues to maintain support for the process.
The SAFE project has facilitated frequent meetings with the relevant government and private sector 
entities involved in equivalence since the inception of the project. This includes primarily DIGEMAPS and 
DIGEGA, public and private laboratories, as well as participating slaughterhouses, MERCARNE and 
AGROCARNE. Technical assistance to strengthen the beef inspection system and compliance with 
standards was also provided by the project, in large part through TAMU staff, to the slaughterhouses 
and initially also to the government-controlled laboratory, LAVECEN (Laboratorio Veterinario Central), 
which had been identified early in the project to do microbiology and chemical residue testing.
ASOCARNE President Enrique de Castro and Professor Greg Sullivan of Texas A&M University (TAMU)
were also engaged by the project to conduct a Puerto Rican Beef Market Study in 2018, which identified 
a comparative advantage for beef exports from the DR, in the form of “manufactured trimmings” which 
don’t compete with high quality cuts produced in the US and can be shipped cheaply by ferry. 15 The 
main competitor for beef exports from the DR are those from Central America, but DR has a 
comparative advantage in price and shipping time, with shipping to Puerto Rico taking only 1-2 days and 
$0.05/kg of beef from DR as opposed to 11 days and $0.11/kg from Central America. Because DR beef
can be shipped fresh and chilled it is preferred by meat processors of hamburger patties for the fast￾food industry over that from Central America which is typically frozen.
16
Early in the project it became clear that LAVECEN was unprepared institutionally and technically to work 
on Equivalence. An original plan for LAVECEN to be administered by Organismo Internacional Regional 
de Sanidad Agropecuaria (OIRSA), did not work in part because some of the government officials who 
controlled the lab were resistant to change and outside assistance (there is now new leadership at 
15 SAFE Project. “Performance Report Summary – April 1st, 2018 – September 30, 2018,” November 15, 2018. 16 Enrique de Castro and Gregory M. Sullivan. “Market Analysis Report of Dominican Republic Beef in Puerto Rico,” TAMU 
Borlaug Institute, June 2018.
54
LAVECEN). In 2018, the SAFE project determined it would be best to find an alternative to LAVECEN 
rather than jeopardizing the progress towards meeting standards for equivalence. 
In consultation with government stakeholders and FSIS a workaround solution was identified when it 
was discovered that there was no requirement for the laboratories to be government-operated in order 
to obtain equivalence. In October 2018, three alternative labs were identified and selected to undertake 
microbiological and chemical residue testing: Instituto de Innovación e Biotecnología Industrial (IIBI) and
the Laboratorio Agroempresarial Dominicano (LAD) in the DR, and the Laboratorio Nacional de Resíduos
(LANAR) located in Tegucigalpa, Honduras and administered by OIRSA. Under the new arrangement, 
LAVECEN’s role is now limited to forwarding samples to LANAR in Honduras through OIRSA, 
circumventing the initial impasse and allowing the equivalence process to move forward. An agreement 
was project was made with the Ministry of Agriculture and OIRSA to split the cost of the chemical 
residue testing in Honduras, while the SAFE project covered 50% of the costs of microbiological tests 
done in DR at IIBI and LAD. A deal was made with COPA airlines to transport the samples, which was key 
for providing the cold chain transport necessary for preserving the samples at the right temperatures.
Continued support from the SAFE project to LAD and DIGEMAPS to acquire specialty lab equipment, in 
the first quarter of 2021, has led to the beginnings of a local chemical residue testing program which 
should eventually reduce reliance on LANAR in Honduras.
By early 2020, the equivalence process had advanced to the point that participating slaughterhouses 
were deemed ready for the USDA/FSIS on-site official audit. A mock-audit on the Beef Inspection 
System, extensive to the laboratories and the slaughterhouses’ components was conducted by experts 
from TAMU, focusing on documentation, operations, and verifications. In addition, SAFE provided 
support to DIGEMAPS to automate the process of documenting inspections. They concluded that all 
components of the system were ready for the FSIS audit.
17 A rapid action plan was established, and an 
audit date of March 2020 was set. However, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in mid-March 2020 
led to the indefinite postponement of the audit. The experts from TAMU with whom we spoke were 
confident that had the audit occurred, equivalence would have been achieved thanks to assistance from 
USDA through the SAFE project. This viewpoint was widely supported by other project staff, partner 
staff, and government stakeholders interviewed. Other value chain stakeholders who were informed on 
the subject, were confident that equivalence would continue to move forward as long as the new 
government of DR continues to keep it a priority, which has been the case so far.
C. Strengthened HACCP Systems and Private Investments in Slaughterhouses 
A key achievement of the project, regardless of the final achievement of equivalence, has been 
extensive SPS (Sanitation Performance Standards) improvements in participating slaughterhouses.
Technical assistance provided through a critical path route developed by TAMU staff, started in April 
2018, to strengthen the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems of the three 
slaughterhouses participating on the Equivalence process has significantly improved the quality of 
sanitary practices and established new norms, a trend that stakeholders believe will be lasting. 
17 SAFE Project. “Performance Report Summary: October 1, 2019-March 30, 2020,” April 2020.
55
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the SAFE project adjusted its technical assistance to equivalence actors
through collective efficiency schools (CES - a further adaptation of the farmer and livestock field school 
methodology) to a virtual format with 517 participants, including managers and staff of slaughterhouses 
and inspectors from DIGEMAPS. Key topics covered 
included HACCP, humane livestock practices, and 
sanitary measures and procedures.18 In addition to 
providing technical assistance, the SAFE project 
offered matching grants to beef processors to 
increase SPS-related processing infrastructure as 
well as financing to government stakeholders and 
laboratories for equipment. The SAFE team also
facilitated an agreement between the DR 
government and the private sector to share the 
costs of required laboratory testing during the 
equivalence process. The private sector co￾investments in particular have been key in ensuring 
buy-in for new norms and practices. 
D. Livestock Field Schools 
The livestock field school methodology – a methodology developed by the Food & Agriculture 
Organization (FAO) and adapted to the Dominican context19 – implemented by project staff, a core 
group of MEGALECHE’s, and trained private extensionists using an 80% hands-on and 20% theory
approach has been a major achievement in the eyes of producers, POs, and project and partner staff. 
The methodology combines hands-on technical assistance in a peer learning format with training on 
farm management and other subjects, complimented by the programa de coinversión productivo (PCP) 
provided through the SAFE project’s grants program. The PCP, as reported in the midterm evaluation, 
included an input package of pasture seeds, fertilizers, jerrycans, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa 
Agropecuária (EMBRAPA) designed kits (a Brazilian-designed unit used to clean teats and improve 
hygiene during milking), and other inputs with a total value of US$500-700 per producer.20 Selected 
farms were used as demonstration farms where practices could be shown in action.
While there was some initial resistance from 
cooperatives and producers about trying an 
approach different than their previous 
experience, the livestock field schools began to 
generate enthusiasm as they were 
implemented. Producers and POs interviewed 
widely lauded the livestock field schools for 
equipping producers with improved practices 
and farm management skills, directly leading to 
substantial improvements in productivity and 
milk quality. Of producers surveyed, 78% said 
the livestock field schools were beneficial for 
18 SAFE Project. “Main milestones of the equivalence process: Period March - September 2020,” November 12, 2020. 19 FAO. “Livestock and Farmer Field Schools,” Accessed May 2021. http://www.fao.org/farmer-field-schools/ffs￾overview/livestock/en/
20 J.E. Austin & Associates. “Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Project Midterm Evaluation Report,” April 30, 2019, p. 33.
Figure 13. Feeding Cattle at a Farm in Hato Mayor
Figure 12. Team Leader Lara Goldmark Speaking 
with Eduardo Alvarez at MERCARNE
56
them, a finding supported by our producer FGDs which reported particular satisfaction with the hands￾on approach and accompaniment from extensionists through repeated farm visits as producers began to 
implement what they had learned. We also received overwhelming positive feedback from the POs, 
although financing of the private extensionists beyond the length of the project may be a challenge per 
KIIs with project stakeholders.
Unfortunately, the livestock field schools -- like many of the project’s activities -- only began in mid￾2018. During the first two years of the project, producer-level technical assistance was delivered by 
government extensionists from MEGALECHE in classroom-type environments and sessions based at 
select lead farms. As reported by the midterm evaluation, there were many complaints about 
MEGALECHE’s performance including lack of resources and lack of “motivation.” MEGALECHE had only 
50 agents for the whole country and we were also told by project staff that MEGELECHE had a 
requirement of only 50 farm visits per month, though amendments to the MEGALECHE agreements 
were added, which provided more support for extensionist visits. There were also reported cases of 
technical assistance being done over phone instead of in person and even claims of forged signatures on 
training reports.21 Whatever the truth of the claims may be, the fact was clear by early 2018 that the 
MEGALECHE technical assistance was ineffective in its current form. The SAFE project’s renegotiated 
agreements with DIGEGA aimed to fix this and included incentive-based reimbursement of expenses for 
MEGALECHE extensionists who continued to work with the project through the second phase. It is 
important to note that those MEGALECHE extensionists who continued with the project, became 
valuable contributors.
The livestock field school methodology was spearheaded by the new project team and began 
implementation on July 22, 2018. This practical approach to technical assistance delivery was further 
enhanced by the introduction of private extensionists in mid 2019 (for the first time ever in DR, 
according to some POs we spoke with). The SAFE project reached an agreement with the POs involved 
to share the burden of the cost for the private extensionists, where the program would cover 80% and 
the PO would cover 20%. The idea was to evolve the proportion covered by each party over time, 
getting eventually to 50/50, however due to COVID-19 this did not happen.22 The cost aspect of the 
private extensionists is something that must be addressed for the livestock field school methodology to 
remain sustainable after the project is complete. Some stakeholders in POs pointed out that this is a task 
made more difficult due to the fact that MEGALECHE extensionists provide free services in theory, so 
producers and POs sometimes have trouble seeing the value of paying for private extension services. 
However, even government stakeholders we spoke to were positive about the introduction of private 
extensionists, and we heard that the private extensionists and MEGALECHE extensionists had even come 
to unspoken agreements about how to divide up areas of need, so there seems like there could be some 
political will to come to a solution. MEGALECHE has also expressed interest in adopting the livestock 
field school methodology among their extensionists on a country wide basis.
E. Seal of Quality 
In addition to the technical assistance activities aimed at improving the quality of milk, the SAFE 
project’s effort to promote the Seal of Quality (SoQ) in the DR was designed to create an incentive for 
consumers to pay a premium for higher quality milk. Training was provided by the project through 
21J.E. Austin & Associates. “Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Project Midterm Evaluation Report,” April 30, 2019, p. 33.
22 There was originally an even more ambitious goal to develop business plans that utilized the revenues from increased milk 
production and quality to finance 100% of the cost of the extension system by the time the project funded grants expired. This 
did not go anywhere.
57
INDOCAL to milk processors to inform them of the requirements for obtaining the Seal of Quality for 
their products and some initial public information campaigns were conducted at the beginning of the 
project through trade fairs, with an additional campaign planned for the end of the project.
However, these efforts have very little success since the activities hardly got off the ground due to the 
market being unready. Project and partner staff with whom we spoke said that the Seal of Quality was 
given too much importance in the project design, despite a lack of political will (outside of some 
individuals at INDOCAL) and a dairy market which is not yet ready for it, with a high level of informality 
among milk processors (60% are informal, rarely comply with food safety standards, and can’t qualify for 
Seal of Quality), and little willingness in the market to pay a quality premium, outside of bigger 
wholesale buyers like Nestle. While goals related to training have been met (the activity indicator 
“Number of value chain actors participating in the Seal of Quality” reached 113% completion), few 
people have been reached through the public information campaigns so far (“Number of people reached 
through the Seal of Quality public information campaign” was only 10.5% achieved as the writing of this 
report) and no products are yet using the Seal of Quality (“Number of products using the Seal of Quality 
in their marketing” had a goal of 25 and has 0% achievement).
F. Grants program and access to finance 
The SAFE project’s grants program cut across multiple project activities and provided funding for private 
extensionists, trainings, infrastructure, and agricultural inputs. Funding for the grants came in part from 
direct USDA funds and in part through cost sharing. The total value of the 119 grants is worth
US$2,073,497 after participant counterpart with actual project expenditures through April 16, 2021 at
US$1,241,637. Table 10 shows the breakdown of grants by the following activity types:
• Extension Systems
• Establish or Improve MCCs
• SPS For Meat Processors
• PCP
• Analysis
• Flexible Funds
• Milking Parlors
These grants are further divided under the following subtypes (some grants are applicable across 
multiple activities and subtypes):
• Extensionist training
• Agricultural inputs
• Private extensionists 
• Technology application 
• Equipment to cool and collect milk
• Physical infrastructure 
• PDI and MCC sanitation 
• Computers and systems 
• Meat analysis 
• Milk analysis
58
Table 10. Summary of SAFE Project Grants by Type and Calendar Year23
Grant Type Grants 
given
Grants - Total Value by Type
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTAL 
VALUE
Extension 
Systems
28 $8,138 $117,275 $375,629 $142,172 $2,838 $646,053
Establish or
Improve MCCs
41 
- $322,987 $68,345 $30,772 $422,104
SPS For Meat 
Processors
5 
- $48,552 $99,225 - $147,778
PCP 20 
- $197,150 $237,814 $24,728 $5,486 $465,178
Analysis 6 
-
 
- $30,870 $12,108 $20,333 $63,312
Flexible Funds 1 
- - $
48,034
$ 
- $48,034
Milking Parlors 18 
-
 
- $30,396 $399,214 $30,551 $460,161
TOTAL 119 $8,138 $685,964 $890,315 $439,872 $49,208 $2,252,620
The grants program provided matching grants and financing for key inputs, services, and infrastructure 
vital to the SAFE project’s activities. Some of these grants are discussed under specific activities with 
which they are associated (e.g., private extensionists, co-investments at slaughterhouses). Grants also 
supported technical assistance from international and domestic experts in areas including SPS and 
genetics – including services provided by TAMU and GENEX. The work done by the SAFE project to 
support genetics and reproductive health for livestock was new in the D.R. and according to experts with 
whom we spoke, has a high potential for improving the productivity and quality of production.
Grants were widely perceived to be useful, however, there were concerns from project staff and value 
chain stakeholders alike about the application of certain grants and the mechanism for their 
distribution. For instance, a common concern, especially among producers, was a perception of a lack of 
transparency in the criteria for allocating farm-level grants (discussed further under Efficiency). 
23 Some grants were approved in one year but payment occurred over multiple disbursements, which may lead to different 
reporting in different sources. CLUSA’s financial reports differed from the technical semiannual performance reports to USDA as 
they only included disbursements but did not accrue the entire value of the approved grants. Some awarded grants were 
distributed across more than 1 activity because they addressed multiple purposes.
59
Among the most visible use of grants were 
the 300+ milking parlors built with project 
financing for producers (205 were built 
through the SAFE project’s grant funds 
starting in 2019/2020, the rest were built 
prior to 2019/2020 fiscal year funded by JAD). 
The milking parlors, if used correctly, provide 
a dignified and sanitary place for producers to 
milk their cows, increasing the quality of the 
milk produced. Many of the producers and 
POs we spoke with were very pleased with 
the milking parlors and they are a visible 
legacy of the project’s work. However, in 
some cases the impact appears to be mixed,
with some producers not even using them
(12% according to the milking parlor survey 
carried out by the project in 2019).
24 This highlights the importance of ensuring that stakeholders who 
receive project money have skin in the game when it comes to investments in infrastructure 
improvements and other items being financed by the project. While the milk parlors certainly had 
positive impact, it was noted by multiple project staff that milk parlors are a relatively expensive 
investment (about $2,000 each), and perhaps equal or greater impact could have been had by 
redirecting these funds towards financing inputs for producers (only $500-$700 per producer).
While the grants program served an important purpose in providing financing for specific items related 
to project activities, the larger need is to address access to finance throughout the value chain. This is an
area where both producers and processors we spoke were less satisfied compared to other SAFE project 
activities. Only 41% of producers and 63% of processors we surveyed said they had access to finance 
after participation in project activities. Unfortunately, baseline figures for access to finance were not 
gathered at the beginning of the project, however the findings from the midterm evaluation also 
confirmed that access to finance was rated as “poor” by respondents.25
Despite a relatively strong financial system in the DR as a whole, the livestock sector lags significantly in 
access to finance. The sector is categorized under Agriculture, Livestock, Hunting and Forestry, which
represented 6% of GDP in 2020, but only received 1.95% of the total loans granted in the country. The 
DR government has several public policies aimed at alleviating this funding gap, including programs such 
as the Special Fund for Agricultural Development (FEDA) which lends to producer associations to make 
investments in the sector to improve their productivity. FEDA has an annual budget for credit of RD$ 1 
billion or US$ 17.2 million. In addition to FEDA, second-floor banking operates through the Reservas del 
País Foundation, which finances cooperatives and microfinance institutions and has assets of
approximately RD$ 3 billion or US$ 51 million, with an estimated 10% aimed at the agricultural sector. 
There is also the Banco Agricola, which in 2020 gave loans to the livestock sector totaling RD$ 2,479 
million or US$42 million serving 2,153 producers in that year. There are also private lenders, such as 
ADOPEM and ADEMI, which are active in sector and based on our KIIs would like to lend even more at 
the producer level.
24 Mildred Costes. “Consultoria Para Evaluar: Salas de Ordeño PROGANA,” SAFE project, March 24 2019. 25 J.E. Austin & Associates. “Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Project Midterm Evaluation Report,” April 30, 2019, p. 53 & 55.
Figure 14. Milking Parlor in Puerto Plata Funded by SAFE
60
Project delays in the first two years and COVID-19 pandemic delayed activities related to financial 
inclusion – as with other activities – and while some real progress was made, the project activities in this 
area were not well-designed. Financial access at the producer level is plagued by challenges with poor 
credit, exacerbated by the fact that loans to public lenders are most often not repaid. This and other 
systemic issues were not well addressed in the project design. Project staff KIIs indicated that 
management of loans to producers was ill-defined and loans tended to be large amounts, but only 
distributed to a relatively small number of producers. Additionally, the process for determining loan 
allocation was poorly defined and often very bureaucratic, with producers not receiving the money from 
financial institutions for an extended period after being extended the loan. The project did hire a 
consultant to work on access to finance mid-way through the project who had the right ideas to work 
with POs to create financial products that addressed some of these challenges. However, they were not 
fully implemented in part due to time constraints of the project at this point and also due to a lack of 
cooperation from government counterparts.
G. Effectiveness: Conclusions 
• EQ2.1 To what extent have the expected results of the project been achieved?
Results achievement has been lower than expected, in part due to project delays and COVID-19. 
For key results indicators, 68% have been achieved.
• EQ2.2 What factors have been critical to the achievement or nonachievement of project 
objectives? 
Critical factors to the non-achievement of select indicators can largely be categorized into three 
groups. The first were the organizational challenges experienced by the project leading to slow 
progress over the first two years of the project (explored further in the Efficiency section). The 
second factor was recurring droughts in 2016 and 2018 that set back progress in increasing milk 
productivity. To mitigate this, the project worked with the Fundación REDDOM (Rural Economic 
Development Dominicana) to implement drought adaptation strategies and address adaptation 
barriers including one virtual workshop via video conference, three workshops in San Juan (in 
Las Matas de Farfán, in Barranca and Yabonico), four workshops in Santiago Rodriguez and five
workshops in Dajabón. Additionally, technical assistance was provided to fifteen farms where 
producers showed willingness to implement recommended practices, techniques or 
technologies with five farms are in San Juan, six in Santiago Rodriguez and five in Dajabón.26 The 
third factor was the COVID-19 pandemic, which indefinitely delayed the FSIS audit to confirm 
equivalence, significantly slowed down project activities in the field, and affected value chain 
actors by decreasing prices significantly due to reduced demand from the tourism sector. 
Despite these negative factors, the new leadership team installed in 2018 was a major positive
factor and led directly to the achievements the SAFE project was able to make despite the 
challenges, especially in three areas: moving forward the equivalence process to the audit stage, 
implementing the livestock field school methodology, and introducing private extensionists. 
26 Fundación REDDOM (Rural Economic Development Dominicana) for Fortaleciendo la Cadena de Valor de la Ganadería 
Dominicana (PROGANA). “Consultoría Medidas de adaptación a sequía para productores Lácteos beneficiarios de PROGANA,”
SAFE project, December 2020, p.2 &3
61
• EQ2.3 Has the project led the planned activities? Has it achieved the expected results?
The SAFE project has been effective at carrying out the activities of the project, with 90% 
achievement for key activity indicators. Goal achievement for results indicators is at two-thirds 
with 68%, though key indicators related to equivalence, milk productivity, and milk quality have 
fallen short of original goals.
• EQ2.4 What adaptations, if any, were made to the project’s implementation process in order 
to achieve project objectives and targets based on mid-term evaluation findings?
The SAFE project for the most part responded effectively to the midterm evaluation’s 
recommendations, as follows:
1) Resolve problems and inconsistencies in the PROGIS M&E database: An audit of the 
M&E data was carried out, and inconsistencies addressed as best as possible 
retroactively. A new SharePoint database was built to house M&E data.
2) Adopt a value chain-wide approach to dairy quality upgrades: the mid-term 
evaluation did not sufficiently define what was meant by a “value chain-wide” approach, 
although we imagine that if specific recommendations had been developed they would 
have been similar to the recommendations we also make in this report, i.e., conducting 
a value chain analysis and using the associated quantitative data as part of the project’s 
M&E system, investing in increased stakeholder consultation and participation to 
develop broad buy-in for a common sector vision, designing buyer-driven activities, and 
targeting specific points of leverage in the value chain for interventions. Specific 
activities focused on improving milk quality increased and progress was made on milk 
quality indicators. However, little progress was made on the Seal of Quality.
3) Advocate for inspection services and slaughterhouses to progress on the ‘critical 
path’ routes toward conformity with the FSIS standards: This was absolutely done.
Great progress was made at participating slaughterhouses, and prior to COVID-19 
related delays, the FSIS audit was scheduled, and it was considered likely by TAMU 
experts that the slaughterhouses were sufficiently prepared to pass the audit.
4) Audit project marketing and branding strategies to better inform the public that 
USDA is the project donor: Based on the project documentation we have seen and held 
discussions with project staff, it appears the concerns were addressed, with more 
prominent use of USDA marketing on SAFE project materials and activities.
• EQ2.5 To what extent the activity changes after midterm evaluation results and 
recommendations were successful in improving effectiveness and ability of the project to 
achieve its expected results?
While the late implementation of the midterm evaluation left a short time to put changes in 
place, the M&E audit and the acceleration of activities related to milk quality and 
slaughterhouse improvements represented substantial progress. There were other, iterative 
adaptations throughout the life of the project, including updates to performance indicators, 
budget and scope modifications to allow for staffing and role changes. On May 8, 2020, SAFE 
was awarded a no-cost extension through March 31, 2021 due to delays in monetization sales 
62
and budget execution, followed by a costed extension awarded September 25, 2020 that 
modified the Period of Performance to December 31 2021 and to recognize the impact of Covid￾19. As is traditional practice, these modifications were managed in-house, and not socialized 
with external stakeholders (i.e., to match the development and/or updating of a clearly 
articulated value chain strategy.) At the same time, there was high-quality work to update value 
chain strategies (especially beef, where the SAFE project worked with the Ministry of Agriculture 
to develop a “5 Axes Initiative for Livestock”). One challenging, but important, aspect of 
managing US-government funded projects is the management of inevitable changes (in scope, 
scale, or timing of projects) in the technical versus administrative domains. It is a fact that 
external stakeholders often point to the total budgetary amounts devoted to these programs 
and do not understand “where the money goes.”27 While regular meetings were held with 
stakeholders during the last two years of the project, management challenges earlier on had 
already caused gaps in communication. A detailed set of recommendations about this issue 
goes beyond the scope of this evaluation; however, perhaps a useful starting place is the 
alignment, externally and internally, between (1) results frameworks, performance indicators, 
and activities, (2) stakeholder dialogue and joint activities that specifically refers to these 
indicators and tracks whether they link to results, and (3) an overarching “neutral” framework, 
such as the value chain map or other, that all actors can use to “hang” their analysis, track 
progress, highlight and disseminate their own activities, etc.
• EQ2.6 What were the planned and unplanned outcomes that can be attributed to the project?
Planned outcomes included improvements in milk productivity and quality as described above
(as measured by liters-per-cow-per-day and volume of Grade A milk), as well as the completion 
of milestones towards the achievement of FSIS equivalence. Unplanned outcomes, due to the 
COVID-19 pandemic included positive opportunities for greater participation from 
slaughterhouse management due to remote trainings.
• EQ2.7 What are the evolutions of the project indicators?
The SAFE project, as of the time of this evaluation, tracked 89 indicators. This was reduced from 
an initial 112 indicators originally approved by USDA for the project in 2016, based on the
baseline recommendations and approved by USDA on August 4, 2017. Additional indicators 
were modified or corrected due to persistent errors on October 18, 2018.
• EQ2.8 Has the implementation process (approach - methodology) been effective?
The project has been effective in carrying out the planned activities as per the program design, 
however problems with the initial design (see Relevance section) as well as management 
challenges in the early years that affected delivery of project activities (see Efficiency section) 
combined with external variables (droughts and COVID-19) prevented the project from 
achieving the desired results.
27 See, for example the front-page story in the New York Times on Sunday June 6, 2021 referring to ‘the Contractor Problem,’ in 
a critical article about US efforts to fund economic development in Central America in order to reduce migration. “Billions in 
Aid, but the Migrants Keep Coming,” By Natalie Kitroeff and Michael D. Shear.
63
• EQ2.9 What is the evidence and estimate by how much agricultural productivity and the 
marketing of agricultural products have been improved through project actions?
Productivity has improved substantially for those producers who implemented techniques and 
technologies provided through the livestock field schools and associated technical assistance 
(see the Impact section). Marketing of agricultural products through the Seal of Quality has not
occurred.
• EQ2.10 To what extent did the Livestock Farmer Field School methodology contribute to 
improved agrobusiness management, production and quality compared to traditional adult 
education methodologies? 
The livestock field school methodology was very popular with producers and POs alike, despite 
some initial reticence prior to adoption. The hands-on methodology based on peer learning,
along with accompaniment from extensionists through follow-up visits, was the key to the 
project’s impact at the producer level.
• EQ2.11 To what extent did project activities prepare stakeholders to participate in virtual 
activities versus in-person as a result of the global pandemic from the novel coronavirus 
COVID-19? 
While some activities such as trainings were able to be conducted remotely, the pandemic had a 
negative impact on the project’s ability to deliver on many activities. The indefinite delay of the 
FSIS audit for equivalence is a key example, as was the impact of the pandemic on the livestock 
field schools and farm visits by extensionists. One unforeseen benefit of virtual workshops was 
that owners and top managers of the slaughterhouses took part in the sessions, which was not 
always possible when they were conducted in person. GENEX was also able to transition to 
virtual trainings with high rates of participation. 
• EQ2.12 To what extent did stakeholders benefit from the project’s attempts to provide virtual 
trainings as a result of the pandemic?
The Collective Efficiency Schools (CES) were moved to a virtual format during the COVID-19 
pandemic, providing 517 slaughterhouse employees and DIGEMAPs staff with continued 
training on HACCP and other subjects pertaining to sanitary standards and other prerequisites 
for FSIS Equivalence. The effectiveness of the virtual format for these trainings was seen in the 
adaptation and implementation of the subject matter for the successful upgrading of the 
slaughterhouses to meet the required standards for FSIS Equivalence.
• EQ2.13 To what extent did the technical assistance received by beneficiaries improve the 
management of their agrobusinesses, production and quality?
As part of the outreach conducted by the livestock field schools, SAFE provided technical 
assistance through public and private extension agents and external consultants on improved 
farm agricultural production techniques, integrated farm management, and business plan 
development. For producers who implemented the techniques and practices, there was a 
64
significant impact on productivity and also improvements in milk quality. As a result of USDA 
assistance, the number of farmers in the dairy and/or beef sector making decisions based on 
economic considerations or analysis reached 302% of the project goal, the number of farmers 
applying new techniques or technologies reached 83% of the project goal. Percentage of volume 
of grade “a” milk sold to processors by USDA supported milk collection centers also increased by 
36%28 (see the Impact section for a deeper discussion).
• EQ2.14 To what extent did beneficiaries adopt the project’s improved practices and 
technologies and improve their agrobusiness’s management, production, and quality?
Improved practices and techniques were adopted at both the producer and processor level 
leading to significant improvements where they were used. However, the numbers of 
beneficiaries who adopted new techniques and technologies fell short in some areas. For the 
indicator “Number of individuals who have applied new techniques or technologies as a result of 
USDA assistance” the target for men was over 100% achieved, but the target for women was 
only 24% achieved. When disaggregated by type, only the application of new techniques or 
technologies related to breeding genetics hit 100% of its target, while the application of new 
techniques or technologies related to animal health (39.8%) and animal feed (48.1%) missed the 
targets by a large margin. The indicator “Number of dairy farmers using improved milking and 
milk handling techniques as a result of USDA assistance” was only 57.6% achieved. The indicator 
“Number of individuals who have applied improved farm management practices (i.e.,
governance, administration, or financial management) as a result of USDA assistance” was 100% 
achieved.
3.4. Efficiency 
A. Organizational Challenges 
During KIIs project staff, project partners, and government stakeholders universally noted that 
organizational challenges hindered the projects' ability to make progress over the first two years. An 
initial challenge was delays in the monetization of commodities by which the project was funded, which 
took six months longer than planned. Over this period, changes in commodity prices contributed to a 
projected budget shortfall ranging from $467k-$710k in 2020 for which supplemental commodity was 
awarded to NCBA CLUSA in September 2020. This commodity was monetized in April 2021 leaving the 
project with an overall budget shortfall of $185,00029 When work on the project finally began following 
monetization, implementation was hindered by disagreements between the project’s implementing 
partners and a failure to properly implement the livestock field school methodology and provide 
technical assistance for producers (which seems due in part to a lack of a clear transfer of goals from 
proposal team to project team). Due to these challenges, implementation over the first two years of the 
SAFE project got off to a slow start, with progress mostly only made on trainings and holding initial 
meetings to start moving the equivalence process forward.
28 The complete table of results and activity indicators can be found in Annex 1. 29 A supplemental commodity award, which was monetized at $407k, was granted in September 2020 which allowed the 
project to continue operations until the end of April 2021.
65
In early 2018, NCBA CLUSA decided to make some organizational changes, which led to the hiring of a 
new Chief of Party (CoP) and Technical Director. The project also brought on specialists for genetics (to 
coordinate with GENEX), PO strengthening, financial services, and extension services. The change in 
leadership team went a long way towards jump starting many of the project activities and – as we heard 
in several KIIs with stakeholders not involved directly with the project – to reestablishing trust with 
value chain and government actors. One interviewee summed up his perception of the project as “a 
program with too much bureaucracy. Most of the resources went to salaries and vehicles.” In 2018 the 
livestock field school methodology began to be correctly implemented and in 2019 private extensionists 
were established through POs with project support. As can be seen in Figure 15 below, the increase in 
project activities at the producer level correlate to the arrival of the new leadership team. The 
equivalence process also began to move forward quickly under new leadership.
Figure 15. Increase in Activity Following New Project Leadership in 2018, Demonstrated by Key Data
Another challenge that has plagued project implementation from the beginning is data integrity, caused
at least in part by multiple changes in M&E systems. The initial M&E platform – LogAlto (in use from 
project start in 2016-January 2018) – was an off-the-shelf system which was difficult for extensionists to 
use in the field, due to its lack of offline capabilities. For this reason, the project hired K&F Consulting, 
which had successfully developed a system for another NCBA CLUSA project in El Salvador, to develop 
the PROGIS system from scratch. While this solved issues with offline data collection, there were many 
issues with the data whether due to the system itself or what was being input into the system. As was 
reported in the midterm evaluation, the PROGIS database had a number of errors including incorrect or 
missing beneficiary contact data, duplication of beneficiaries, and inconsistencies in the overall number 
of project beneficiaries. The midterm recommended that “SAFE staff should audit beneficiary contact 
data and update entries where required. Staff should also use this audit to resolve inconsistencies in 
overall beneficiary numbers and disaggregate by beneficiary type.”30 The project followed up on this 
recommendation and hired a statistician to conduct a full audit of the data and replace PROGIS with a 
SharePoint database. This seems to have solved the major issues, but inconsistencies in some of the 
data remain and were experienced during the final evaluation (see comments in the Methodology 
section above).
30 J.E. Austin & Associates. “Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Project Midterm Evaluation Report,” April 30, 2019, p. 70.
66
B. Scale and Implementation 
The SAFE project’s broad ambitions to address the major issues in the whole sector are well-aligned with 
the Food for Progress mission and results framework as well as the needs of the sector. However, 
implementing a project at this scale also comes with its 
challenges in delivering on all its objectives, and doing so 
in a consistent manner across all implementation 
areas. While technical materials, staff, and individual 
activities were often excellent and effective, the broad 
scope of the project, combined with the lost time due 
to organizational inefficiencies discussed above, 
necessitated prioritization of activities by the project 
team and led to impact for a smaller number of 
beneficiaries.
A key example of the scale and scope of the project 
affecting results, in this case the broad geographic 
scope, was in technical assistance at the farm level, 
where the quality of assistance provided to producers 
varied widely from province to province. Some of the 
producers and POs we spoke with across provinces 
reported varying levels of technical assistance and 
follow up by extensionists. A large factor in this may 
be the number of extensionists available in each 
province, with some only having one present. In 
addition to quality of technical assistance, other 
potential factors such as infrastructure, may explain 
the wide discrepancies in improvements in milk 
productivity for some provinces according to the
project’s farm visit data (see Figure 15 showing farm 
visit data for beneficiaries visited by extensionists over more than a year period). This is also in line with 
the variation in perceived impact on productivity, quality, and incomes from the producer surveys by 
province (see further discussion under the Impact section).
Beyond the scope and scale of the SAFE project’s activities, there were also implementation concerns 
brought up by beneficiaries. In particular, the SAFE project’s application of grants criteria was opaque 
for many beneficiaries, especially at the producer level. Our FGDs with producers in several provinces 
showed confusion with how the project selected beneficiaries, and which beneficiaries received 
assistance and grants. Who received milking parlors – and who did not – was a sore spot for some
survey respondents and interviewees. This seems to have been a communication issue, rather than an 
actual lack of clear criteria as these were in fact written down and made available by the project. 
However, it is apparent that better communication of these criteria to potential beneficiaries may have 
prevented confusion. There were also concerns that the project did not always prioritize activities in a 
way that made sense. Some producers noted that in some cases funding went to build milking parlors, 
while the most pressing issue for producers was actually that their cattle were dying from lack of water.
Figure 16. Differing Results in Productivity Increases 
by Province May Reflect Differences in TA Quality
67
C. Efficiency: Conclusions
• EQ3.1 To what extent, appropriateness, and functionality have the various units/ levels of 
management and coordination (grants, project staff, M&E, local committees, USDA/W, 
USDA/Santo Domingo and others) supported the implementation of the project? 
Despite initial inefficiencies and delays due to organizational challenges in the first two years of 
the project, the restructuring of project leadership in 2018 improved the efficiency of 
implementation and led to the achievement of most of the project’s activity indicators (though 
with some notable exceptions and without activity completion always feeding directly into 
results). 
• EQ3.2 To what extent were the size and composition of the teams appropriate to the 
strategies? 
Following the staffing changes in 2018 and the proper implementation of the livestock field 
school methodology as originally intended – including the hiring of private extensionists – the 
team composition and size was appropriate to the strategies. However, organization of staff was 
at times too siloed by activity, with functions assigned based on which contractor or 
subcontractor hired staff, rather than the project working as a cohesive team.
• EQ3.3 To what extent do the various project activities support each other? 
The project’s activities are aligned with each other and Food for Progress results frameworks 
and are designed to achieve results that build on each other. However, the broad scope of the 
project posed challenges to implementation, especially when combined with project delays, 
leading to uneven implementation in some activities and fewer beneficiaries experiencing 
impact than originally planned. Due to the lack of a rigorous value chain framework, indicators 
in many cases were poorly designed or did not build upon each other (e.g., an activity indicator 
might be achieved 6,000% yet we see little progress towards the associated results indicators).
• EQ3.4 To what extent has the process of project implementation including finance and 
administration optimized time and resources?
The SAFE project’s organizational challenges, as well as financial challenges related to the delays 
in monetization and less than expected returns due to variations in commodity prices, have 
prevented the project from optimizing the time and resources at its disposal. Nevertheless, the
second leadership team made great strides in remedying this over the last two and half years of 
the project.
68
3.5. Impact 
A. Project Impact 
Market Access and Trade
Progress on equivalence has made strides, as described above, and has potential for significant long￾term impact if achieved. Additionally, there have 
been increased market linkages between some 
value chain actors, such as queserias we spoke with 
who were able to get their products into 
supermarkets they had previously failed to enter 
and MCCs and large processors which expanded 
the number of producers from whom they buy 
their supply of milk. 
However as can be seen in Figure 17, at the 
processor level most survey respondents felt 
that their relationships with other value chain 
actors improved “a little.” There also seems to 
have been missed opportunities for increased 
linkages especially with larger buyers. In 
particular, more could have been done to work 
with Nestlé and Grupo Rica to develop ways to 
support the POs through co-financing extension 
services and other activities beyond the length 
of the SAFE project. According to at least one 
high-level interviewee, Grupo Rica has expressed interest in supporting continued technical assistance 
to producers.
Milk Productivity
The key measure of productivity in the dairy value chain is liters per cow per day (l/c/d). Historically the 
DR has had very low milk productivity, due to poor practices and the preponderance of small producers 
with less resources and access to know-how.31 The SAFE project’s baseline study cited a number of 
studies done on the topic over the years with estimates for the average productivity nationally coming 
in between 2.76-5.73 l/c/d.32 Official government estimates from DIGEGA came in at 3.73 l/c/d in 201533
and 5.4 l/c/d in 201834 and USDA FAS estimated in 2018 that the national average fell from 5.5 l/c/d in 
2014 to 4.9 l/c/d in 2018.35 Data from farm visits conducted as part of the SAFE project over its 
implementation period reflect numbers within these ranges (the averages for every province fell 
between 2.2 l/c/d and 6 l/c/d).
31 For comparison, OECD data in 2018 shows developed countries average 12 l/c/d and LAC countries average 7.5 l/c/d
Sistema Presupuestario Dominicano, “Presupuesto Orientado a Resultados 2020-2023,” 2019, p. 259. 
https://www.digepres.gob.do/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Presupuesto-Orientado-a-Resultados-2020-2023.pdf 32 OTSCORP. “Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Program Dominican Republic Project Baseline Survey,” October 13, 2016. 33 DIGEGA. “Memoria 2015,” 2015, p. 52. http://www.ganaderia.gob.do/transparencia/index.php/plan￾estrategico/informes?download=90:memoria-ganaderia-2015 34 Sistema Presupuestario Dominicano, “Presupuesto Orientado a Resultados 2020-2023,” 2019, p. 259. 
https://www.digepres.gob.do/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Presupuesto-Orientado-a-Resultados-2020-2023.pdf 35 USDA FAS. “Opportunities and Challenges in the Dominican Dairy Sector,” May 6, 2019.
Figure 17. Processors Survey - your relationship 
with the following actors increased
69
Despite this variety of evidence showing DR’s national productivity has traditionally been very low – as 
acknowledged by the baseline report itself – the baseline survey came out with a much higher average 
number of 7.5 l/c/d upon which the project’s goal of increasing milk productivity by 50% was based. As 
many of our KIIs with project staff and partners have pointed out, this number seems problematic, and 
potentially a major reason the SAFE project fell short of its goal (a 12% increase over the baseline was 
achieved). It is unclear exactly why the baseline numbers were higher than expected, but it may be 
related to the method for how the data was collected, with surveys of producers yielding more inflated 
responses than farm visits by extensionists. The numbers reported by our survey would seem to back 
this theory up as our averages for beneficiary and comparison group producers are 8.23 l/c/d and 7.14 
l/c/d respectively.
To support transparency, objectivity and rigor, we take several different approaches to measuring the 
project’s impact on milk productivity. Our first approach takes the baseline number at face value and 
compares it with the l/c/d figures report by beneficiary producers in our end-line survey. The table 
below shows this comparison and the resulting 10% gain in productivity based on this calculation. 
However, due to the issues mentioned previously, we are not sure this is the most accurate approach, 
given the concerns with the baseline figures as well as changes endogenous to the value chain as a 
whole over the time period of the project. 
Table 11. Baseline vs End-line Milk Productivity
Baseline Survey (l/c/d) End-line - Beneficiaries (l/c/d) % Gain from Baseline to End-line
7.5 8.23 10%
A second approach compares beneficiary producers with our non-beneficiary producer comparison 
group. This comparison group gives us a way of comparing the progress of beneficiaries compared to an 
otherwise similar set of producers at a single point in time. This approach better addresses the issue of 
the overall decline in milk productivity experienced by the DR over the last 3-5 years, reflected in some 
of the secondary sources cited above, due to droughts in 2016 and 2018 and other factors that affected 
the value chain as a whole.36 The beneficiaries at the end-line survey had 15% higher average
productivity in l/c/d than the comparison group. However, as stated earlier, these findings should not be 
interpreted as proof of causal impact attributable to project activities.
Table 12. Comparison Group vs Beneficiary Milk Productivity
Comparison Group Survey 
(l/c/d)
End-line - Beneficiaries 
(l/c/d)
% Difference in Milk Yields 
between Comparison Group and 
End-Line Beneficiaries
7.14 8.23 15%
Our first two approaches give us a glimpse at the average improvement in milk productivity as measured 
by l/c/d for beneficiaries overall. However, it is clear from our KIIs with project staff as well as the farm 
visit data collected by extensionists, that the level of uptake of techniques and regularity of follow-up 
visits by extensionists to provide technical assistance varied greatly between beneficiaries. This leads to 
a third approach analyzing the progress in l/c/d as reported during farm visits by extensionists, which 
demonstrated much higher levels of productivity improvement for producers who received regular farm 
36 J.E. Austin & Associates. “Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) Project Midterm Evaluation Report,” April 30, 2019, p. 32.
70
visits over an extended period (see Figure 18 below). While the number of beneficiaries who received 
the level of support to increase productivity by 50%+ was only about 5% of the total (in part due to 
program challenges and the COVID-19 pandemic as discussed above under Efficiency), it provides strong 
evidence for the efficacy of the livestock field school methodology and technical assistance when fully 
implemented. The disparity in the number of farm visits to each producer was impacted by multiple 
factors. First, in the initial years of the project, these visits were not systematically organized, and data 
has not been collected for the same. In the latter years of the project, under new management, there 
was a campaign to recruit new producers that involved farm visits conducted by private extensionists, 
which is when farm visits were increased and data on productivity for more comprehensively collected. 
However, due to the proximity of private extensionists to livestock field schools, the producers that lived 
close to these field schools received the most visits. Secondly, as mentioned above in the evaluation 
design and methodology section, funding and COVID-19 related constraints limited project activities and 
impacted the number of farm visits.
Figure 18. Milk Productivity Growth, with Farm Visits as a Proxy for Level of Technical Assistance37
Perceptions of producers, processors, and POs with whom we spoke are in line with this data on milk 
productivity, with increased productivity recorded at the farm and processing level due to the livestock 
field schools and associated technical assistance and grants delivered by the project38. Seventy-five 
percent of beneficiary producers said the project led to increased productivity for their farm, while 76% 
of processors reported they were able to invest in new technology of which 84% reported this 
technology improved their productivity. Beneficiary producers perceived that project activities directly 
led to increased household incomes (71%) and increased sales (73%). For processors, 73% reported that 
they gained new clients due to project activities. As shown in the table below, perceptions of impact on 
37 Data is farm visit data drawn from project M&E database, collected by project extensionists. 38 Average milk productivity growth was not measured by the evaluators for beneficiary producers who only received one farm 
visit, since these producers were not visited again by project extensionists to track productivity.
71
productivity and impact on household income vary significantly by province, with the eastern provinces 
tending to lag.
Table 13. Perceptions of Impact on Milk Productivity and Household Income Vary by Province
Your productivity has increased My household income has increased
thanks to project activities
Province Total Responses % Yes Total Responses % Yes
Dajabon 67 81% 68 75%
Duarte 17 71% 17 71%
El Seibo 15 40% 15 53%
Hato Mayor 10 50% 10 50%
Independencia 10 80% 10 90%
La Altagracia 19 47% 19 63%
Maria Trinidad Sánchez 7 100% 7 100%
Monte Plata 30 83% 30 83%
Puerto Plata 48 77% 48 67%
San Juan 43 74% 43 70%
Santiago Rodriguez 39 85% 40 70%
Milk quality
Measuring milk quality can be challenging and a cause of controversy between producers and MCCs. 
This is due to the fact that producers may produce grade “A” milk at the farm, but by the time it reaches 
the MCC it may have spoiled due to lack of proper cold storage during transport, or else producers may 
not even know the quality of the milk they produce but may believe MCCs are trying to rip them off 
when they tell them they must take a lower price for lower grades of milk. There are also issues at the 
MCC level, where milk is often mixed and 
one bad batch can ruin the quality of the 
whole quantity. The SAFE project activities 
to strengthen MCC management and milk 
handling practices for participating MCCs 
and processors as well as provide technical 
assistance and investments, such as milking 
parlors, at the farm levels were aimed at 
improving the milk quality sold by producers 
to MCCs and from MCCs to processors and 
retailers. The project also worked with
CONALECHE on milk quality and INDOCAL to 
provide training for producers and MCCs on 
technical standards and food labelling 
standards, though in our KIIs with INDOCAL 
they noted that producer participation was low.
The key results indicator for milk quality is “Percentage increase in volume of grade "A" milk sold to 
processors by USDA supported milk collection centers,” which was given an initial goal of 50% increase 
over the course of the project. As noted in the section above, this is one of the 6 results indicators 
Figure 19. Dropping Off Milk at a MCC in Dajabon
72
where the project fell short of meeting its targets, with a 36% improvement over the period of the 
project. Most of these gains were made over the last two years of the project, and it is likely that the 
first two years of minimal work in the field is the primary contributing factor for missing this target.
Additionally, even where improvements were made at both the priduction and MCC levels, lack of 
proper cold storage during transport is a major obstacle to increaseing milk quality which needs to be 
addressed.
Farm-level improvements in quality made through technical assistance by private extensionists as part 
of the livestock field schools, had some success in improving milk quality as well as productivity. One 
example, Association of Cattle Ranchers of Santiago Rodríguez (AGASAR) received a one-year matching 
grant from SAFE to support an extension agent who in turn provided technical assistance and training to 
the association’s producers, leading to an improvement in the association’s milk quality from Grade C to 
A, increasing the value of milk delivered to AGASAR’s MCC by 10% per liter.39 While some producers and 
processors spoke glowingly of the project’s technical assistance and its impact on their milk quality, 
other processors told us that milk quality from the producers who supplied them had not improved for 
them or in one case was even worse than before (due to the drought and producers even diluting the 
milk with water at times). As can be seen in Table 13, below, the improvements in quality as perceived
by surveyed beneficiary producers – varied significantly by province. As with the variations in 
perceptions of increased productivity and incomes, the lower perceived increases in quality also tend to 
be in the eastern provinces. Although the Dairy Industry Decree 392-19 (published in November 2019) 
calls for regular inspections, it was not clear to the evaluation team that these inspections were 
frequently conducted and data regarding such inspections was not available.40
Table 14. Producer Perceptions of Increased Quality Due to SAFE Project Activities
The quality of your products have increased
Province Total Responses % Yes
Dajabon 67 81%
Duarte 17 71%
El Seibo 15 40%
Hato Mayor 10 50%
Independencia 10 80%
La Altagracia 19 47%
Maria Trinidad Sánchez 7 100%
Monte Plata 30 83%
Puerto Plata 48 77%
San Juan 43 74%
Santiago Rodriguez 39 85%
B. Project Legacy
The legacy of the SAFE project over the coming years will depend greatly on what actions are taken as 
the project closes to ensure the sustainability of its successful activities. This will be discussed further in
the Recommendations section below. With the right follow-through, the SAFE project has a chance to 
39 SAFE Project. “Performance Report Summary: October 1, 2019-March 30, 2020,” April 2020. 40 Decree 392-19 for the Dairy Industry. November 19, 2019.
73
leave a legacy of introducing best practices and building the capacity of the livestock sector and related 
government entities to raise quality and productivity to new heights. 
The SAFE project is perceived to have been the first program in many years to address the needs of the 
livestock sector at the level of the producer. 41 The introduction of private extensionists has been well￾received by producers and POs alike and promises to be an important part the value chain for the 
foreseeable future, as long as a way to continue their financing is found beyond the end of the project. 
SAFE has provided 80% of the funding to this point and as the funding has ended, the POs renegotiated 
their agreements to pay the private extensionists and only four out of the original 28 remained as of the 
time of the final evaluation. Most POs have not continued paying the extensionists (though this may be 
in part due to COVID-19). 
SAFE also made unprecedented progress towards readying DR to reinstate FSIS certification of 
equivalence. Should this be obtained, as expected in the near future, this will be an important legacy of 
the project. The project has built the capacity of health and agriculture ministries to inspect the 
slaughterhouses and private investments have been made (complemented with grants) to meet
international quality standards. The upgrading of the beef sector’s practices – including establishing 
quality norms and HACCP certification – are a fact whether or not equivalence is granted.
C. Impact: Conclusions
• EQ4.1 What was the impact of the project on…
1) Increased household income: 71% of beneficiary producers reported that their household 
incomes increased due to project activities.
2) Increased agricultural productivity: Milk productivity improved according to a number of
approaches for measurement of l/c/d. Comparing the productivity of beneficiary producers with 
the comparison group we see 15% increase in l/c/d. This lines up favorably with data from farm 
visits, which show even higher rates of improvement for producers who received regular farm 
visits from extensionists for an extended period of time.
3) Increased market access and expanded trade: While great progress has been made towards 
achieving FSIS certification of equivalence, there will not be impact on expanded market access 
and trade until it is approved.
4) Increased quality of agricultural products: There was a 36% improvement in the indicator, 
“Percentage increase in volume of grade "A" milk sold to processors by USDA supported milk 
collection centers.” This fell short of the 50% improvement target, due to the shortened period 
that the livestock field schools were operating as well as a continued need for infrastructure and 
management improvements at MCCs.
5) Increased public and private extension services: Few producers had frequent access to 
extension services prior to the SAFE project. Through the project, MEGALECHE extensionists 
were supplemented by private extensionists co-financed with POs, with great success. Finding
sources for long term financing for private extensionists will be a primary challenge for 
sustainable impact.
• EQ4.2 How does the beneficiaries’ perception of the project’s achievements, especially the 
increase in productivity and income vary across value chains and regions?
41 There was a well-known program funded by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) several decades ago that first 
introduced extension and other technical assistance to the sector (several of the second phase team members had worked on 
that project).
74
Perceptions of impact on household income seem to be lower in in the eastern provinces (50% 
in Hato Mayor, 53% in El Seibo, 63% in La Altagracia) and generally seem to follow patterns of 
perception of milk productivity and milk quality improvements which are similarly lower in those 
same provinces.
• EQ4.3 What is the legacy of the project? Organize achievement categories from most 
significant impact to least significant impact. 
If equivalence is achieved, as is expected, this will be the crowning legacy of the SAFE project. 
The introduction of private extensionists and the livestock field school methodology have 
changed mindsets and been well-received by producers and POs alike. If made sustainable, they 
should provide a lasting influence on the livestock value chain and the increasing productivity 
and quality of milk and beef.
• EQ4.4 Which activities were the most successful and the least successful? Why? Breakdown by 
intervention / activity. 
The most successful activities were those pertaining on one hand to equivalence and increasing 
SPS practices for the beef sector and on the other hand the livestock field schools and the 
technical assistance on milk productivity and quality, breeding, and farm management, that was 
reinforced through the private extensionists. On the other hand, the Seal of Quality was not fully 
developed, due in part to a lack of political will and in part due to premature market conditions.
• EQ4.5 To what extent have beef and dairy ranchers’ capacity to respond to on-farm shocks 
and daily activities improved as a result of the project, and why? 
Training in farm management practices, as well as improvements in productivity and quality,
have allowed producers to earn more revenue and more able to prepare financially for shocks 
such as recurring droughts and COVID-19. In other cases, infrastructure investments through the 
grants program, such as solar panels, have added to producer resilience according to KIIs with 
project stakeholders. 
• EQ4.6 How has the project’s activities strengthened local producer organization’s governance, 
member services and equity, as well as incomes?
While producer organizations (POs) received extensive training and capacity building, the 
project did not sufficiently prepare POs to continue the successful activities beyond the end of 
the SAFE project. Further, production shortfalls and depressed prices due to COVID-19 have 
further weakened PO incomes and their ability to self-finance extension services and other 
support for their member producers. This is despite 71% individual beneficiary farmers reporting 
a perceived increase in income due to project interventions.
3.6. Sustainability 
A. Technical Sustainability
While the project has shown areas of significant impact, the technical sustainability of the project is not 
assured, at the producer level especially. As has been mentioned above, as the private extensionists
hired through the SAFE project’s 80%-20% cost sharing with POs no longer continue to support the 
producers, as the project is coming to a close. While COVID-19 may play a factor in this, it is also clear 
that despite widespread acclaim of the private extensionists and the livestock field school methodology, 
the POs are unable or unwilling to fund them on their own. No plan has been put in place to ensure their 
75
sustainability as project closes, risking a loss of momentum on one of the SAFE project’s greatest areas 
of success.
Similarly, experts on various technical areas in the value chain (e.g., genetics) no longer provide services 
as there is no other initiative to continue funding their activities. However, one promising finding from 
the survey, is that 88% of beneficiary producers say that they will continue to be able to apply the 
techniques they learned through the livestock field schools after the project is completed.
Improvements made through new norms regarding SPS and co-investments at slaughterhouses (and to 
some extent at MCCs) are also likely here to stay. However, a plan for continued support for these 
activities is necessary if impact is to be had over the long term for the livestock value chain.
B. Financial Sustainability 
Likewise, the financial sustainability of project activities is not assured as the project did not generate a 
cost-recovery mechanism or other measure to allow its continuity. This is a flaw in the project's original 
design, and so far, there are no other public institutions or international donors prepared to continue 
funding for the project’s successful activities. That said, there are several donor and government 
initiatives that could be tapped to support the sustainability of successful SAFE interventions, if an effort 
were to be made to understand their goals for the sector, and a collective vision was developed with 
buy-in from leading private sector actors. 
Producer organizations and other stakeholders welcome continued interventions but have not taken 
ownership of the objectives as something they can mobilize resources for and manage progress against. 
While capacity building has helped expand the capabilities of local organizations in many ways, local 
leadership has not been built to carry on and expand on many of the successes of the project. Some of 
this is due to financial constraints. As many POs mentioned to us in KIIs, recurring droughts and the 
COVID-19 pandemic have sapped resources and made it even more difficult for them to support 
producers adequately. 
C. Institutional Sustainability 
Progress towards achieving FSIS Equivalence has built a great deal of momentum and there is short-term 
optimism among most stakeholders that it will be achieved. The key to sustainability will be maintaining 
political will with the new government. So far, political will seems to remain strong and working 
relationships between government entities involved in the equivalence process have been strengthened 
through the SAFE project. However, it will be important to develop a longer-term plan with the 
government and other value chain stakeholders, especially if some of the more problematic issues are 
to be addressed (e.g., laboratories, strengthening of the primary linkages of the beef value chains).
76
At the end of the SAFE project there remains great 
opportunity to modernize the MCCs and improve 
practices and norms related to hygiene at the producer 
level. As pointed out in a KII with Organic Valley, start￾and-stop projects can be harmful when trying to 
implement long-term behavior change such as that 
necessary to improve milk quality. It will be necessary to 
ensure continuity of efforts as the SAFE project closes to 
ensure progress continues to move forward and that 
improvements are maintained. This should be done in 
such a way as to mitigate the effects of project start and 
stop which plague donor-funded programs. Convening 
government, international donors, and value chain actors 
will be an important first step towards ensuring 
sustainable progress in the livestock sector.
D. Sustainability: Conclusions 
● EQ5.1 To what extent have local actors (JAD, cooperatives and farmers' organizations, MCCs, 
slaughterhouses, local government and civil society groups) been involved in the management 
of the project? 
Local actors have played a key role in the management of the project. JAD was the key 
implementing partner of NCBA CLUSA for the SAFE project, responsible in part for supporting 
extension services and building producer capacity. In this role they played a significant part in 
activities at the producer level, despite challenges in the early years of the project with activity 
design and stakeholder coordination. Slaughterhouses and government agencies including 
DIGEGA and DIGEMAPS have played a key role in activities related to FSIS equivalence. Producer 
organizations were committed and participated, but their role is not best described as 
management.
● EQ5.2 Which local counterparts have increased their capabilities to continue with the project’s 
actions, and why? 
The most dramatic increase in capability was on the part of the government agency charged 
with regulating sanitary conditions of beef production (DIGEMAPS). Producer organizations and 
other stakeholders have increased their capacity but have not taken ownership of the project’s 
objectives and activities moving forward. Measures must be taken to find sustainable ways to 
finance key project activities for sustainable impact to be made.
● EQ5.3 Which partnerships were the strongest and why? 
Among the strongest partnerships of the SAFE project have been those related to preparing for 
equivalence, particularly those with DIGEMAPS and the slaughterhouses. At the producer level, 
partnerships with POs were also particularly strong with enthusiastic participation for the most 
part. POs, particularly livestock associations, were strategically important to the project due to 
their position as intermediaries with producers in the value chain who were a key beneficiary of 
Figure 20. Team Leader Lara Goldmark 
Interviewing ADHA President Ricardo Barcelo
77
the project. The associations, through co-investments and operational support, played a key role 
in the hiring of private extensionists and support of the livestock field schools. 
● EQ5.4 What is the probability that these actors will be able to provide succession? 
With the new government, there are stakeholders keen to continue support for the growth of 
the sector. There are also international actors, such as the IDB which has an upcoming project 
which may have interest in supporting successful activities in the livestock sector. Specifically, 
there is an agricultural census planned and local stakeholders should advocate to ensure this 
moves forward. Financial institutions are also ready to be included at the table, as indicated by 
key informant interviews. Measures should be taken during the close-out of the project to 
convene government and other value chain stakeholders to find ways to continue building upon 
the achievements of the SAFE project, otherwise there is a low chance that local stakeholders 
will take ownership and provide succession for the project’s activities.
● EQ5.5 Are the techniques and technologies used in the project easy to maintain locally? To 
what extent are the conditions for local control of these techniques and technologies 
guaranteed? Are people facing any additional challenges in light of the pandemic? Prioritize 
activities to continue after the project closes from most likely to least likely.
Yes, at both the producer and processor levels techniques provided by the livestock field schools 
and technical assistance are easy to maintain locally and should continue to be used beyond the 
end of the project. For beneficiary producers, 88% say that they will continue to be able to apply 
the techniques they learned after the project. One area where it will be more difficult to 
maintain without further support will be breeding/artificial insemination. An illustrative list of 
activities which should be prioritized for continuation, as discussed in the Recommendations, 
would be follow through on Equivalence, mainstreaming the livestock field school methodology, 
and finding sustainable ways to maintain the private extensionists.
● EQ5.6 To what extent do the project interventions support and stimulate the local economy?
Increased milk productivity and milk quality have direct impact on farmer incomes. As 
mentioned in the Impact section above, 71% producers surveyed told us that they perceived
that their incomes increased due to SAFE project activities. If equivalence is achieved, there will 
be a clear opportunity for beef exports to Puerto Rico according to the market study conducted 
by the project. The ability to place this industrial meat product will allow meat producers to sell 
more of the higher end cuts to local supermarkets and hotels (assuming tourism recovers in the 
medium term.) To obtain more precise data, we suggest developing a detailed value chain map 
that contains quantitative indicators related to volumes, price points, and quality; in both the 
dairy and beef chains. Given that the project has recently gathered good quality data on the 
farm level for diary production, emphasis should be placed on mapping buyers and supporting 
service actors. If additional farm-level data gathering is conducted, it should be done so in the 
context of the national agricultural census, planned as part of the Inter-American Development 
Bank’s upcoming project. For the beef value chain, a quite viable value chain upgrading strategy 
has been discussed among the stakeholders involved in preparing for equivalence; this could 
serve as a road map.
78
● EQ5.7 Which of the following project impacts are likely to be sustained and/or scaled-up after 
the project closes? 1) Increased household income, 2) Increased agricultural productivity, 3) 
Increased market access and trade, 4) Increased quality of products.
Table 15. Impacts Most Likely to be Sustained or Scaled Post-Project
Increased 
household 
income
This should be able to be sustained; to scale up and continue increasing 
incomes, the below impacts will need to be continued.
Increased 
agricultural 
productivity
Major progress was made here but further support to livestock field schools and 
private extension will be needed in medium term. Productivity growth in terms 
liters/cow/day varied widely by province, with Puerto Plata and Hato Mayor 
exhibiting the largest growth at 43% and 39%, and Independencia and La 
Altagracia experiencing negative productivity growth of -5% and -4% 
respectively (see Figure 16).
Increased market 
access and 
expanded trade
This will depend on achieving equivalence. Further work is needed on the dairy 
side.
Increased quality 
of agricultural 
products
Progress was made here but further support is needed to obtain buy-in (i.e., 
contribution of resources) from value chain actors and scale up. Improved 
quality will require increased focus on mitigation of chemical dangers like 
pesticides, drugs, and natural toxins, biological hazards like pathogens 
(Salmonella, E Coli, etc.), and physical dangers like wear of equipment and 
careless handling. 
For each of the impact mentioned above, there is potential sustained and scalable impact if the 
right follow-up measures are taken along with the government and other stakeholders. For 
producers who were direct beneficiaries of the project, the impacts on productivity and income 
should hold to some extent in any case, because the practices which producers learned through 
the livestock field schools are easy to maintain. Increased market access and trade will rely in 
large part on equivalence being achieved, and increased quality of products is an area where 
more work is still needed, though progress has been made.
● EQ5.8 Identify and explain short and mid-term challenges to sustain program results, and 
what actions could be taken before the end of the project to mitigate those challenges, if any.
As described in detail through this report (see especially the Efficiency section), there have been 
several challenges to the achieving results. The delay in implementation of project activities over 
the first two years of the project prior to new leadership, problems with the M&E database, 
recurring droughts which affected milk productivity, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The project 
mitigated these challenges through installing new leadership, auditing the M&E data and 
implementing a new SharePoint-based M&E database, and through adjustments to program 
activities to address the droughts and pandemic. However, more could have been done starting
at the program design phase (see Relevance section). Despite these challenges the project has 
achieved impact, but for this to be sustainable further action is needed (see Recommendations).
79
● EQ5.9 To what extent are local government actors likely to achieve FSIS equivalence and 
continue strengthening the food safety inspection system?
Most project, government, and value chain stakeholders we spoke with think it is likely that 
equivalence will be achieved. TAMU staff, who ran the mock-audit in preparation for the FSIS 
audit originally scheduled for March 2020, told us that they believe equivalence would have 
already been achieved had the COVID-19 pandemic not occurred and postponed the audit 
indefinitely. 
● EQ5.10 To what extent did modifying the traditional training methodology to the 
methodology in the “Collective Efficiency Schools” permit improved learning and application 
of the concepts?
Adapting the collective efficiency schools (CES) methodology to a horizontal format similar to 
the livestock field schools was generally perceived by relevant stakeholders as a success, despite 
the forced moved to a virtual format due to the pandemic. CES allowed the training of 517 
slaughterhouse employees and DIGEMAPS staff in HACCP and other topics relevant for 
improving SPS measures and achieving equivalence.
80
81
4.Conclusions 
The findings of the Final Evaluation of the SAFE project make clear that despite a slow start and external 
challenges posed by recurring droughts and the COVID-19 pandemic, the project achieved some 
significant accomplishments. These include most prominently:
1. Progress made towards achieving FSIS Equivalence for beef exports to the US, which most likely 
would have been achieved had not the pandemic delayed the audit scheduled for March 2020. 
2. Improvements in HACCP, and sanitary practices and norms and through private co-investments 
in slaughterhouses participating in the SAFE project.
3. Proof of concept of the livestock field school methodology, enhanced by the use of private 
extensionists to provide hands-on training, technical assistance, and accompaniment for 
livestock producers.
Relevance: The SAFE project provided a comprehensive program design with activities that were 
relevant to the needs of the livestock sector (dairy and beef). Seventy-eight percent of the beneficiary 
producers we surveyed reported the livestock field schools as being beneficial to them and 79% of 
processors and MCCs reported that they received high quality services from the project. Nevertheless, 
there were several challenges from the beginning of the project. The first was the lack of sufficient
multi-stakeholder participation in the project design, despite the whole-of-value chain scope of the
project. Secondly, no foundational value chain assessment was conducted at the early stages of the 
project, to inform interventions and ensure realistic targets for results indicators. This was exacerbated 
by a lack of clarity of beneficiary focus in the design phase. Finally, a third challenge was the failure to 
anchor program interventions upon an initial agreement with public sector and private sector 
stakeholders on key goals and aspects of measurement, to achieve stakeholder buy-in and a clear plan 
for sustainability at the project’s conclusion. 
Effectiveness: The activities of the project were effectively implemented, with a high level of 
achievement (90% of key activity indicators achieved at 100% or more). However, results achievement 
has been lower (68% of results indicators reaching 100% or more), in part due to delays in the first two 
years of the project and the COVID-19 pandemic. Progress towards achieving FSIS equivalence is a major 
milestone for the livestock sector and the progress made in improving norms and sanitary practices at 
participating slaughterhouses is here to stay. At the producer level, the livestock field schools and 
private extensionists co-financed by the project were a major achievement, and piloted successful 
practices for improving milk productivity significantly. Activities related to access to finance and to the 
Seal of Quality for dairy products were less effective.
Efficiency: The major obstacle to results achievement for the SAFE project was the lack of progress 
made in the first two years of the project. Staffing changes made in 2018 greatly accelerated project 
activities, and the quantity and quality of results achieved in the last two years of the project speak for 
themselves. However, the delays in the first phase, challenges with the project’s M&E systems, large
scale of the project’s implementation area, and lack of clear criteria for distributing grants were hard to 
overcome entirely and contributed to the shortfall in achieving the project’s results indicator targets.
82
Impact: The SAFE project’s activities demonstrated impact in several areas. Most notably, the project is 
one of the few to address the livestock producer level in the DR, and for those producers who 
participated in the livestock field schools and associated technical assistance the impact on productivity 
has been significant. Most producers surveyed for this evaluation also claim increases in household 
incomes due to project activities. The introduction of private extensionists has been well-received and 
promises to be an important part of the value chain if a way to continue their financing is found beyond 
the end of the project. Improvements in milk quality were made, but improvements including those in 
transportation and infrastructure at the MCCs are still needed to see the level of progress anticipated in 
the project’s targets for milk quality. Increased market access for beef exports and trade have not seen 
any impact as of yet, but should equivalence be achieved as is anticipated by most stakeholders we 
spoke with, then the impact here could be significant as well. At the end of the day, the legacy of the 
SAFE project will depend very much on reinstatement of FSIS equivalence and on what actions are taken 
as the project closes to ensure the sustainability of its successful activities.
Sustainability: The SAFE project has had some notable successes, and the techniques taught in the 
livestock field schools and improvements made in the slaughterhouses are still being used today. 
However, long-term sustainability will require continued engagement by local stakeholders, and if 
possible continued investments in project interventions. Most extensionists hired by the project already 
have stopped providing support to the producers as the project’s funding has come to a close. As of yet, 
no local actors have stepped up to take the lead, and while the technical capacities of POs have been 
strengthened, they have not embraced a leadership role in moving forward the project’s objectives. JAD
did indicate that in interviews for this evaluation that they are interested in continuing to support the 
private extension program, and APROLECHE is another local organization that expressed interest in 
supporting work to further develop the sector. These organizations are potential catalysts for a 
coordinated local effort to ensure sustainability. The SAFE project should initiate and/or continue 
conversations with these organizations and the new government of DR to ensure the continuation the 
project’s successful interventions.
83
84
5.Recommendations 
These recommendations are designed to take the accomplishments of the SAFE project and build upon 
them in a way that leads to sustainable interventions that grow the beef and dairy sectors through 
increased productivity, quality, and trade. To develop them, the team drew from the findings of this 
evaluation, the lessons learned, and the insights of stakeholders we interviewed from the project team, 
the government, and the livestock (beef and dairy) value chain. We include a frank discussion of several 
major issues that might normally be considered beyond the scope of a routine evaluation. This is 
because we have been encouraged to do so in our interviews with USDA, program staff, and local 
stakeholders; and because we genuinely believe there is potential to build on the work of the SAFE 
project to continue to upgrade the livestock value chain in the Dominican Republic. It is therefore with 
the best intentions that we: (i) raise issues related to the original project design, overarching objectives, 
and associated results frameworks; (ii) recognize management and implementation challenges; (iii) 
question expectations for working with data; (iv) identify how, where, and to what degree project 
activities appear to have generated impact; and finally (v) suggest a path forward, with the clear 
understanding that there is still more work to do. Recommendations related to items (i-iv) are general, 
while those related to (v) are designed to be immediately actionable in the current context in the 
Dominican Republic.
Project design, objectives, and results frameworks 
Livestock value chains globally pose many unique challenges, requiring constant intensive care in the 
form of feeding, watering, management, and healthcare42. The Dominican Republic is no exception, and 
there are additional particularities: small market size and island location, recurring droughts, split 
oversight responsibility between the Ministry of Agriculture and Health, and a custom in some cases of 
delegating farm management to third parties.
The SAFE project was designed to achieve two objectives, (1) raise productivity, and (2) increase exports. 
These two objectives do not always naturally pull in the same direction, even when they are for the 
same product - as smaller producers most in need of improving productivity generally differ from larger 
producers with export potential. In the case of SAFE, the productivity objective is more relevant for milk 
while the export objective is more relevant for beef – yet this was not explicitly clarified. Nor was it clear 
whether the goal was to work with small, medium, or large producers. Perhaps it should have been. 
Any value chain has multiple problems at multiple levels. There is a tendency for large donor projects, 
and especially those funded by the US government, to make large lists of those problems, and to check 
off the outputs of problem-solving efforts as they are implemented, and then to expect that these will 
add up. Sometimes they don’t43. In the case of SAFE, this can be reflected in the efforts to contact and 
train large numbers of livestock producers and other stakeholders (sometimes reaching up to 6,000% of 
targets). Yet, these efforts did not translate into full achievement of the higher-level productivity and 
quality goals in the dairy value chain. We suggest that the use of a generic USDA results framework 
42 Don Humpal. Agricultural expert. Key Informant Interview. September 2021. 43 See William Easterly. “Multilateral development banks: promoting effectiveness and fighting corruption: “Accountability for 
multilateral development banks”,” Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, 2006. 
http://williameasterly.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/senateforeignrelationscommittee_oraltestimony_032806.pdf
and the discussion of complexity theory and competing accountability demands in Sarah Holzapfel. “Boosting or Hindering Aid 
Effectiveness? An Assessment of Systems for Measuring Donor Agency Results,” Public Administration and Development, vol. 
36, no. 1, February 2016, pps 3-19. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pad.1749
85
within which FFPr projects operate and design their own sub-framework is practical, yet in the reporting 
from implementers to USDA, may lead to a glossing over of the particular challenges that projects 
experience and the discussion about how activity indicators are feeding into results. There are also too 
many indicators, and too many activities, to manage effectively. There was so much effort put in by SAFE 
staff to conduct outreach in all eleven provinces in order to achieve these goals, whereas it may have 
been more beneficial to work with a smaller geographical area at first, reaching proof-of-concept with 
behavior changes achieved through the livestock field schools and the accompanying productivity and 
quality improvements, and then expanding to other regions. This may also have been more manageable 
for JAD, the local implementation partner, to handle44.
USDA should recognize project results frameworks and ensure that everyone (project team, USDA, 
external stakeholders) agrees the objectives are feasible to achieve and that activity level outputs can 
indeed be expected to trigger the achievement of outcomes. External stakeholders can be a valuable 
voice in this case because they may be more willing than an implementer to holler when they see 
something wrong. Quality and productivity indicators should be consistent with the measurements used 
in local markets (unless a part of the intervention is to change measurement norms) so that private 
sector partners can see clearly the value that is being created. This ground truthing of the results 
framework and indicators with stakeholders can take time; and should be repeated periodically. If the 
indicators aren’t interesting to the stakeholders (which is sometimes the case) that should be a red flag 
that the project is overly output-focused.
Below is an analysis of three key challenges the program faced. Following that is a table that presents 
recommendations for future projects to develop the livestock value chain, whether funded by USDA,
other donors active in the Dominican Republic. The final paragraphs detail a set of actions that are 
appropriate to take regardless of international donor involvement – i.e., relevant for government and 
local business leaders; and are based on the insights and ideas of local stakeholders interviewed during 
the evaluation. 
1) Management and implementation challenges 
Successful leaders of development projects know how to solve problems and work with stakeholders, 
including donors, to adjust and adapt activities and goals so that the project continues to move in the 
general direction of the desired outcomes, even if in some cases these are not identical to the planned 
or expected activities and outcomes. What makes a good – adaptive – leader, however, is not always 
aligned with the way donors and their implementers screen candidates to be project director at the 
proposal and project initiation phase45. 
In the case of SAFE, there was general agreement that the first project management team did not 
perform as well as hoped, and we as the evaluation team took that statement at face value and don’t 
44 As one stakeholder put it, “JAD was in way over their head with the size and scope of the program, so that impacted how 
effective they actually were in coordinating these activities, communicating with all the stakeholders, and getting to know the 
strengths and weaknesses of support institutions in order to strengthen them.” 45 Screening is more related to credentials, technical experience, and past experience with similar projects or donors. 
Management experience is considered, but management is not the same as leadership, and development requires leadership. 
“Soft” skills and ability to persuade are not considered, at least “on paper.” Given that project award decisions are made at the 
same time as staffing decisions, and these are conducted by reviewing proposal documents, there is little opportunity for more 
nuanced evaluations of project leaders. Some USAID and MCC selection processes recently have begun to require a 
presentation by the project team prior to award, as CLUSA did before awarding the evaluation contract to Just Results.
86
recommend spending much time or energy trying to analyze it. We also were told – and in this case the 
data speaks for itself - that the second project team made incredible strides and that due to them the 
project was able to achieve the results that it did. This also we do not contest and we commend that 
second team for its hard work, talent, and performance. That said, it is important not to personalize the 
performance of projects and rather, ask the question why it was difficult to perform, and how the 
project could have been better set up for success in the first place.
Most initiatives (start-up business, non-profit, fund-raising campaign, etc.) are asked to start small, 
prove themselves, and then expand. 46 Many donor-funded projects, in an effort to solve large problems, 
set up large teams and structures right from the get-go, without requiring these teams and structures to 
prove that they can perform and deliver results. Each project is unique, as is each team - and yet so 
many projects in international development face personnel issues, especially at the beginning. Project 
directors and component leaders with the right technical qualifications may not mesh well; individuals 
appointed to represent their organizations in consortium arrangements are not always adequately 
backed by their organizations nor are they necessarily knowledgeable in how to manage the institutional 
partnership and make the project work at the same time. At the end of the day, all of this distracts 
immensely from what should be the most important task at hand: engaging with stakeholders, 
developing buy-in for a collective vision, and rolling out project activities not for their own sake, but as 
catalysts for a larger process of transformative change. 47 How to do that is likely to change over the life 
of any project; therefore, activities and budgets should be expected to change. 
In the case of SAFE, the lost social capital and credibility that came with the early years of struggling, 
meant that there were serious limits to what the second, highly qualified and motivated, team could do. 
Cultural norms in the Dominican Republic also favor non-confrontational problem solving, which often 
takes longer than direct, less diplomatic methods. This was mentioned in the KIIs with project staff and
confirmed by the leader of the Dominican data collection team. This is why, when we see what was 
achieved in such a short time (the increases in milk productivity for farmers receiving multiple visits, the 
progress towards equivalence, and the successful work-around to ensure the availability of laboratory 
testing services) we can only say that even more could have been achieved in that same time period if 
the system for financing and overseeing these types of projects was a bit more flexible in terms of 
permitting – even demanding – changes in focus and resource allocation as needed.
2) Working with data 
Every member of the evaluation team will acknowledge that the data challenges encountered greatly 
affected the ability to complete the work in a timely manner. Once they were solved, we were able to 
get what we needed, however, there were many more questions we could have asked and many more 
comparisons that could have been made if – and only if --- the relevant baseline, mid-term, and 
program-level information had been gathered from the beginning, checked, cleaned and stored in an 
46 Neil C. Churchill and Virginia L. Lewis. “The Five Stages of Small Business Growth,” Harvard Business Review, May 1983. 
https://hbr.org/1983/05/the-five-stages-of-small-business-growth 47 Lavagnon A. Ika and Jennifer Donnelly, “Success conditions for international development capacity building projects,” 
International Journal of Project Management, vol. 35, no. 1, January 2017, pps 44-63. 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263786316301855
Radmila Miković, Dejan Petrović, Marko Mihić, Vladimir Obradović, and Marija Todorović. “The integration of social capital and 
knowledge management – The key challenge for international development and cooperation projects of nonprofit 
organizations,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 38, no. 8, 2020, pps. 515-533. 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263786320300569
87
organized fashion, and made available prior to the field work. Questions like changes in household
income, which admittedly can be quite difficult to measure, might have been addressed via some 
proxies. In the DR as elsewhere, most farmers don’t keep accurate production records or financials, 
sometimes related to a lack of education or training but often linked to local customs and norms, as well 
as fear of increased taxes. As has been done for decades however in other fields such as microfinance or
nutrition, there are sometimes proxies for income (such as ownership of cellphones, eating patterns, 
home improvements, farm improvements) that can be tracked to complement perception data. In this 
report, the best that could be done was a self-reported perception of “my income increased” or “my 
income did not increase” due to participation in project activities. The same goes for changes in 
agricultural practices. Other data such as that related to milk quality or prices, would be valuable for the 
private sector. Likewise, the registry of producers that the project now possesses, after the work to 
clean and confirm producer contact information, is something that surpasses what the Ministry of 
Agriculture has. The Inter-American Development Bank has approved a loan to finance an agricultural 
census; the Dominican Republic will be borrowing millions of dollars to pay for this census. USDA just 
spent millions of dollars for a project that gathered data that is relevant to this census. 
Going forward, it is recommended to develop a plan by which data collected by the SAFE project (and 
ideally other development projects) can be pooled and shared with government counterparts, and that 
lessons learned, and systems developed to track data contribute to the efforts of those institutions to 
develop and maintain their own systems. Of course, this must be done without violating data privacy 
principles. The SAFE project did take a step in the direction, by transferring SAFE transferred ownership 
of the project’s PROGIS database to DIGEGA in March 2021.
As mentioned earlier in the section on value chains, and related to the programmatic recommendations 
that follow, value chain data should be gathered and made available to stakeholders in order to 
encourage improved performance, competition, reward productivity and quality, increase awareness 
about how good hygiene and other practices relate to quality and price. Whether or not quality price 
premiums are being charged is a valuable piece of information that should also be tracked. The days of 
data serving solely for the project to manage its own activities or report to the client are over. Data is 
ultimately one of the most valuable assets a program can leave behind, and great care should be taken 
to consider the best way to do this that contributes to overall health and transparency of a system.48
Good data management is considered a best practice, not to be confused with spending money on 
software. The data framework and use case should drive information technology choices rather than the 
other way around49. As can be seen by the fact that at the end the SAFE project ended up with an 
adequate system using Microsoft Access and PowerBI with SharePoint for storage and sharing, there are 
more often than not perfectly adequate off-the-shelf systems available for data storage and 
management.
48 Cameron Neylon. “Compliance Culture or Culture Change? The role of funders in improving data management and sharing 
practice amongst researchers.” Research Ideas and Outcomes, vol 3, October 19, 2017. 
https://riojournal.com/articles.php?id=21705
49 Office of Management and Budget (OMB). “Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines for Federal Departments and Agencies that 
Administer United States Foreign Assistance,” January 11, 2018. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp￾content/uploads/2017/11/M-18-04-Final.pdf and IFAD. “A Guide for Project M&E,” 2002. 
https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714182/39723123/toc.pdf/e7c718e2-56b9-4f60-b404-3f31448a38a2 pp. 6-7.
88
3) Impact and targets are not the same 
The second SAFE project team naturally gravitated towards the activities that would have the greatest 
impact, because they were directly related to the higher-level objectives (i.e., exporting beef and 
increasing milk productivity). However, as discussed above they were limited by a number of factors, 
some related to project design and others to how international development projects are typically 
administered. In other words, by the new team took their positions, there was no way to question 
whether the project should be working in eleven provinces; no particular incentive to focus on areas of 
the value chain where the greatest leverage, or impact, could be achieved, and no mechanism set up to 
engage with buyers in a way that would bring a “demand-pull” logic into the change process. Table 16
below summarizes the areas where implementation led to impact and includes supporting data; offers 
comments on what could have been done (or can still be done) to enhance that impact, and also 
identifies the areas where impact was not achieved.
Table 16. Successful vs. Unsuccessful Activities and Recommendations for Future Projects
Successful activities Supporting data Recommendations
Livestock Field 
Schools
78% of producers surveyed said 
the livestock field schools were 
beneficial for them.
Finding sustainable financing sources for 
this activity (such as buyer contributions), 
and mainstreaming methodology with 
MEGALECHE in addition to the private 
extensionists.
Private Extension Surveys show a 15% higher 
productivity for beneficiary 
producers than the comparison 
group. This is in line with gains 
shown by farm visit data. Banks 
mentioned they considered the 
presence of high-quality 
extension services as a factor 
that reduced their credit risk.
More work with cooperatives to 
institutionalize the private extension 
services, and perhaps develop a system 
whereby cooperatives and/or members 
who provide/use these extension services 
can access funds.
More discussion with government actors 
on how to organize extension and ensure 
the right incentives. 
Selected grants to 
local organizations 
that reinforce the 
practices taught in 
livestock field 
schools.
300+ milking parlors built with 
project financing. 
Inputs for producers.
Grants supporting international 
TA (e.g., artificial insemination 
and breeding) and private 
extensionists (80%-20% cost 
sharing with POs)
See recommendations below on grant 
and reimbursable funding.
Find ways to allocate international TA 
effectively by responding directly to 
specific producer needs and supporting 
the adoption and follow up of new 
learning with producers.
Developing a 
Workaround for 
LAVECEN
Interviews and visits to 
laboratories; project records.
Possible ad hoc responsive support to 
encourage continued upgrading of local 
capacity. Important that this be done 
without taking on the large institutional 
issues that still exist.
89
Support to DIGEMAPS DIGEMAPS own ability to tell 
their story is exceptional.
Review support to software for 
inspectors. A good initiative but appears
back-office centric (a common issue with 
e-government software). Will require 
testing and iteration to ensure the 
process for the enterprises is 
streamlined. 
Support to 
Slaughterhouses
(including mock 
audits, grants, HAACP 
training)
Two participating
slaughterhouses (AGROCARNE 
and MERCARNE) passed the 
mock audit for FSIS Equivalence 
conducted by TAMU.
Network with Dominican Ambassador in 
Washington (as is being done) to make 
sure FSIS conducts the official audit soon.
Market Study (Puerto 
Rico)
Conducted by ASOCARNE 
President Enrique de Castro and 
Professor Greg Sullivan of Texas 
A&M University (TAMU). 
Conduct additional market studies, and 
follow up to what was done.
Activities that were 
not successful
Supporting data Recommendations
Access to Finance Only 41% of producers and 63% 
of processors we surveyed said 
they had access to finance after 
participation in project activities.
Needs to be designed in coordination 
with CONALECHE, Banco Agrícola, and 
private financial institutions. One 
intervention which may have potential 
would be to pilot financial products with 
savings and loan cooperatives linked to 
the associations of producers and buyers 
of milk. In partnership with private banks 
or microfinance institutions, technical 
assistance could be provided to one or 
two savings and credit cooperatives that 
want to work on the issue, financing 
product startup costs until break-even is 
reached.
Support to LAVECEN Interview notes and project 
records.
It may be better not to engage with 
LAVECEN until the institutional issues 
have been resolved. Note that IDB is 
planning comprehensive support to 
LAVECEN.
Monitoring and 
Evaluation (M&E)
Every interview with project staff 
referenced the issues with M&E. 
Identify possible conflicts and gray areas 
among multiple project objectives and 
clarify them. Allow for customization of 
results frameworks and ground-truthing 
with external stakeholders. Develop a 
value chain data framework with 
indicators that make sense to track from 
the perspective of local stakeholders; 
from those derive project-level data 
points, and only after that develop 
90
project-level targets and indicators. 
Budget for data collection about the 
value chain at the time of the baseline, 
the mid-term, and the final evaluation.
Ensure project indicators adequately 
reflect changes in farming practices 
resulting from specific interventions, for 
example activities related to genetics and 
animal reproductive health, milk quality, 
animal feed, animal health, and farm 
management.
The path forward 
Below are more general recommendations that build on insights and ideas shared during interviews by 
local value chain stakeholders. These apply more broadly to the development of the value chain and 
need not be associated with the particular activities that were implemented by SAFE.
Recommendations for future projects in this area fall under five general themes:
1. Collect data all along the value chain as a baseline for the project and for partners.
2. Continue to support livestock field schools and private extension services - with a partner (such 
as a milk buyer) that provides resources and commits to continue efforts.
3. Continue light support to beef value chain and other potential exporters. 
4. Use grant funds to catalyze specific, project-based investment opportunities in both value 
chains. Meanwhile, encourage the private sector to offer financial services.
5. Lead a collective visioning process involving all stakeholders.
Below are some additional thoughts about how, and in what sequence, to implement the 
recommendations.
1. Start with lean team and budget and add people and resources as the project proves itself. Maintain 
the ability to engage consultants and organizations in the provinces, making the project more field
centered. Do not personalize project performance, nor underestimate the importance of 
institutional partnerships and the effort and skills it takes to maintain them.
2. Conduct a thorough value chain analysis including quantitative data on price points, number of 
enterprises, etc., that will serve as the scaffolding to conceive and organize all interventions. Data 
collected will be systematized and maintained for tracking over the course of interventions and used 
to render tangible and quantifiable the coordination of, and synergies with, corresponding 
interventions by government agencies and other donors.
3. Convene sector vision workshops to design a systems approach to value chain interventions (one for 
dairy and one for beef). All stakeholders must be represented, including producers, processors, POs, 
businesses, government, and all active (and inactive but potential) donors. This is the key for 
ensuring sustainability. The first workshop could be national, followed by provincial level workshops 
91
in up to three provinces where uptake has been high for the new practices, such as: Puerto Plata, 
Monte Plata, Duarte, Santiago Rodriguez, and Dajabón50. The sector vision workshops could serve as 
a platform for local institutions to make long-term commitments towards the overall vision.
Interventions to be discussed and iterated through the sector vision workshops could include:
o Systematic outreach to buyers and development of a demand-pull strategy for each sub￾sector (beef and dairy).
o Work with government to simplify government procedures that affect the livestock 
sector (e.g., procurement, food safety), and review and reform of procedures and 
regulations related to cooperatives and associations.
o Continued support for successful interventions from SAFE – perhaps organized 
differently – including: 
a) expansion of private extensionists (requires conversation with government 
about role of MEGALECHE, and with government, donors, and buyers about 
ways to finance extension services through matching grants or other means) 
b) Continuation of livestock field school (LFS) methodology, and expansion of its 
use throughout the country (potential for CONALECHE to support and 
MEGALECHE to adopt as well).
o Upgrading the dairy value chain to build on the successful interventions of the SAFE 
project:
a) Support for improved pastures, livestock feed, and equipment.
b) Continued support for genetic improvements and artificial insemination 
practices building on the work done by the SAFE project.
c) Strengthen transport infrastructure, especially cold storage, to prevent milk 
quality degradation between farm and MCC.
d) Address need for access to electricity, including provision of solar panels.
o Continued light support to the beef value chain to build on success of achieving 
Equivalence:
a) Strengthening of the primary link in the beef value chain to ensure continued 
ability to export, including continued progress on productivity, health, genetics, 
and traceability.
b) Implement an automated meat inspection management system: while not 
required for Equivalence this will streamline processes that are currently 
conducted manually allowing for greater focus on other areas of need (this is an 
initiative which has already been proposed by the project).
c) Include the cost of the official meat analysis in the national budget, so 
DIGEMAPS can cover both microbiology and chemical residue tests.
d) Examine potential for a national fund for the beef sector, similar to CONALECHE 
for the milk sector.
4. Develop a small grants program that minimizes administrative burden but requires proactive goal 
setting and resource contributions from organizations seeking grants. Prior to grant announcements 
50 Similarly, if one were to turn back time to the beginning of the project, the recommendation would have been to concentrate 
in provinces with significant dairy activity where the livestock field schools could have served as a major proof-of-concept and 
then expanded to the rest of the country. Those provinces could have been, for example: Dajabon, Santiago Rodriguez, Puerto 
Plata and San Juan.
92
or awards, develop a set of common-sense criteria in meetings with value chain stakeholders, and 
ensure a communications strategy is in place so that potential beneficiaries are aware of them and 
that they are easily accessible. One method that has worked well in other programs is to ask 
participants to make commitments in each visioning workshop, and then use grant funding to 
support -- via partial funding -- initiatives that stakeholders have committed to. In this system the 
scope is less important than the commitment -- i.e., even things that might seem to be slightly out of 
scope could be worth supporting in a minor way, in order to build stakeholder commitment and 
help “crowd in” other actors, funders, and lead to achievements51. The lean team should recruit 
other donors, including corporate value chain actors, to contribute to the fund, or to offer their own 
branded support for activities through a secretariat that is set up to follow through on the 
workshops and housed in a local institution. The feasibility of including reimbursable funds (i.e., a 
blended finance fund) in addition to grants should be explored. Any grants provided should have a 
clear and transparent selection protocol and clear incentives for recipients to self-finance or match 
contributions so that activities do not become dependent on the long-term continuation of grants. 
An additional possibility mentioned above, could be the creation of a pilot rotating fund in 
conjunction with an association and a financial institution like ADEMI or ADOPEM and give them 
technical assistance and funding until it has achieved a break-even point that proves sustainability.
5. As has been discussed throughout this report, the SAFE project had two overarching objectives 
related to improving the performance of the livestock sector in the Dominican Republic; one in the 
beef value chain (increased exports through achieving FSIS equivalence), and the other in the dairy 
value chain (increasing productivity as measured by liters/cow/day). While these two high level 
indicators were clearly tracked, the more detailed indicators used to track progress did not provide 
supporting evidence. The vast majority of indicators focused on training, assessments, and 
meetings. Changes in farming practices were measured, but only in regard to farm management 
practices including governance, administration, and financial management. 
A set of indicators precisely tailored to the interventions is recommended for future projects (or 
would have been beneficial if integrated during mid-course adjustments to this project). For 
example, the livestock field schools specifically targeted a set of good practices, including genetics 
and animal reproductive health, milk quality, animal feed, animal health, and farm management. 
Some examples of indicators that could have been tracked in order to better capture changes in key 
farming practices related to the overarching objectives of the project are: 1) % of dry cows per farm, 
2) % of pregnant cows per farm, 3) % of milking cows; 4) kilograms (kg) beef per animal per day; 5) 
kg of dry mass per animal; 6) increased profitability and household income. 
Figure 21 indicates points in the value chain (indicated in blue ovals) where potential activities listed 
above can be included in future projects. 
51 FHI360 for USAID Hygiene Improvement Project. Whole System in the Room Strategizing Tools. Retrieved from -
http://hip.fhi360.org/file/29602/WSR%20Strategizing%20Tools.pdf
Tinc, Pamela J., Paul Ayers, John J. May, Mark A. Purschwitz, Samantha Park, Barbara Bayes, and Julie Sorensen. "Implementing 
a National Tractor Safety Program: Using "Whole System in a Room" to Mobilize Partners and Implement Solutions." Journal of 
Agromedicine 21, no. 2 (2016): 127-131.
DFID. Tools for Development: A handbook for those engaged in development activity. March 2003. Retrieved from -
http://www.mspguide.org/sites/default/files/tool/dfid_toolsfordevelopment.pdf
93
Figure 21. Potential Activities for Future Projects
 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Food for Progress FY 15 Safe Agriculture/Food
Export (SAFE) Project
Annexes - Final Evaluation
2
Table of Contents
Annex 1: Indicator Table ........................................................................................................................................3
Annex 2: Analysis of Characteristics of Beneficiary and Comparison Groups.....................................................13
Annex 3: Success Stories......................................................................................................................................15
Annex 4.1: Tools (English)....................................................................................................................................21
Annex 4.2: Tools (Spanish)...................................................................................................................................84
Annex 5: Interviews and Focus Groups..............................................................................................................147
Annex 6: TOR for the Final Evaluation ...............................................................................................................149
3
Annex 1: Indicator Table
Fiscal Year (FY) %
Progress
towards
goals
Progress
(100%
No. max) Indicator Project
Goal
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2018-
2019
2019-
2020
2020-
2021
Progress
to date
1.00
Number of value chain actors
participating in the Seal of
Quality 300 52 75 103 108 1 339 113.0% 100.0%
1.10
Number of products using the
Seal of Quality in their
marketing 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
1.20
Number of people reached
through the Seal of Quality
public information campaign 800000 253 0 32330 50986 0 83569 10.5% 10.4%
2.10
Number of extension agents
trained in improved agriculture
techniques and technologies 280 53 87 102 114 4 360 128.6% 100.0%
2.20
Number of grants provided to
businesses (POs, dairy
processors, and meat
processors) to establish or
improve an extension system 15 1 1 23 6 0 31 206.7% 100.0%
2.30
Value grants provided to
businesses (POs, dairy
processors, and meat
processors) to establish or
improve an extension system 270000 14687 48832 237515 257055 0 558089 206.7% 100.0%
3.10
Volume of milk supplied (million
liters) by farmers to USDA
supported milk collection
centers 80 0 50 53 67 56 226 282.5% 100.0%
3.20
Number of dairy farmers
supplying grade "A" milk to
USDA supported milk collection
centers 1100 0 17 34 857 114 1022 92.9% 92.9%
3.30
Number of dairy producer
association members trained in
milk collection center
establishment/management 320 124 546 390 214 79 1353 422.8% 100.0%
4.10
Number of policies, regulations
and/or administrative
procedures in each of the
following stages of
development as a result of
6 0 0 0 11 0 11 183.3% 100.0%
4
USDA assistance (Stage 5) (FFPr
indicator 12)
4.20
Number of beef Regulatory
Policy and Regulatory
Framework meetings for public
debate and/or consultation
with stakeholders on the
proposed new or revised
policy/regulation/administrative
procedure 87 32 55 106 35 0 228 262.1% 100.0%
4.30
Number of new markets to
which beef is exported 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
4.40
Number of agreements signed
(Contracts, MOUs, etc.)
between beef or dairy exporters
and buyers in the US as a result
of USDA assistance 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
4.50
Number of assessments
completed of GoDR beef food
safety regulations and systems 1 1 0 2 0 0 3 300.0% 100.0%
4.60
Number of training sessions in
trade policy analysis and
advocacy provided for
individuals 8 0 3 4 1 0 8 100.0% 100.0%
4.70
Number of individuals trained in
trade policy analysis and
advocacy 200 0 312 41 38 0 391 195.5% 100.0%
5.01
Number of private sector
institutions that are providing
monetary or in-kind resources
in support of agriculture
productivity (e.g. in areas
including research, market
information, agricultural inputs,
etc.) as a result of USDA
Assistance 60 0 0 0 60 0 60 100.0% 100.0%
5.02
Value of private sector
investment/resources
supporting agriculture
research/extension that is
consistent with government
priorities as a result of USDA
assistance 712320 0 0 0 3219735 0 3219735 452.0% 100.0%
5.03 Number of firms who are
accessing credit through formal
40 0 0 0 131 0 131 327.5% 100.0%
5
financial products as a result of
USDA assistance
5.04
Number of individuals receiving
financial services as a result of
USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator
4) (Female) 920 0 0 0 1336 0 1336 145.2% 100.0%
5.05
Number of individuals receiving
financial services as a result of
USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator
4) (Male) 5215 0 0 0 7456 0 7456 143.0% 100.0%
5.06
Number of individuals receiving
financial services as a result of
USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator
4) (joint) 6135 0 0 0 8792 0 8792 143.3% 100.0%
5.07
Number of jobs attributed to
USDA assistance (FFPr indicator
15) 189 0 0 0 185 0 185 97.9% 97.9%
5.08
Number of jobs attributed to
USDA assistance (FFPr indicator
15) (male) 145 0 0 0 145 0 145 100.0% 100.0%
5.09
Number of jobs attributed to
USDA assistance (FFPr indicator
15) (female) 44 0 0 0 40 0 40 90.9% 90.9%
5.10
Number of training sessions in
accessing financial services for
post-harvest technologies
provided to firms 8 24 23 74 48 3 172 2150.0% 100.0%
5.11
Value of Loans provided as a
result of USDA Assistance (FFPr
Indicator 6) (male) 1677375 0 0 0 958141 0 958141.1 57.1% 57.1%
5.12
Value of Loans provided as a
result of USDA Assistance (FFPr
Indicator 6) (female) 1118250 0 0 0 72138 0 72137.78 6.5% 6.5%
5.13
Value of Loans provided as a
result of USDA Assistance (FFPr
Indicator 6) 2795625 0 0 0 1032636 0 1032636 36.9% 36.9%
5.14
Number of Loans Disbursed as a
result of USDA Assistance (FFPr
Indicator 5) 6143 0 0 0 131 0 131 2.1% 2.1%
6.01
Number of milk collection
centers with USDA support
using improved equipment to
collect and chill milk 50 0 19 24 17 0 60 120.0% 100.0%
6.02 Number of grants provided to
dairy producer
33 0 20 8 13 0 41 124.2% 100.0%
6
groups/processors to establish
or improve milk collection
centers
6.03
Value of grants provided to
dairy producer
groups/processors to establish
or improve milk collection
centers 264000 0 172549 45034 66874 0 284457 107.8% 100.0%
6.04
Number of grants provided to
beef processors to improve beef
processing infrastructure
related to SPS control 5 0 1 4 0 1 6 120.0% 100.0%
6.05
Value of Grants provided to
beef processors to improve beef
processing infrastructure
related to SPS control 50000 0 16780 72489 0 5136 94405.43 188.8% 100.0%
6.06
Number of individuals who have
received short-term agricultural
sector productivity or food
security training as a result of
USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator
16) (total) 13500 4033 5645 4766 3567 216 18227 135.0% 100.0%
6.07
Number of individuals who have
received short-term agricultural
sector productivity or food
security training as a result of
USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator
16) (female) 3375 1024 1380 1249 872 33 4558 135.1% 100.0%
6.08
Number of individuals who have
received short-term agricultural
sector productivity or food
security training as a result of
USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator
16) (male) 10125 3009 4265 3517 2707 183 13681 135.1% 100.0%
6.09
Number of individuals who have
received short-term agricultural
sector productivity or food
security training as a result of
USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator
16) (new) 14017 4033 3574 1981 777 15 10380 74.1% 74.1%
6.10
Number of individuals who have
received short-term agricultural
sector productivity or food
security training as a result of
USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator
16) (continuing) 9000 0 2071 2785 2802 201 7859 87.3% 87.3%
7
6.11
Number of individuals who have
received short-term agricultural
sector productivity or food
security training as a result of
USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator
16) (farmers) 13500 3137 4340 3597 2658 210 13942 103.3% 100.0%
6.12
Number of individuals who have
received short-term agricultural
sector productivity or food
security training as a result of
USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator
16) (people in firms) 250 305 401 324 333 4 1367 546.8% 100.0%
6.13
Number of individuals who have
received short-term agricultural
sector productivity or food
security training as a result of
USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator
16) (government) 200 142 221 178 161 2 704 352.0% 100.0%
6.14
Number of individuals who have
received short-term agricultural
sector productivity or food
security training as a result of
USDA assistance (FFPr Indicator
16) (civil society) 40 507 747 692 478 2 2426 6065.0% 100.0%
7.01
Number of improved beef and
dairy production
demonstrations established or
improved with USDA support. 175 50 66 34 45 8 203 116.0% 100.0%
8.10
Number of international trade
missions conducted with host
country ag exporters and
foreign buyers 4 0 2 1 2 0 5 125.0% 100.0%
8.20
Number of value chain linkage
meetings held between
buyers/sellers in the dairy and
beef sector 10 12 9 27 8 0 56 560.0% 100.0%
8.30
Number of individuals
benefitting indirectly from
USDA-funded agricultural
productivity interventions(FFPr
indicator 18) 59400 12113 17415 13610 19273 970 63381 106.7% 100.0%
8.40
Volume of Commodities (metric
tons) sold by Project
beneficiaries (FFPr Indicator 14) 671650 0 51950 55636 74626 89000 271211.9 40.4% 40.4%
8.50
Number of events supported by
USDA aimed at promoting
private-public partnerships for
improving beef and dairy
8 5 4 18 23 0 50 625.0% 100.0%
8
development at the farm,
processor and exporter.
8.60
Value of sales by Project
beneficiaries (FFPr Indicator 13)
(DR$ Millions) 779.9 0 813 1113 480 677 3083 395.3% 100.0%
9.10
Number of private sector dairy
extension agents supporting
farmers in partnership with
government extension services 92 48 40 15 60 2 165 179.4% 100.0%
9.20
Value of new public and private
sector investment leveraged as
a result of USDA assistance
(FFPr Indicator 9)- (Private) 1000000 0 0 0 2874361 0 2874361 287.4% 100.0%
9.30
Number of public-private
partnerships formed as a result
of USDA assistance (FFPr
Indicator 8) 20 0 0 0 40 0 40 200.0% 100.0%
10.01
Number of dairy farmers using
improved milking and milk
handling techniques as a result
of USDA assistance 7000 90 269 1011 2663 0 4033 57.6% 57.6%
10.02
Number of dairy processor staff
trained in SPS measures 288 83 148 295 85 0 611 212.2% 100.0%
10.03
Number of beef processing
facilities audited for compliance
with SPS standards 14 3 6 5 2 0 16 114.3% 100.0%
10.04
Number of beef processors
demonstrating upgraded SPS
control systems as a result of
USDA assistance. 5 1 3 5 3 0 12 240.0% 100.0%
10.05
Number of beef processor staff
trained in SPS standards and
systems 42 1 180 50 137 0 368 876.2% 100.0%
10.06
Number of training sessions in
milking and milk handling
conducted for dairy farmers 400 212 292 205 91 4 804 201.0% 100.0%
10.07
Number of milk producers
trained in milking and milk
handling 10000 1545 2131 1716 912 22 6326 63.3% 63.3%
10.08
Number of dairy processing
facilities audited for compliance
with SPS standards 30 2 13 17 16 16 64 213.3% 100.0%
11.01 Number of business plans
produced for beef and dairy
3750 0 0 0 791 0 791 21.1% 21.1%
9
production with USDA
assistance
11.02
Number of individuals who have
applied improved farm
management practices (i.e.
governance, administration, or
financial management) as a
result of USDA assistance (FFPr
Indicator 3) (people in firms) 738 79 121 128 126 3 457 61.9% 61.9%
11.03
Number of individuals who have
applied improved farm
management practices (i.e.
governance, administration, or
financial management) as a
result of USDA assistance (FFPr
Indicator 3) (male) 2767 1064 1737 1945 2007 110 6863 248.0% 100.0%
11.04
Number of individuals who have
applied improved farm
management practices (i.e.
governance, administration, or
financial management) as a
result of USDA assistance (FFPr
Indicator 3) (female) 1108 320 545 646 491 5 2007 181.1% 100.0%
11.05
Number of individuals who have
applied improved farm
management practices (i.e.
governance, administration, or
financial management) as a
result of USDA assistance (FFPr
Indicator 3) (people in
government) 175 74 124 116 83 2 399 228.0% 100.0%
11.06
Number of individuals who have
applied improved farm
management practices (i.e.
governance, administration, or
financial management) as a
result of USDA assistance (FFPr
Indicator 3) (total) 3875 1384 2282 2591 2498 115 8870 228.9% 100.0%
11.07
Number of individuals who have
applied improved farm
management practices (i.e.
governance, administration, or
financial management) as a
result of USDA assistance (FFPr
Indicator 3) (farmers) 3690 1305 2161 2463 2364 110 8403 227.7% 100.0%
12.01
Percentage increase in the
average number of liters
produced per cow per day 50 0 0 3 9 0 12 24.0% 24.0%
10
12.02
Total number of individuals
benefitting directly as a result of
USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator
17) (continuing) 8599 0 3355 3439 5805 320 12919 150.2% 100.0%
12.03
Total number of individuals
benefitting directly as a result of
USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator
17) (Female) 4011 1233 1776 1439 985 46 5479 136.6% 100.0%
12.04
Total number of individuals
benefitting directly as a result of
USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator
17) (Male) 10395 3612 5190 4005 6769 342 19918 191.6% 100.0%
12.05
Total number of individuals
benefitting directly as a result of
USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator
17) (new) 5807 4845 3611 2005 1949 88 12498 215.2% 100.0%
12.06
Number of farmers in the dairy
and/or beef sector making farm
decisions based on economic
considerations or analysis as a
result of USDA assistance 3690 0 0 0 11150 0 11150 302.2% 100.0%
12.07
Number of hectares under
improved techniques or
technologies as a result of USDA
assistance. (FFPr Indicator 1),
(Continuing) 2600 0 338 2285 3275 160 6059.02 233.0% 100.0%
12.08
Number of hectares under
improved techniques or
technologies as a result of USDA
assistance. (FFPr Indicator 1)
(new) 4800 571 5777 2411 3943 24 12725.79 265.1% 100.0%
12.09
Number of individuals who have
applied new techniques or
technologies as a result of USDA
Assistance (FFPr indicator 2)
(male) 8348 465 1345 3892 3266 160 9128 109.3% 100.0%
12.10
Number of individuals who have
applied new techniques or
technologies as a result of USDA
Assistance (FFPr indicator 2)
(new) 8447 503 939 2830 1336 2 5610 66.4% 66.4%
12.11
Number of individuals who have
applied new techniques or
technologies as a result of USDA
Assistance (FFPr indicator 2)
(continuing) 3479 0 503 1358 2223 163 4247 122.1% 100.0%
11
12.12
Number of individuals who have
applied new techniques or
technologies as a result of USDA
Assistance (FFPr indicator 2)
(female) 3578 38 97 296 292 5 728 20.4% 20.3%
12.13
Number of individuals who have
applied new techniques or
technologies as a result of USDA
Assistance (FFPr indicator 2)
(other-animal health) 10800 182 567 1967 1457 120 4293 39.8% 39.8%
12.14
Number of individuals who have
applied new techniques or
technologies as a result of USDA
Assistance (FFPr indicator 2)
(other breed genetics) 2700 93 305 1641 1428 115 3582 132.7% 100.0%
12.15
Number of individuals who have
applied new techniques or
technologies as a result of USDA
Assistance (FFPr indicator 2)
(other-animal feed) 10800 478 816 2508 1272 117 5191 48.1% 48.1%
12.16
Number of private enterprises,
producer organizations, water
user’s associations, women's
groups, trade and business
associations, and community
based-organizations(CBOs) that
applied improved techniques
and technologies as a result of
USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator
7) (Continuing) 54 0 38 27 9 3 77 142.6% 100.0%
12.17
Number of private enterprises,
producer’s organizations, water
user’s associations, women's
groups, trade and business
associations, and community
based-organizations(CBOs) that
applied improved techniques
and technologies as a result of
USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator
7) (joint) 54 38 66 48 17 3 172 318.5% 100.0%
12.18
Number of private enterprises,
producer organizations, water
user’s associations, women's
groups, trade and business
associations, and community
based-organizations(CBOs) that
applied improved techniques
and technologies as a result of
21 38 28 21 8 0 95 452.4% 100.0%
12
USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator
7) (New)
12.19
Number of private enterprises,
producer organizations, water
user’s associations, women's
groups, trade and business
associations, and community
based-organizations(CBOs) that
applied improved techniques
and technologies as a result of
USDA Assistance (FFPr Indicator
7) (Producer Orgs) 38 38 26 21 8 3 96 252.6% 100.0%
12.20
Percentage increase in volume
of grade "A" milk sold to
processors by USDA supported
milk collection centers 50 0 3 9 15 9 36 36.0% 72.0%
13
Annex 2: Analysis of Characteristics of Beneficiary 
and Comparison Groups
Because of study limitations, differences in outcomes between the participants and the comparison group cannot 
be attributed to project activities. Data collection included a comparison group of producers that were eligible to 
participate in the project but did not receive any technical assistance or interventions. The beneficiary and 
comparison group lists were drawn from the same two sources: SAFE beneficiary list developed since project 
inception, and the list of suppliers of the milk collection centers. It is important to note that prior to sampling, data 
on farmers’ provinces was available but farm size was unavailable. Due to this, the evaluation team conducted
analysis to ensure that both groups were not statistically significantly different. The comparison group was similar
to the beneficiary in that the difference between beneficiary farmers and comparison group in producer type,
region, gender, land use, and number of cows milked was nominal. The tables below show the distribution of 
provinces, sex, and type of products produced in the comparison and beneficiary groups. The following
significance tests below examine the difference in means between the comparison group and beneficiary group in 
their total land use (tareas) and number of cows milked. The tests do not find any statistically significant difference 
in means. This means that the null hypothesis that the means of both groups is similar cannot be rejected and 
thus, the difference between the groups on these metrics (total land use and number of cows milked) can be 
regarded as nominal and statistically insignificant. However, because the beneficiary group was included in the 
project due to their willingness to participate, this may have introduced unobservable selection bias and affected 
the outcomes of the project activities.
Regional Distribution of Survey Respondents (%)
Provinces
Beneficiary 
Group (%)
Comparison 
Group (%)
Beneficiary 
Group (count)
Comparison 
Group (count)
Dajabon 21 21 67 42
Puerto Plata 14 7 46 14
San Juan 14 16 45 33
Santiago Rodriguez 12 7 38 15
Monte Plata 9 13 30 26
La Altagracia 6 9 20 18
Duarte 5 5 16 10
El Seibo 5 4 16 9
Hato Mayor 4 2 14 4
Independencia 3 4 10 9
Maria Trinidad Sánchez 2 2 7 5
Santo Domingo 1 1 3 2
Espaillat 1 1 2 2
Hermanas Mirabal 0 0 1 0
Montecristi 0 4 1 8
Samaná 0 0 1 1
Valverde 0 1 1 2
Elias Pina 0 0 0 1
Total 100 100 318 201
14
Sex Distribution of Survey Respondents (%)
Sex
Beneficiary 
Group (%)
Comparison 
Group (%)
Beneficiary 
Group (count)
Comparison 
Group (count)
Male 90.2515723 86.0696517 287 173
Female 9.74842767 13.9303483 31 28
Total 100 100 318 201
Producer Type (%)
Producer Type
Beneficiary 
Group (%)
Comparison 
Group (%)
Beneficiary 
Group (count)
Comparison 
Group (count)
Milk 74.8 69.2 238 139
Meat 1.9 8.0 6 16
Milk and Meat 23.3 22.9 74 46
Total 100 100 318 201
t-Test: Two￾Sample 
Assuming 
Unequal 
Variances
Total Land Use (tareas) t-Test: Two￾Sample 
Assuming 
Unequal 
Variances
Number of Cows Milked
Beneficiary 
Group
Comparison 
Group
Beneficiary 
Group
Comparison 
Group
Mean 566.352564 498.770408 Mean 19.4256757 20.9681564
Variance 1338899.62 621835.901 Variance 456.774118 730.633194
Observations 312 196 Observations 296 179
Standard 
Deviation 1157.1083 788.565724
Standard 
Deviation 247.115215 243.345334
Minimum 0 0 Minimum 0 0
Maximum 12000 8000 Maximum 2550 1700
Range 12000 8000 Range 2550 1700
Hypothesized 
Mean Difference 0
Hypothesized 
Mean Difference 0
df 503 df 311
t Stat 0.78225238 t Stat -0.6503725
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.21721718 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.25796591
t Critical one-tail 1.64788861 t Critical one-tail 1.64976792
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.43443435 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.51593182
t Critical two-tail 1.96469141 t Critical two-tail 1.96762113
The p-value two-tail (highlighted) is 0.43. Here, 
because the p-value is greater than 0.05 (95% 
confidence level), we cannot reject the null hypothesis 
that the means are similar. 
The p-value two-tail (highlighted) is 0.51. Here, 
because the p-value is greater than 0.05 (95% 
confidence level), we cannot reject the null hypothesis 
that the means are similar. 
15
Annex 3: Success Stories
Livestock Field School Methodology
For a long time, the livestock sector in the Dominican Republic (DR) has suffered from lack of know-how
and access to technical assistance and best practice trainings. This has led to lower levels of milk
productivity and milk quality in the DR compared to peer countries in the region. To address these
challenges the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Safe Agriculture Food Export (SAFE) project initiated the
livestock field school (LFS) methodology, combining hands-on technical assistance for farmers with
trainings on farm management and other subjects.
Every two weeks, groups farmers gathered together at “demonstration farms” – selected from among
those of the participants – to learn through practical and shared experiences, facilitated by SAFE project
staff or extensionists supported through the project. LFS uses an 80% hands-on and 20% theory
approach, combined with programa de coinversión productivo (PCP) provided through the SAFE project’s
grants program to provide farmers with necessary inputs through a package of. pasture seeds, fertilizers,
jerrycans, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA) designed kits (a Brazilian-designed
unit used to clean teats and improve
hygiene during milking), and other
inputs. Training topics included farm
management, milking techniques,
hygiene, breeding, and other topics
related livestock best practices.
Based on a methodology first developed
by the Food and Agriculture
Organization 30 years ago, the LFS
methodology was adopted by the SAFE
project to the Dominican context. The
final evaluation of the project, by
external evaluators Just Results, found
that the LFS approach has been a major
achievement in the eyes of farmers,
associations, cooperatives, and others
active in the livestock value chain.
Farmer with his cows in Dajabo
Increased milk productivity for participating farmers was key metric of success. Farmers and extensionists alike 
thank the SAFE project’sLFS methodology for major gains in this area. Studies conducted by the project during 
implementation, shows that farmers applying improved technologies increased milk production by an average 
of 23% from 5.8 liters per cow per day (lcd) to 6.38 lcd, compared to those farmers not applying technologies
(sample size of 1,046). Final evaluation found similar improvements, with farmers participating for longer
periods of time often seeing even larger increases in productivity, of 50% or more.
Farmers surveyed for the final evaluation overwhelmingly endorsed the LFS methodology and associated
technical assistance, and focus groups done with farmers and extensionists likewise emphasized the
16
impact of LFS on improvements in milk productivity and quality. The evaluation survey showed that 78%
of farmers said the livestock field schools were beneficial for them, with 75% crediting the SAFE project
for increased productivity for their farm. Farmers participating in the SAFE project also perceived that
project activities directly led to increased household incomes (71%) and increased sales (73%).
Continued support for private extensionists through associations and cooperatives will be critical for LFS
to be maintained beyond the end of the SAFE project. There are also already discussions in MEGALECHE
about implementing the LFS methodology for public sector extensionists on a country-wide basis as well.
In any case, as ASOCARNE president Enrique Castro told the evaluation team: “the Livestock Field School
methodology is here to stay.”
Private extensionists
Access to quality extension services has long been a challenge for the livestock sector in Dominican
Republic (DR). Prior to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Safe Agriculture Food Export (SAFE) project,
MEGALECHE – the government agency responsible for providing extension services for the livestock
sector – often lacked capacity to meet farmer’s demand. This was in large part because MEGALECHE was
the only provider of extension services in the DR, and thus had to carry the whole burden of demand
since private extension services were non-existent.
While there was an attempt at introducing private extensionists to the DR several decades ago by the
UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the SAFE project is generally perceived to have been the
first program to introduce private extension services in the DR and the first program in many years to
address the needs of the livestock sector at the level of the farmer.
The introduction of private
extensionists has been well￾received throughout the sector.
Focus groups of farmers conducted
by external evaluators, Just Results,
for the final evaluation of the
project shed light on the impact of
the extensionists on milk
productivity, quality, and adoption
of livestock best practices. Farmers
who participated in a focus group in
Santiago Rodriguez called the SAFE
project “the best seen in all these
years in the northwest [provinces of
DR],” in large part because of the
Private extensionists in San Juan
dedication of the private extensionists supported by the project and the accompaniment they provided
through farm visits to help farmers as they adopted new techniques and technologies. A farmer focus
group in Duarte reiterated this fact, saying that what set the SAFE project extensionists apart was the
respect with which the farmers were treated and the valuable insights they brought which led to large
improvements in productivity and quality.
17
Finding sources for long term financing for private extensionists will be a primary challenge for
sustainable impact. Associations and farmers alike agree that that private extension services have
provided immense benefits, well worth the cost of maintain their services after the end of the SAFE
project. However, whether due to the COVID-19 pandemic or other factors, many associations and
cooperatives have not yet begun supporting private extensionists on their own. Calculations done by the
SAFE project team that the benefits from the increased milk productivity and quality as a result of the
private extension services supported by the project should easily cover the costs of an association hiring
one or more extensionists. As associations and other value chain actors find ways to take advantage of
these gains in productivity and quality, private extension services and promise to be an important part
the value chain for the foreseeable future.
Equivalence
The beef value chain in Dominican Republic (DR) has historically been characterized by informality, with
most beef produced in the DR coming from small or medium sized farms. Since 1997 when the last beef
exports ended, all beef produced in the DR has been consumed domestically. However, the beef sector
has great potential to become a new source of exports for DR. The biggest barrier to date, has been the
inability of the sector to meet US standards to qualify for exports to US, particularly with Puerto Rico
which is a prime market for Dominican beef.
In this context, a primary goal of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Safe Agriculture Food
Export (SAFE) project has been to help DR achieve equivalence with US food safety regulations under
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The baseline report conducted at the beginning of the
SAFE project identified the primary obstacles to achieving FSIS Equivalence as the lack of government
capacity to conduct inspections, laboratories that did not meet sanitary standards, and slaughterhouses
capable of passing the FSIS food safety audit.
The SAFE project led the way on working with key government actors to solve these challenges. The
SAFE project facilitated frequent meetings with the relevant government including Dirección General de
Ganadería (DIGEGA) in the Ministry of Agriculture and Direccion General de Medicamentos, Alimentos y
Productos Sanitarios (DIGEMAPS) in the
Ministry of Health to develop procedures and
protocols and build the capacity of staff to set
the path towards a modern beef inspection
system and the ability to achieve FSIS
equivalence. Two of the slaughterhouses most
prepared to meet the FSIS requirements,
MERCARNE and AGROCARNE, also received
extensive technical assistance from the SAFE
project to complete course of action needed to
achieve equivalence standards.
Feeding cattle at a farm in Hato Mayor
Two key challenges which the SAFE project
helped solve were confusion of agency roles and lack of capacity of the government laboratory. These
were resolved, with DIGEGA are responsible from the stage from farm to slaughterhouse and DIGEMAPS
18
responsible from the slaughterhouse entry to retail and export and for coordinating with FSIS. For the
laboratories, the SAFE project, along with by Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria
(OIRSA), helped orchestrate a network of domestic laboratories and a laboratory in Honduras to conduct
microbiological and chemical residue testing of samples. A deal was made with COPA airlines to
transport the samples to Honduras, which was key for providing the cold chain transport necessary for
preserving the samples at the right temperatures. Continued support from the SAFE project to acquire
specialty lab equipment, in the first quarter of 2021, has led to the beginnings of a local chemical residue
testing program which should eventually reduce reliance on sending samples to Honduras.
By early 2020, the equivalence process had advanced to the point that participating slaughterhouses
were deemed ready for the USDA APHIS/FSIS audit. A mock-audit for the slaughterhouses was
conducted by experts from Texas A&M University and concluded that all components of the system
were ready for the FSIS audit. Unfortunately, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 led
to the indefinite postponement of the audit, but it is widely believed by experts and others in the sector
that equivalence has been achieved and FSIS approval will soon follow, when the audit can be
rescheduled. The key now, is to ensure DIGEGA and DIGEMAPS are ready to be responsive to FSIS when
the time comes for the rescheduled audit. Then it is only a matter of time before Dominican beef
exports are making their way to international markets again.
Health and safety in beef processing
Lack of good sanitary practices and application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)
systems has historically plagued the Dominican Republic’s (DR) foots safety regime and long been an
obstacle to exporting beef from the country. Slaughterhouses and meat packaging plants commonly
lacked a hot water supply for washing; lack of sufficient temperature control, few protocols for
environmental management, and generally do not apply HACCP or control of critical points, despite it
being mandated y government regulation.
As part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Safe Agriculture Food Export (SAFE) project’s goal
of helping DR achieve equivalence with US food safety regulations to allow beef exports to Puerto Rico,
activities to enhance food safety practices in Dominican slaughterhouses have been front and center.
Agricultural experts from Texas A&M University, from the SAFE project, played a key role in the creationof a seven￾month ‘critical route’ for three selected slaughterhouses to improve HACCP and sanitation standards. This
technical assistance started in April 2018 and from the original three slaughterhouses, two which made substantial 
progress towards meeting the audit requirements for equivalence with U standards were selected for continued 
support: MERCARNE in Santo Domingo and AGROCARNE in La Romana.
The SAFE project led trainings for beef processing staff on Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) specifically related 
sanitary measures and provided co-investments to purchase equipment to help slaughterhouses meet increased 
sanitary standards. Another key component was training staff from theDireccion General de Medicamentos, 
Alimentos y Productos Sanitarios (DIGEMAPS) in the Ministry of Health to develop procedures and protocols for a
modern beef inspection system
19
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the SAFE project adjusted its technical assistance to equivalence actors
Evaluation team leader Lara Goldmark
speaking with an employee at MERCARNE
through collective efficiency schools (CES - a further
adaptation of the farmer and livestock field school
methodology) to a virtual format with 517
participants, including managers and staff of
slaughterhouses and inspectors from DIGEMAPS.
Key topics covered included HACCP, humane
livestock practices, and sanitary measures and
procedures.
The SAFE project’s midterm project evaluation, in
2019, found that the project’s activities had already
created a “a culture of food safety that is growing
and will continue to grow.” Now with the final
project evaluation of the project, the external
evaluators Just Results have reinforced this finding showing that the SAFE project’s activities have
“significantly improved the quality of sanitary practices and established new norms, a trend that
stakeholders believe will be lasting.” An upgraded beef inspection system and the expected
achievement of equivalence with US sanitary standards for export should continue to reinforce these
trends as the demand for high quality Dominican beef grows.
Milk quality/testing MCC upgrades
Low levels of milk quality in the Dominican Republic (DR) have been a primary culprit for a dairy sector
which has fallen short of its full potential for many years. Poor milk quality can be caused at the level of
the farm where the milk is produced, during transportation form the farm, or at the milk collection
centers (MCCs) where farmers brig their milk to be aggregated and then sold to milk processor and
distributors. Over the last 5 years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Safe Agriculture Food
Export (SAFE) project has been striving to address these challenges at each level.
20
Measuring milk quality can be challenging
and a cause of controversy between farmers 
and MCCs. Farmers may produce grade “A” 
milk at the farm, but by the time it reaches 
the MCC it may have spoiled dueto lack of 
proper cold storage during transport. In other
cases some farmers may not take proper 
sanitary measures when milking their cows at 
the farm, and once the poor quality milk is 
brought to theMCC, it is aggregated with milk 
from other farms and one bad batch can ruin 
the quality of all the milk.
Farmers dropping off milk at an MCC in Dajabon
With the SAFE project’s support, 60 MCCs received assistance in implementing improved equipment to
collect and chill milk. The SAFE project’s activities to strengthen MCC management and milk handling
practices for participating MCCs and processors have been key to improving the milk quality sold by
MCCs to processors and retailers. For the 60 MCCs supported by the project, a 36% increase in volume
of grade "A" milk sold by the MCCs to processors was achieved through the SAFE project’s support.
The SAFE project also supports improvements of milk quality at the farm level, through technical
assistance provided by project supported extensionists. This provides clear benefitsforfarmers who that
reach quality and are able to supply consistent volume, accessing the best prices. Grade A milk can fetch a
premium price of up to $0.56 (or RD$32) per liter, compared to a price of $0.47 (RD$27) per liter for lower
quality milk. One example, Association of Cattle Ranchers of Santiago Rodríguez (AGASAR) received a
one-year matching grant from SAFE to support an extension agent who in turn provided technical
assistance and training to the association’s producers, leading to an improvement in the association’s
milk quality from Grade C to A, increasing the value of milk delivered to AGASAR’s MCC by 10% per liter.
While improvements in milk quality still need continued progress, the SAFE project has created helped
create a new culture of food safety at MCCs and supported farmers and MCCs alike with technical
assistance and equipment to improve milk quality. SAFE has also identified areas of continued need to
be addressed, including continued infrastructure upgrades at MCCs, cold storage for transport of milk
from farms to MCCs, and working together with dairy associations to continue to spread best practices
in milk collection and handling to farmers, MCCs, and processor alike.
21
Annex 4.1: Tools (English)
Key Informant Interview Guide (KII) - PROGANA Staff and Partners
Basic Information
1. Describe your vision of the PROGRANA project in a general way including the main 
desired results and the progress made towards achieving them.
2. What has been your relationship with the PROGANA project?
3. What have been some of the biggest challenges faced by the project? Were they 
approached? If so, how?
4. What have been some of the biggest challenges faced by the project? Were they 
approached? If so, how?
5. Were there any unexpected results (good or bad) attributable to the project? If so, 
please describe.
1. Interviewer (write “non applicable” if completed online):
2. Date:
3. Select how the survey was conducted:
4. Face-to-face
5. Remote
6. Name:
7. Organization
8. Position:
9. Municipality:
10. Province:
11. Gender:
c. Male
d. Female
Project summary: challenges and achievements
22
6. What were the most and least successful activities? Why?
7. Describe the organizational structure of the project. What have been the pros and cons 
of implementation?
8. Over the course of the project, what adjustments, if any, were made to the process of 
implementation of the project? How did the Project respond to the findings of the mid￾term evaluation?
9. In your opinion, which of the successful activities do you think are sustainable? Why?
10. How were local actors involved in managing the project? (eg JAD, farmers' cooperatives 
and organizations, milk collection centers, slaughterhouses, local governments and civil 
society groups)
11. Are the techniques and technologies easy to maintain locally? To what extent are 
local conditions for the control of these techniques and technologies guaranteed?
12. Do you believe local governments will be able to achieve FSIS equivalency and 
continue to strengthen the food safety inspection system?
Project activities and implementation
Sustainability of the project
23
Key Informant Interview (KII) guide – Producer Organizations (POs) and Businesses
Basic Information
1. Can you describe your role within the livestock value chain, including your interactions with 
producers and processors?
2. What are some of the biggest challenges you face as an organization in carrying out your mission?
3. What are some of the biggest challenges faced by producers and processors with whom you work?
4. What has been your involvement in the PROGANA project?
5. Describe your view of the PROGANA project from a high level, including its main desired results 
and what progress has been made towards achieving them?
1. Interviewer (write “non applicable” if completed online):
2. Date:
3. Select how the survey was conducted:
4. Face-to-face
5. Remote
6. Name:
7. Organization
8. Position:
9. Municipality:
10. Province:
11. Gender:
e. Male
f. Female
Producer Organization (PO) Summary
PROGANA project overview
24
6. Do you feel like the project did a good job involving you and other similar organizations in the 
management of project activities?
7. For the project activities in which your organization has been involved, do you believe they are 
sustainable following the end of the PROGANA project? Are the techniques and technologies used 
easy to maintain locally?
8. In your opinion, what will be the biggest challenge to continuing the achievement of equivalence 
for beef exports and milk quality standards?
9. Do you believe local government actors are likely to achieve FSIS equivalence and continue 
strengthening the food safety inspection system?
Project sustainability
25
Key Informant interview (KII) guide – Government staff
Basic Information
1. Describe your view of the PROGANA project from a high level, including its main desired results 
and what progress has been made towards achieving them?
2. What has been your involvement in the PROGANA project?
3. What have been some of the biggest challenges which the project has faced? Have they been 
addressed? If so, how?
4. What have been the biggest success of the project? Do you believe they are sustainable? If so, 
why?
5. Were there any unplanned outcomes (good or bad) that can be attributed to the project? If so,
please describe.
1. Interviewer (write “non applicable” if completed online):
2. Date:
3. Select how the survey was conducted:
4. Face-to-face
5. Remote
6. Name:
7. Organization
8. Position:
9. Municipality:
10. Province:
11. Gender:
g. Male
h. Female
Project overview: Challenges and successes
26
6. Can you describe in your view, how the PROGANA project has supported or diverged in 
supporting the strategies and priorities of the government of D.R.?
7. Can you describe efforts being made to achieve FSIS equivalence and continue strengthening the 
food safety inspection system following the completion of the PROGANA project?
8. In your opinion, which successful project activities do you view as being sustainable? Why? 
9. In your view, which local counterparts have increased their capabilities to continue with the 
project’s actions, and why?
10. Are the techniques and technologies used in the project easy to maintain locally? To what extent 
are the conditions for local control of these techniques and technologies guaranteed?
Project complementarity with government priorities
Project sustainability
27
Key Informant interview (KII) guide – Financial Institutions
Basic Information
1. Please describe your role within the livestock value chain, including your interactions with 
producers and processors?
2. What financial products do you offer to the actors in the value chain?
3. What are some of the biggest challenges you face as an organization in carrying out your 
mission?
4. What are some of the biggest challenges faced by producers and processors with whom you 
work?
5. What has been your involvement in the PROGANA project?
6. Describe your view of the PROGANA project from a high level, including its main desired results 
and what progress has been made towards achieving them?
1. Interviewer (write “non applicable” if completed online):
2. Date:
3. Select how the survey was conducted:
4. Face-to-face
5. Remote
6. Name:
7. Organization
8. Position:
9. Municipality:
10. Province:
11. Gender:
i. Male
j. Female
Producer Organization (PO) overview
PROGANA project summary
28
7. Did the project do a good job involving you and other financial institutions with the necessary 
technical assistance addressing the financial needs of producers and processors?
8. In your view, how would you rate the PROGANA project’s efforts to collaborate with financial 
institutions to conduct outreach to identify credit-worthy producers and processors
9. For the project activities in which your organization has been involved, do you believe they are 
sustainable following the end of the PROGANA project? 
10. Will you continue financing of producers and processors continue following the end of the 
project?
Project sustainability
29
Producers - Users of the Project
Start of Block: BASIC INFORMATION
Q35
BASIC INFORMATION
Q3 Select how the survey was conducted 
oFace-to-face (1)
oRemote (2)
Q1 Interviewer
Q2 Date (DD/MM/YY)
Display This Question:
If Selected how the survey was conducted = Face-to-face
30
Q4 Name
Q5 Organization
oYes (4)
o No (5)
oI don’t know (7)
Q6 Position
o Owner (4)
o Manager (5)
Q7 Municipality
Q8 Province
31
Q9 Gender of the interviewee 
o Male (1)
oFemale (2)
Q63 Are you responsible for the daily management of the farm?
oYes (1)
o No (If not, please specify your role) (2)
Q10 Producer type
o Milk (1)
o Meat (2)
o Milk and Meat (3)
32
Q11 Products produced ○ Milk (1) ○ Meat (2) ○ Cheese (3) ○ Yogurt (4) ○ Sweets (5) ○ Other (specify) (6) 
Q12 Production oStabled (1) oSemi stabled (2) o Open field (3) o Other (specify) (4)
33
Q13 Number of employees
Total (1) Family (2) Full time (3) Temporary
(4)
Local (5) Foreign (6)
Number of 
employees
(1)
End of Block: BASIC INFORMATION
Start of Block: PROPERTY
Q36 PROPERTY
Q16 Land – Use – Tareas (.0155 acres)
Superfice
total (1)
Bovine 
livestock
(2)
Milk (3) Forage 
crops (4)
Grass 
cutting 
(5)
Protein 
banks(6)
Tareas (1)
34
Q17 Property
○ Leased (1)
○ Titled property (2)
○ Other (specify) (3)
End of Block: PROPERTY
Start of Block: PRODUCTION AND SALES
Q37 PRODUCTION AND SALES
Q65 # of tareas used for milk production
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Milk
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Milk
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
35
Q18 Daily milk production 
o Unit (1)
oPrice (2)
o Number of cows milked (3) 
Q19 Liters / Cows / Daily Average
Q20 Self-consumption on farm (Liters per month)
Q21 Milk for sale (Liters per month)
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Milk
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Milk
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Milk
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
36
Q22 Do you know what quality grade your milk is being received (in%)?
○ I don’t know (1) 
○ A (2)
○ B (3) 
○ C (4) 
○ D (5)
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Milk
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Milk
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
37
Q23 Who do you sell your milk to?
○ Milk collection center (Name) (1)
○ Producer organization (Name) (2) 
○ Cheese factories (3)
○ Confectionery producers (4)
○ Processing plant (5)
○ Intermediaries (6)
○ Other (specify) (7)
Q26 Number of tareas currently used in meat production
Q27 How many cattle do you currently have?
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Meat
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Meat
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
38
Q28 Total animals sold this year:
Discard (1) Male calf (2) Meat breed (3)
Quantity (1)
Average price (2)
Q29 Who did you sell to
○ Slaughterhouse (1)
○ Intermediary (6)
○ Another rancher (7)
○ Other (8) 
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Meat
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Meat
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
39
Q30 Total animals purchased this year
Milk breed (1) Meat breed (2)
Quantity
(1)
Average price (2)
Q32 Who did you buy from
○ Slaughterhouse (1)
○ Intermediaries (6)
○ Another rancher (7)
○ Other (4) 
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Meat
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Type of Producer = Meat
Or Type of Producer = Milk and Meat
40
Q33 Do you carry out additional income-generating activities outside of the farm business?
oYes (1)
o No (2)
Q34 In case you perform other activities, please list them
End of Block: PRODUCTION AND SALES
Start of Block: PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGANA PROJECT
Q36 PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGANA PROJECT
Q37 In what type of technical assistance of the PROGANA project did you participate? (Specify if it 
was you or someone from your farm)
○ Administrative and financial management of the farm (meat and milk) (1)
○ Animal health (meat and milk) (2)
○ Animal feeding (meat and milk)) (3)
○ Animal genetics and reproduction (meat and milk) (4)
○ Hygienic milking and milk handling – quality (leche) (5)
41
Q38 Administrative and financial management of the farm (meat and milk). Did you receive TA or 
participate in training activities in:
○ How to keep productive records (milk / cow / day), reproductive records, personnel, 
accounting) (1)
○ Special handling of calves (4)
○ Differentiated management of cows according to category and reproductive cycle by type 
(calves, heifers, first service, first calving heifers, cows for the first three months of lactation, 
cows between 4 and 7 months of lactation, cows for hours, empty cows) (5)
Q39 Animal health (meat and milk). Received TA or participated in training activities in:
○ Sanitary management of the farm (1)
○ Basic health of the farm (4)
○ Prevention or cure of zoonotic diseases (5)
○ Activities in favor of animal welfare (6)
Display This Question:
If In what type of technical assistance (TA) of the PROGANA project did you participate? (Specify if it was ... = 
Farm administrative and financial management (meat and milk)
Display This Question:
If In what type of technical assistance (TA) of the PROGANA project did you participate? (Specify if it was ... = 
Animal health (meat and milk)
42
Q40 Animal feed (meat and milk). Received TA or participated in training activities in:
○ Make grass improvements (1)
○ Carry out duck and forage conservation (6)
○ Build a protein reserve bank (7)
○ Mineral supplementation (8)
○ Use of multi-mineral blocks (9)
Q41 Genetics and animal reproduction (meat and milk). You received TA or participated in training 
activities in:
○ Make reproductive diagnoses (1)
○ Doing andrological tests on bulls (4)
○ Doing artificial insemination (5)
○ Make genetic improvement to increase its production (6)
Display This Question:
If In what type of technical assistance (TA) of the PROGANA project did you participate? (Specify if it was ... = 
Animal health (meat and milk)
Display This Question:
If In what type of technical assistance (TA) of the PROGANA project did you participate? (Specify if it was ... = 
Animal health (meat and milk)
43
Q42 Hygienic milking and milk handling - quality (milk). Did you receive TA or participate in training activities in:
○ Build or retrofit a milking parlor (1)
○ Use milk containers with food grade material (4)
○ Use of cleaning and disinfection kits (5)
○ California Mastitis Tests (6)
○ Use nipple sealant (7)
Q43 Did you participate in relationship activities with suppliers of veterinary products, food, genetics, 
equipment (meat and milk)?
oYes (1)
o No (2)
Q44 Did you participate in relationship activities with buyer intermediaries (meat and milk)?
oYes (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If In what type of technical assistance (TA) of the PROGANA project did you participate? (Specify if it was ... = 
Animal health (meat and milk)
44
Q45 Did you participate in ASSOCIATIVITY activities to be or as a member of an association or cooperative?
oYes (1)
o No (2)
Q46 Did you participate in training activities for access to credit from the financial sector?
oYes (1)
o No (2)
End of Block: PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGANA PROJECT
Start of Block: RESULTS OF THE PROJECT INTERVENTION
Q47 RESULTS OF THE PROJECT INTERVENTION
Q48 Rank according to the importance of those that apply
Yes
(1)
No (6)
Has had access to animal
health services (1) o o
Has participated in the 
membership of an association, 
cooperative or other producer 
organization (5)
o o
Has had access to financing (6)
o o
45
Q49 Rank according to the importance of those that apply
Yes
(1)
No (7)
Participation in the Livestock 
Field School has been beneficial 
(7) o o
My productivity has increased 
per acre or per animal (8) o o
The quality of my product 
has improved (11) o o
Sales have increased (12) o o
The Project has stimulated the 
participation of women in its 
activities (9) o o
Women in the milk / livestock 
value chain have increased their 
participation in decision making
(10)
o o
46
Q52 Has your relationship with the following actors increased
Not 
applicable
(1)
Not at all (2) A bit (3) A lot (4)
Milk Collection 
Centers or 
slaughterhouses 
(1)
o o o o
Other producers
(6) o o o o
Service and input 
providers (7) o o o o
Cooperatives 
and/or 
associations (8)
o o o o
Financial 
institutions 
(9)
o o o o
Government 
agencies (10) o o o o
Q55 What should be done to increase the participation of women in the value chain?
Q56 If applicable, please describe some achievements related to the participation of women in the 
value chain?
_
47
Q57 Answer the following questions (yes or no)
Yes
(1)
No (2)
Have you invested in the last 3 
years in your activity /
business? (1)
o o
If you have invested, did it consist 
of acquiring new agricultural 
technologies or techniques? (6) o o
Did this technique improve your 
productivity? (8) o o
Do you plan to invest in 
machinery and / or technology 
in the next year? (9) o o
Do you consider that the project 
activity facilitated the decision 
process? (10) o o
My household income has 
increased thanks to project 
activities (11) o o
My administrative and financial 
knowledge has improved thanks to 
the project activities (12) o o
At the end of the PROGANA project 
I will be able to continue applying 
what I learned without the need 
for additional support. (13)
o o
Q64 Please indicate what technique or technology you were able to acquire
End of Block: RESULTS OF THE PROJECT INTERVENTION
Start of Block: PRODUCER ASPIRATIONS
Display This Question:
If Answer the following questions yes or no = If you have invested, did it consist of acquiring new technologies 
or agricultural techniques? [ Yes ]
48
Q58 PRODUCER ASPIRATIONS
Q59 Mention the areas where you would like more support
○ Technical assistance or training (1)
○ Milk quality (4)
○ Financial or management tools (5)
○ Milking parlors (7)
○ Access to financing (9)
○ Others, specify (10) 
49
Q60 Mention in which areas you would like more support
○ Reproduction (1)
○ Health (4)
○ Feeding (5)
○ Milk quality (6)
○ Meat quality (7)
○ Water harvesting (8)
○ Good livestock practices (9)
○ Commercializing (10)
○ Financial management (11)
○ Marketing (12)
○ Adaptation to drought (13)
○ Climate change adaptation (14)
○ Administration (15)
○ Others, specify (16) 
50
Q62 General comments from the person interviewed. Do you have any questions for us?
Q67 Pollster observations
End of Block: PRODUCER ASPIRATIONS
51
Comparison Group Producers
Start of Block: BASIC INFORMATION
Q35
BASIC INFORMATION 
Q3 Select how the survey was conducted
oFace-to-face (1)
oRemote (2)
Q1 Interviewer
Q2 Date (DD/MM/YY)
Display This Question:
If Select how the survey was conducted = Face-to-face
52
Q4 Name
Q5 Organization
oYes (4)
o No (5)
oI don’t know (6)
Q6 Position
o Owner (4)
o Manager (5)
Q7 Municipality
Q8 Province
53
Q9 Gender of the interviewee
o Male (1)
oFemale (2)
Q35 Are you responsible for the daily management of the farm?
oYes (1)
o No (If not, specify your role) (2)
Q10 Producer 
o Milk (1)
o Meat (2)
o Milk and Meat (3)
54
Q11 Products produced ○ Milk (1) ○ Meat (2) ○ Cheese (3) ○ Yogurt (4) ○ Sweets (5) ○ Other (specify) (6) 
Q12 Type of stabling oStabled (1) oSemi stabled (2) o Open field livestock (4) o Other (specify) (3)
55
Q13 Number of employees
Total (1) Family (2) Full Time
(3)
Temporary(
4)
Native (5) Foreign (6)
Number of 
employees
(1)
End of Block: BASIC INFORMATION
Start of Block: PROPERTY
Q36 PROPERTY
Q16 Land – Uses - Tareas (0.155 acres)
Surface 
total (1)
Bovine 
livestock 
(2)
Milk (3) Forage 
crops(4)
Grass 
cutting 
(5)
Protein 
banks (6)
Tareas (1)
56
Q17 Property
○ Leased (1)
○ Titled property (2)
○ Other (specify) (3)
End of Block: PROPERTY
Start of Block: PRODUCTION AND SALES
Q37 PRODUCTION AND SALES
Q36 # of tareas used for milk production
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Milk
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Milk
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
57
Q18 Daily milk production
oTotal liters (1)
o Number of cows milked (2) 
oPrice (3)
Q19 Liters / Cows / Day Average
Q20 Self-consumption on farm (Liters per month)
Q21 Milk for sale (Liters per month))
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Milk
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Milk
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Milk
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
58
Q22 Do you know what quality grade your milk is being received (in%)?
○ I don’t know (1)
○ A (2)
○ B (3) 
○ C (4) 
○ D (5)
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Milk
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Milk
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
59
Q23 Who do you sell your milk to?
○ Milk collection center (Name) (1)
○ Producers organization (Name) (2) 
○ Cheese factories (3)
○ Confectionery producers (4)
○ Processing plant (5)
○ Intermediaries (6)
○ Other (specify) (7)
Q26 # of tareas used for meat production
Q27 How many cattle do you currently have?
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Meat
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Meat
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
60
Q28 Total animals sold this year:
Discard (1) Male calf (2) Meat breed (3)
Quantity (1)
Average price (2)
Q29 Who did you sell to:
○ Slaughterhouse (1)
○ Intermediary (2)
○ Another rancher (3)
○ Other (4) 
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Meat
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Meat
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
61
Q30 Total animals purchased this year
Milk breed (1) Meat breed (2)
Quantity
(1)
Average price (2)
Q32 Who did you buy from
○ Intermediary (1)
○ Another rancher (2)
○ Other (3) 
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Meat
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
Display This Question:
If Producer type = Meat
Or Type of producer = Milk and Meat
62
Q33 Do you carry out additional income-generating activities outside of the farm business?
oYes (1)
o No (2)
Q34 If case you perform other activities, please list them
Q37 Pollster observations
End of Block: PRODUCTION AND SALES
63
Project Participating Processors
Start of Block: BASIC INFORMATION
Q11
BASIC INFORMATION
Q4 Select how the survey was conducted
oFace-to-face (1)
oRemote (2)
Q2 Interviewer
Q3 Date (DD/MM/YY)
Display This Question:
If Select how the survey was conducted = Face-to-face
64
Q5 Name
Q6 Organization
oYes (4)
o No (5)
oI don’t know (6)
Q7 Position
o Owner (4)
o Manager (5)
Q8 Municipality
Q9 Province
65
Q10 Gender of the interviewee
o Male (1)
oFemale (2)
Q12 Are you responsible for the daily management of the farm?
oYes (1)
o No (If not, specify your role) (2)
Q13 Type of processor
○ Meat processor (1)
○ Milk processor (2)
Display This Question:
If Processor type = Meat processor
66
Q14 Meat processor
o Modern vertically integrated slaughterhouse (1)
oTraditional private slaughterhouse (2)
o Municipal slaughterhouse (3)
o Other (specify) (4)
Q15 Milk processor
o Milk collection center (1)
oCheese factory (2)
o Other (specify)) (3)
Display This Question:
If Processor type = Milk processor
67
Q16 Products produced
○ Meat (1)
○ Milk (2)
○ Cheese (3)
○ Yogurt (4)
○ Other (specify)) (5)
Q17 Number of employees
Total (1) Full time (2) Temporary (3) Native (4) Foreign (5)
Number of 
employees (1)
End of Block: BASIC INFORMATION
Start of Block: PROPERTY
Q1 PROPERTY
68
Q18 Sole owner of the facilities
oYes (1)
o No (2)
Q19 Associative owner of the facilities
oYes (1)
o No (2)
o3 (3)
Q20 Do you have cold milk tank
oYes (1)
o No (2)
Q21 Do you have a cold storage room for meat?
oYes (1)
o No (2)
69
Q22 Who do you sell your product to and with what quality?
Quality (1) A (2) B (3) C (4) D (5)
Meat stores 
and grocery 
stores(1) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Large 
industrial 
processors 
((Rica, Nestlé,
Induveca,
Sigma) (2)
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Medium 
industrial 
processors 
(MilkAgro, San
Juan, Michel,
Cambre, El
Banilejo,
Oleaga, y
Hacienda
Agroindustrial
Los Ángeles) (3)
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Small cheese 
and yogurt 
producers (4) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Intermediary 
merchants 
(5) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Display This Question:
If Milk processor = Collection center
Display This Question:
If Milk processor = Cheese factory
70
Q23 Who do you sell your product to?
○ Colmados and Colmadones (1)
○ Large industrial processors ((Rica, Nestlé, Induveca, Sigma) (2)
○ Medium industrial processors (MilkAgro, San Juan, Michel, Cambre, El Banilejo, Oleaga, y
Hacienda Agroindustrial Los Ángeles) (3)
○ Small cheese and yogurt producers (4)
○ Intermediary merchants (5)
Q24 Who do you sell your product to?
○ Large industrial processors (1)
○ Butcher shop (2)
○ Rural local market (3)
○ Local urban market (4)
Display This Question:
If Processor type = Meat processor
Display This Question:
If Milk processor = Collection center
71
Q25 Who do you buy your product from?
oBuy from small / medium / large producers (1)
oBuy from intermediaries (2)
oBuy from carriers (3)
Q27 Who do you buy your product from?
oBuy from small / medium / large producers (1)
oBuy from intermediaries (2)
Q28 Who do you buy your product from?
oBuy from small / medium / large producers (1)
oBuy from intermediaries (2)
Q26 Who sets the prices and how are they set?
End of Block: PROPERTY
Display This Question:
If Milk processor = Cheese factory
Display This Question:
If Processor type = Meat processor
72
Start of Block: QUANTITY AND PRICES
Q29 QUANTITY AND PRICES
Q30 Monthly average of milk sold
Display This Question:
If Milk processor = Collection center
Answer (1)
Price of a liter of milk sold (1)
Monthly quantity sold (2)
Buyer Description (3)
Display This Question:
If Processor type = Meat processor
73
Q32 Monthly average of meat sold
Do you carry out additional income-generating activities outside of your slaughterhouse or collection 
center business?
oYes (If so, please describe) (1) 
o No (2)
End of Block: QUANTITY AND PRICES
Start of Block: PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGANA PROJECT
Q44 PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGANA PROJECT
Answer (1)
Monthly quantity sold (1)
Buyer Description
74
Q45 In what type of technical assistance from the PROGANA project did you participate? (Specify if it 
was you or someone from your center / slaughterhouse)
○ Analysis of milk / meat quality (A, B, C, D) (1)
○ Analysis of milk solids and fat content (2)
○ Training and technical assistance in milk quality (3)
○ Training and technical assistance in meat quality (4)
○ Training in administrative / financial management of the center / slaughterhouse (5)
○ Access to financial services (6)
○ Buyer / seller link (7)
○ SPS training (8)
○ Stakeholder meeting for equivalence (9)
○ Quality seal training (10)
○ Events that promote public and private partnerships (11)
○ Meat / dairy audits (12)
○ Participated in relationship activities with suppliers of veterinary products, food, 
genetics, equipment (meat and milk) (13)
○ Participated in relationship activities with producers of (meat and milk) (14)
○ Participated in ASSOCIATIVITY activities to become or as a member of an association 
or cooperative. (15)
75
○ ○ Accessed loans from the financial sector (16)
End of Block: PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGANA PROJECT
Start of Block: RESULTS OF THE PROJECT INTERVENTION
Q46 RESULTS OF THE PROJECT INTERVENTION
Q47 Rank according to the importance of those that apply
Yes
(1)
No (6)
Has had access to animal
health services (1) o o
Has participated in the 
membership of an association, 
cooperative or other producer 
organization (2)
o o
Has had access to financing (3)
o o
Q57 Participation in the project has given access to new customers
oYes (1)
o No (2)
76
Q58 Women have increased their participation in decision-making in processing centers and 
slaughterhouses
oYes (1)
o No (2)
77
Q51 Has your relationship with the following actors increased?
78
Not 
applicable
(1)
Not at all (2) A bit (3) A lot (4)
Milk Collection Centers
(1)
o o o o
Slaughterhouses
(2) o o o o
Cheese producers
(3)
o o o o
Other producers
(4) o o o o
Service and input 
providers
(5) o o o o
Cooperatives and / or 
associations
(6) o o o o
Financial institutions
(7)
o o o o
Government agencies
(8)
o o o o
79
Merchants
(9)
o o o o
NGOs / Civil Society 
(10) o o o o
What should be done to increase the participation of women in the value chain?
Q55 If applicable, please describe some achievements related to the participation of women in the 
value chain?
Q56 Answer the following questions (yes or no)
Yes
(1)
No (2)
Have you invested in the last 3 
years in your activity / 
business? (1)
o o
If you have invested, did it consist 
of acquiring new technologies or 
processing techniques?2) o o
Did this technique help improve 
your productivity? (3) o o
Do you plan to invest in 
machinery and / or technology 
in the next year? (4) o o
80
Q61 Please indicate what technique or technology you were able to acquire
End of Block: RESULTADOS DE LA INTERVENCIÓN DEL PROYECTO
Start of Block: PROCESSOR ASPIRATIONS
Q61 PROCESSOR ASPIRATIONS
Q62 Mention the areas you would like to receive more support
○ Technical support or training (1)
○ Milk quality (4)
○ Financial or management tools (5)
○ Milking parlors (7)
○ Access to financing (9)
○ Others, specify (10) 
Display This Question:
If Answer the following questions yes or no = If you have invested, did it consist of acquiring new technologies 
or processing techniques? [ Yes ]
81
Q63 Mention the areas you would like to receive more training
○ Reproduction (1)
○ Health (4)
○ Feeding (5)
○ Milk quality (6)
○ Meat quality (7)
○ Water harvesting (8)
○ Good livestock practices (9)
○ Commercializing (10)
○ Financial management (11)
○ Marketing (12)
○ Adaptation to drought (13)
○ Climate change adaptation (14)
○ Administration (15)
○ Others, specify (16)
82
Q65 General comments from the person interviewed. Do you have any questions for us?
Q66 Pollster observations
End of Block: PROCESSOR ASPIRATIONS
83
Consent form for EACs and DGFs
Interviewee Interviewer Date and place of the interview
Please read the following statement aloud to the interviewee for your consent. Be as 
natural and conversational as possible to keep the interviewee calm.
Declaration of consent
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. My name is [NAME]. I am a researcher from an 
organization called Just Results, a company based in the United States. Our team is in the Dominican 
Republic to conduct a study on the PROGANA Project, which was funded by the 'Food for Progress' 
program of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
We would like to speak with you today to find out your perspective on the development of the project. 
This information will be used in a USDA report to be published. It is important for you to understand 
that while we want your help with this study, you do not have to do so if you do not want to, and you 
do not have to answer any questions that you are not comfortable with.
The objective of this research is to improve the performance of projects such as PROGANA. 
Therefore, this information may also be used by another organization.
The interview is expected to last a maximum of 60 minutes.
Do you have any questions? Please feel free to ask at any time. By saying 'yes', and by participating in this study, 
you are indicating that you have heard this statement of consent, that you have had the opportunity to ask 
questions about your participation and have given your voluntary consent to be a part.
Do you want to participate in the interview? You can answer yes or no.
Obtained Verbal
Consent:
 Yes, I will participate  No, I will not participate
84
Annex 4.2: Tools (Spanish)
Guía para Entrevistas con Actores Clave (EAC) – Staff y Partners de PROGANA
Información Básica
13. Describa su visión del proyecto PROGRANA de manera general incluyendo los resultados
principales deseados y el progreso conseguido para alcanzarlos
14. ¿Cuál ha sido su relación con el proyecto PROGANA?
15. ¿Cuáles han sido algunos de los mayores desafíos enfrentados por el proyecto? ¿Fueron
abordados? En caso afirmativo, ¿Cómo?
16. ¿Cuáles han sido los mayores logros del proyecto? ¿Considera que son sostenibles? En
caso afirmativo, ¿Por qué?
17. ¿Existieron resultados inesperados (buenos o malos) atribuibles al proyecto? En caso
afirmativo, por favor describa.
2. Entrevistador(escriba "no aplicable" si se completa en línea):
3. Fecha:
4. Seleccione cómo se realizó la encuesta:
5. Presencial
6. Remota
7. Nombre:
8. Organización
9. Puesto:
10. Municipio:
11. Provincia:
12. Sexo:
a. Hombre
b. Mujer
Resumen del proyecto: desafíos y logros
85
18. ¿Cuáles fueron las actividades más y menos exitosas? ¿Por qué?
19. Describa la estructura organizacional del proyecto. ¿Cuáles han sido los pros y contras de
la implementación?
20. A lo largo del curso del Proyecto, ¿Qué adaptaciones, si las hubiera, se hicieron al proceso
de implementación del proyecto? ¿De qué manera el Proyecto respondió a las
conclusiones de la evaluación de medio término?
21. En su mente ¿Cuáles de las actividades exitosas cree que son sostenibles? ¿Por qué?
22. De qué manera los actores locales estuvieron involucrados en el manejo del proyecto? (ej.
JAD, cooperativas y organizaciones de agricultores, centros de recolección del leche,
mataderos, gobiernos locales y grupos de la sociedad civil)
23. ¿Las técnicas y tecnologías son fácil de mantener localmente? ¿En qué medida están
garantizadas las condiciones locales para el control de estas técnicas y tecnologías?
24. ¿Considera que los gobiernos locales podrán alcanzar la equivalencia FSIS y continuar
fortaleciendo el sistema de inspección de seguridad alimentaria?
Actividades e implementación del proyecto
Sostenibilidad del proyecto
86
Guía para Entrevistas con Actores Clave (EAC) – Organizaciones Productoras y
Empresas
Información Básica
1. ¿Podría describir su rol dentro de la cadena de valor ganadera, incluyendo sus
interacciones con productores y procesadores?
2. ¿Cuáles son los mayores desafíos que enfrenta, como organización, para cumplir con su
misión?
3. ¿Cuáles son los mayores desafíos que enfrentan los productores y procesadores con los
que trabaja?
4. ¿Cuál ha sido su relación con el proyecto PROGANA?
5. Describa su visión del proyecto PROGRANA de manera general incluyendo los resultados
principales deseados y el progreso conseguido para alcanzarlos
12. Entrevistador(escriba "no aplicable" si se completa en línea):
13. Fecha:
14. Seleccione cómo se realizó la encuesta:
15. Presencial
16. Remota
17. Nombre:
18. Organización
19. Puesto:
20. Municipio:
21. Provincia:
22. Sexo:
k. Hombre
l. Mujer
Resumen de la Organización Productora (OP)
Resumen del proyecto PROGANA
87
6. ¿Considera que el proyecto hizo un buen trabajo incluyéndolo a usted y otras
organizaciones similares para el manejo de las actividades?
7. Para las actividades del proyecto en las que estuvo involucrado ¿considera que son
sostenibles luego que PROGANA finalice? ¿Las técnicas y tecnologías son fácil de
mantener localmente?
8. En su mente ¿cuál será el mayor desafío para alcanzar la equivalencia de los estándares
de exportación de carne y leche?
9. ¿Considera que los gobiernos locales podrán alcanzar la equivalencia FSIS y continuar
fortaleciendo el sistema de inspección de seguridad alimentaria?
Sostenibilidad del proyecto
88
Guía para Entrevistas con Actores Clave (EAC) – Staff de gobierno
Información Básica
11. Describa su visión del proyecto PROGRANA de manera general incluyendo los resultados
principales deseados y el progreso conseguido para alcanzarlos
12. Describe el madato de su organización relacionado con el proyecto?
13. ¿Cuál ha sido su relación con el proyecto PROGANA?
14. ¿Cuáles han sido algunos de los mayores desafíos enfrentados por el proyecto? ¿Fueron
abordados? En caso afirmativo, ¿Cómo?
15. ¿Cuáles han sido los mayores logros del proyecto? ¿Considera que son sostenibles? En
caso afirmativo, ¿Por qué?
16. ¿Existieron resultados inesperados (buenos o malos) atribuibles al proyecto? En caso
afirmativo, por favor describa.
1. Entrevistador(escriba "no aplicable" si se completa en línea):
2. Fecha:
3. Seleccione cómo se realizó la encuesta:
4. Presencial
5. Remota
6. Nombre:
7. Organización
8. Puesto:
9. Municipio:
10. Provincia:
11. Sexo:
f. Hombre
g. Mujer
Resumen del proyecto: desafíos y logros
89
17. ¿Podría describir, desde su perspectiva, de qué manera PROGANA ha apoyado o no, las
estrategias y prioridades del gobierno de República Dominicana?
18. ¿Podría describir los esfuerzos realizados para alcanzar la equivalencia FSIS y continuar
fortaleciendo el sistema de inspección de seguridad alimentaria, luego que finalice el
Proyecto PROGANA?
19. En su mente ¿Cuáles de las actividades exitosas cree que son sostenibles? ¿Por qué?
20. Desde su perspectiva, ¿Qué contrapartes locales han incrementado sus capacidades para
continuar con las acciones del proyecto, y por qué?
21. ¿Las técnicas y tecnologías son fácil de mantener localmente? ¿En qué medida están
garantizadas las condiciones locales para el control de estas técnicas y tecnologías?
Complementariedad del Proyecto con las prioridades del gobierno
Sostenibilidad del proyecto
90
Guía para Entrevistas con Actores Clave (EAC) – Instituciones Financieras
Información Básica
11. ¿Podría describir su rol dentro de la cadena de valor ganadera, incluyendo sus
interacciones con productores y procesadores?
12. Que productos (financieros) ofrece a los actores de la cadena de valor?
13. ¿Cuáles son los mayores desafíos que enfrenta, como organización, para cumplir con su
misión?
14. ¿Cuáles son los mayores desafíos que enfrentan los productores y procesadores con los
que trabaja
15. ¿Cuál ha sido su relación con el proyecto PROGANA?
16. Describa su visión del proyecto PROGRANA de manera general incluyendo los resultados
principales deseados y el progreso conseguido para alcanzarlos
1. Entrevistador(escriba "no aplicable" si se completa en línea):
2. Fecha:
3. Seleccione cómo se realizó la encuesta:
4. Presencial
5. Remota
6. Nombre:
7. Organización
8. Puesto:
9. Municipio:
10. Provincia:
11. Sexo:
h. Hombre
i. Mujer
Resumen de la Organización Productora (OP)
Resumen del proyecto PROGANA
91
17. ¿Considera que el proyecto hizo un buen trabajo incluyéndolo a usted y otras
instituciones financieras, para abordar las necesidades financieras de los productores y
procesadores?
18. Desde su perspectiva ¿Cómo calificaría los esfuerzos hechos por PROGANA colaborando
con instituciones financieras para identificar y llegar a productores y procesadores
solventes?
19. Para las actividades del proyecto en las que estuvo involucrado ¿considera que son
sostenibles luego que PROGANA finalice?
20. ¿Continuarías financiando a productores y procesadores una vez que el proyecto finalice?
Sostenibilidad del proyecto
92
Productores Usuarios del Proyecto
Start of Block: INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA
Q35
INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA
Q3 Seleccione cómo se realizó la encuesta
oPresencial (1)
oRemota (2)
Q1 Entrevistador
Q2 Fecha (DD/MM/YY)
Display This Question:
If Seleccione cómo se realizó la encuesta = Presencial
93
Q4 Nombre
Q5 Organización
oSi (4)
o No (5)
o No se (7)
Q6 Puesto
oPropietario (4)
oEncargado (5)
Q7 Municipio
Q8 Provincia
94
Q9 Sexo del entrevistado
o Hombre (1)
o Mujer (2)
Q63 ¿Eres responsable de la gestión diaria de la finca?
oSi (1)
o No ( Si no, especifique su función) (2)
Q10 Tipo de productor
oLeche (1)
oCarne (2)
oLeche y Carne (3)
95
Q11 Productos producidos
○ Leche (1)
○ Carne (2)
○ Queso (3)
○ Yogurt (4)
○ Dulce (5)
○ Otro (diga cuál) (6) 
Q12 Tipo de producción
oEstabulación (1)
oSemiestabulación (2)
o Ganaria a campo abierta (4)
o Otra (diga cuál) (3)
96
Q13 Cantidad empleados
Total (1) Familiaresa
(2) Fijos (3) Temporales
(4)
Nacionales
(5)
Extranjeros
(6)
Cantidad
empleados
(1)
End of Block: INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA
Start of Block: PROPIEDAD
Q36 PROPIEDAD
Q16 Tierra – Usos (Tareas)
Superficie
total (1)
Ganadería
bovina (2) Leche (3) Cultivos
forrajeros(4)
Pasto de
corte (5)
Bancos de
proteina (6)
Tareas (1)
97
Q17 Propiadad
○ Alquilado (1)
○ Propia con titulo (2)
○ Otra (diga cuál) (3)
End of Block: PROPIEDAD
Start of Block: PRODUCCION Y VENTA
Q37 PRODUCCION Y VENTA
Q65 # de Tareas utilizadas para la producción de leche
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
98
Q18 Producción de leche día anterior
o Unidad (1)
oPrecio (2)
oCantidad de vacas ordeñadas (3) 
Q19 Litres/Vacas/Día promedia
Q20 Autoconsumo en finca (Litros por mes)
Q21 Leche para venta (Litros por mes)
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
99
Q22 Sabe que grado de calidad está recibiendo su leche (en%)
○ No sabe (1) 
○ A (2)
○ B (3) 
○ C (4) 
○ D (5)
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
100
Q23 A quien vende su leche
○ Centro de acopio (Nombre) (1)
○ Org. de Productores (Nombre) (2) 
○ Queserías (3)
○ Dulcerías (4)
○ Planta procesadora (5)
○ Intermediarios (6)
○ Otra (especifique) (7)
Q26 Tareas actualmente utilizadas en producción de carne
Q27 ¿Cuántos vacunos tienes actualmente?
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
101
Q28 Total de animales vendidos este año:
Descarte (1) Becerro macho (2) Raza carne (3)
Cantidad (1)
Precio promedio (2)
Q29 A quién le vendió
○ Matadero (1)
○ Intermediario (6)
○ Otro ganadero (7)
○ Otro (8) 
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
102
Q30 Total de animales comprados este año
Raza de leche (1) Raza carne (2)
Cantidad
(1)
Precio promedio (2)
Q32 A quién le compró
○ Matadero (1)
○ Intermediario (2)
○ Otro ganadero (3)
○ Otro (4) 
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
103
Q33 Realiza actividades adicionales que le generen ingresos fuera del negocio de la finca?
oSi (1)
o No (2)
Q34 Si realiza otras actividades, favor listarlas
End of Block: PRODUCCION Y VENTA
Start of Block: PARTICIPACIÓN EN EL PROYECTO PROGANA
Q36 PARTICIPACIÓN EN EL PROYECTO PROGANA
Q37 ¿En qué tipo de asistencia técnica (AT) del proyecto PROGANA usted participó? (Especificar si fue
usted o algiuen de su finca)
○ Maneje administrativo y financiero de finca (carne y leche) (1)
○ Salud animal (carne y leche) (2)
○ Alimentación animal (carne y leche) (3)
○ Genética y reproducción animal (carne y leche) (4)
○ Ordeño higiénico y manejo de la leche – calidad (leche) (5)
104
Q38 Manejo administrativo y financiero de finca (carne y leche). Recibió AT o participó en actividades de
capacitación en:
○ Como llevar registros productivos (leche/vaca/día), registros reproductivos, personal,
contabilidad) (1)
○ Manejo especial de becerras (4)
○ Manejo diferenciado de vacas según categoría y ciclo reproductivotipo (terneras, novillas,
primer servicio, novillas primer parto, vacas tres primeros meses de lactancia, vacas entre 4 y 7
meses de lactancia, vacas horas, vacas vaciás) (5)
Q39 Salud animal (carne y leche)
Recibió AT o participó en actividades de capacitación en:
○ Manejo sanitario de la finca (1)
○ Sanidad básica de la finca (4)
○ Prevención o cura enfermedades zoonóticas (5)
○ Sobre actividades en pro del bienestar animal (6)
Display This Question:
If ¿En qué tipo de asistencia técnica (AT) del proyecto PROGANA usted participó? (Especificar si fue... = Maneje
administrativo y financiero de finca (carne y leche)
Display This Question:
If ¿En qué tipo de asistencia técnica (AT) del proyecto PROGANA usted participó? (Especificar si fue... = Salud
animal (carne y leche)
105
Q40 Alimentación animal (carne y leche). Recibió AT o participó en actividades de capacitación en:
○ Hacer mejoras de pastura (1)
○ Realizar conservación de pato y forraje (6)
○ Elaborar un banco de reserva de proteína (7)
○ Suplementacion de minerales (8)
○ Uso de bloques multiminerales (9)
Q41 Genética y reproducción animal (carne y leche). Recibió AT o participó en actividades de
capacitación en:
○ Hacer diagnóstico reproductivos (1)
○ Hacer pruebas andrológicas a toros (4)
○ Hacer inseminación artificial (5)
○ Hacer mejoramiento genético para aumentar su producción (6)
Display This Question:
If ¿En qué tipo de asistencia técnica (AT) del proyecto PROGANA usted participó? (Especificar si fue... =
Alimentación animal (carne y leche)
Display This Question:
If ¿En qué tipo de asistencia técnica (AT) del proyecto PROGANA usted participó? (Especificar si fue... =
Genética y reproducción animal (carne y leche)
106
Q42 Ordeño higiénico y manejo de la leche – calidad (leche). Recibió AT o participó en actividades de
capacitación en:
○ Construir o adecuar una sala de ordeño (1)
○ Utilizar recipientes de leche con material de grado alimenticio (4)
○ Utilizar kits de limpieza y desinfección (5)
○ Hacer prueba de California para Mastitis (6)
○ Usar sellante de pezones (7)
Q43 Participó en actividades de relacionamiento con proveedores de productos veterinarios, alimentos,
genética, equipos (carne y leche)
oSi (1)
o No (2)
Q44 Participó en actividades de relacionamiento con intermediarios compradores (carne y leche)
oSi (1)
o No (2)
Display This Question:
If ¿En qué tipo de asistencia técnica (AT) del proyecto PROGANA usted participó? (Especificar si fue... = Ordeño
higiénico y manejo de la leche – calidad (leche)
107
Q45 Participó en actividades de ASOCIATIVIDAD para ser o como miembro de asociación o cooperativa.
oSi (1)
o No (2)
Q46 Participó en actividades de capacitación de acceso a créditos del sector financiero
oSi (1)
o No (2)
End of Block: PARTICIPACIÓN EN EL PROYECTO PROGANA
Start of Block: RESULTADOS DE LA INTERVENCIÓN DEL PROYECTO
Q47 RESULTADOS DE LA INTERVENCIÓN DEL PROYECTO
Q48 Hacer ranking de importancia de los que aplican
Si (1) No (6)
Ha tenido acceso a servicios de
salud animal (1) o o
Ha participado en la membresía de
una asociación, cooperativa u otra
organización de productores (5) o o
Ha tenido acceso a financiamiento
(6) o o
108
Q49 Hacer ranking de importancia de los que aplican
Si (1) No (7)
La participación en la Escuela de
Campo de Ganadería ha sido
beneficiosa (7) o o
He visto aumentado su
productividad por tarea o por
animal (8) o o
Ha mejorado la calidad de mi
producto (11) o o
Ha aumentado las ventas (12) o o
El Proyecto ha estimulado la
participación de mujeres a sus
actividades (9) o o
Las mujeres en la cadena de valor
de leche/ganado han aumentado
su participacion en la decisiones
(10)
o o
109
Q52 Ha aumentado su relación con los siguientes actores
No aplica (1) Par nada (2) Un poco (3) Mucho (4)
Centros de
Recolección de
Leche o mataderos
(1)
o o o o
Otros productores
(6) o o o o
Proveedores de
servicios e insumos
(7) o o o o
Cooperativeas y/o
asociacioens (8) o o o o
Instituciones
financieras(9) o o o o
Agencias del
gobierno (10) o o o o
Q55 ¿Qué se debería hacer para aumentar la participación de las mujeres en la cadena de valor?
Q56 Si aplicable, por favor describir algunos logros relacionados con la participación de las mujeres en la
cadena de valor?
_
110
Q57 Responda las siguientes preguntas sí o no
Si (1) No (2)
¿Ha invertido en los últimos 3 años
en su actividad/negocio? (1) o o
Si ha invertido, ¿Esta consistió en
adquirir nuevas tecnologías o
técnicas agropecuarias? (6) o o
¿Ésta técnica le permitió mejorar su
productividad? (8) o o
¿Tiene pensado invertir en
maquinaria y/o tecnología en el
próximo año? (9) o o
¿Considera que la actividad del
proyecto le facilitó el proceso de
decisión? (10) o o
Los ingresos de mi hogar han
incrementado gracias a las
actividades del proyecto (11) o o
Mis conocimientos administrativos
y financieros han mejorado gracias
a las actividades del proyecto (12) o o
Al final del Proyecto PROGANA seré
capaz de seguir aplicando lo que
aprendí sin la necesidad de apoyos
adicionales (13)
o o
Q64 Indique por favor que técnica o tecnología pudo adquirir
End of Block: RESULTADOS DE LA INTERVENCIÓN DEL PROYECTO
Start of Block: ASPIRACIONES DE LOS PRODUCTORES
Display This Question:
If Responda las siguientes preguntas sí o no = Si ha invertido, ¿Esta consistió en adquirir nuevas tecnologías o
técnicas agropecuarias? [ Si ]
111
Q58 ASPIRACIONES DE LOS PRODUCTORES
Q59 Mencione en que área le gustaria recibir mas apoyo
○ Acompañamiento técnico o capacitación (1)
○ Calidad de leche (4)
○ Herramientas financieras o de administración (5)
○ Salas de ordeño (7)
○ Acceso a financiamiento (9)
○ Otros, especifique (10) 
112
Q60 Mencione en que area le gustaria recibir mas capacitacion
○ Reproducción (1)
○ Sanidad (4)
○ Alimentación (5)
○ Calidad de leche (6)
○ Calidad de carne (7)
○ Cosecha de agua (8)
○ Buenas prácticas ganaderas (9)
○ Comercialización (10)
○ Manejo financiero (11)
○ Mercadeo (12)
○ Adaptación sequia (13)
○ Adaptación cambio climático (14)
○ Administración (15)
○ Otros, especifique (16) 
113
Q62 Comentarios generales de la persona entrevistada. Tienen preguntas para nosotros?
Q67 Observaciones del encuestador
End of Block: ASPIRACIONES DE LOS PRODUCTORES
114
Productores en Grupo de Comparación
Start of Block: INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA
Q35
INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA
Q3 Seleccione cómo se realizó la encuesta
oPresencial (1)
oRemota (2)
Q1 Entrevistador
Q2 Fecha (DD/MM/YY)
Display This Question:
If Seleccione cómo se realizó la encuesta = Presencial
115
Q4 Nombre
Q5 Organización
oSi (4)
o No (5)
o No se (6)
Q6 Puesto
oPropietario (4)
oEncargado (5)
Q7 Municipio
Q8 Provincia
116
Q9 Sexo del entrevistado
o Hombre (1)
o Mujer (2)
Q35 ¿Eres responsable de la gestión diaria de la finca?
oSi (1)
o No (Si no, especifique su función) (2)
Q10 Tipo de productor
oLeche (1)
oCarne (2)
oLeche y Carne (3)
117
Q11 Productos producidos
○ Leche (1)
○ Carne (2)
○ Queso (3)
○ Yogurt (4)
○ Dulce (5)
○ Otro (diga cuál) (6) 
Q12 Tipo de estabulación
oEstabulación (1)
oSemiestabulación (2)
o Ganaria a campo abierta (4)
o Otra (diga cuál) (3)
118
Q13 Cantidad empleados
Total (1) Familiaresa
(2) Fijos (3) Temporales
(4)
Nacionales
(5)
Extranjeros
(6)
Cantidad
empleados
(1)
End of Block: INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA
Start of Block: PROPIEDAD
Q36 PROPIEDAD
Q16 Tierra – Usos (Tareas)
Superficie
total (1)
Ganadería
bovina (2) Leche (3) Cultivos
forrajeros(4)
Pasto de
corte (5)
Bancos de
proteina (6)
Tareas (1)
119
Q17 Propiadad
○ Alquilado (1)
○ Propia con titulo (2)
○ Otra (diga cuál) (3)
End of Block: PROPIEDAD
Start of Block: PRODUCCION Y VENTA
Q37 PRODUCCION Y VENTA
Q36 # de Tareas utilizadas para la producción de leche
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
120
Q18 Producción de leche día anterior
oLitros totales (1)
oCantidad de vacas ordeñadas (2) 
oPrecio (4)
Q19 Litres/Vacas/Día promedia
Q20 Autoconsumo en finca (Litros por mes)
Q21 Leche para venta (Litros por mes)
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
121
Q22 Sabe que grado de calidad está recibiendo su leche (en %)
○ No sabe (1)
○ A (2)
○ B (3) 
○ C (4) 
○ D (5)
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Leche
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
122
Q23 A quien vende su leche
○ Centro de acopio (Nombre) (1)
○ Org. de Productores (Nombre) (2)
○ Queserías (3)
○ Dulcerías (4)
○ Planta procesadora (5)
○ Intermediarios (6)
○ Otra (especifique) (7)
Q26 Tareas actualmente utilizadas en producción de carne
Q27 ¿Cuántos vacunos tienes actualmente?
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
123
Q28 Total de animales vendidos este año:
Descarte (1) Becerro macho (2) Raza carne (3)
Cantidad (1)
Precio promedio (2)
Q29 A quién le vendió
○ Matadero (1)
○ Intermediario (2)
○ Otro ganadero (3)
○ Otro (4) 
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
124
Q30 Total de animales comprados este año
Raza de leche (1) Raza carne (2)
Cantidad
(1)
Precio promedio (2)
Q32 A quién le compró
○ Intermediario (1)
○ Otro ganadero (2)
○ Otro (3) 
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
Display This Question:
If Tipo de productor = Carne
Or Tipo de productor = Leche y Carne
125
Q33 Realiza actividades adicionales que le generen ingresos fuera del negocio de la finca?
oSi (1)
o No (2)
Q34 Si realiza otras actividades, favor listarlas
Q37 Observaciones del encuestador
End of Block: PRODUCCION Y VENTA
126
Procesadores Participantes del Proyecto
Start of Block: INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA
Q11
INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA
Q4 Seleccione cómo se realizó la encuesta
oPresencial (1)
oRemota (2)
Q2 Entrevistador
Q3 Fecha (DD/MM/YY)
Display This Question:
If Seleccione cómo se realizó la encuesta = Presencial
127
Q5 Nombre
Q6 Organización
oSi (4)
o No (5)
o No se (6)
Q7 Puesto
oPropietario (4)
oEncargado (5)
Q8 Municipio
Q9 Provincia
128
Q10 Sexo del entrevistado
o Hombre (1)
o Mujer (2)
Q12 ¿Eres responsable de la gestión diaria de la finca?
oSi (1)
o No (Si no, especifique su función) (2)
Q13 Tipo de procesador
○ Procesador de carne (1)
○ Procesador de leche (2)
Display This Question:
If Tipo de procesador = Procesador de carne
129
Q14 Procesador de carne
o Matadero moderno verticalmente integrado (1)
o Matadero privado tradicional (2)
o Matadero municipal (3)
o Otra (diga cuál) (4)
Q15 Procesador de leche
oCentro de recolección (1)
o Quesería (2)
o Otra (diga cuál) (3)
Display This Question:
If Tipo de procesador = Procesador de leche
130
Q16 Productos producidos
○ Carne (1)
○ Leche (2)
○ Queso (3)
○ Yogurt (4)
○ Otra (diga cuál) (5)
Q17 Cantidad empleados
Total (1) Fijo (2) Temporales (3) Nacional (4) Extranjeros (5)
Cantidad
empleados(1)
End of Block: INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA
Start of Block: PROPIEDAD
Q1 PROPIEDAD
131
Q18 Dueño único de las instalaciones
oSi (1)
o No (2)
Q19 Dueño asociativo de las instalaciones
oSi (1)
o No (2)
o3 (3)
Q20 Tiene tanque de frío de leche
oSi (1)
o No (2)
Q21 Tiene cuarto frío para la carne
oSi (1)
o No (2)
132
Q22 A quién vende su producto y con qué calidad
Calidad (1) A (2) B (3) C (4) D (5)
Colmados y
Colmadones(1) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Grandes
procesadores
industriales
((Rica, Nestlé,
Induveca,
Sigma) (2)
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Procesadores
medianos
industriales
(MilkAgro, San
Juan, Michel,
Cambre, El
Banilejo,
Oleaga, y
Hacienda
Agroindustrial
Los Ángeles) (3)
▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Productores
chicos de queso
y yogurt (4) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Comerciantes
intemediarios
(5) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢
Display This Question:
If Procesador de leche = Centro de recolección
Display This Question:
If Procesador de leche = Quesería
133
Q23 A quién vende su producto
○ Colmados y Colmadones (1)
○ Grandes procesadores industriales ((Rica, Nestlé, Induveca, Sigma) (2)
○ Procesadores medianos industriales (MilkAgro, San Juan, Michel, Cambre, El Banilejo, Oleaga, y
Hacienda Agroindustrial Los Ángeles) (3)
○ Productores chicos de queso y yogurt (4)
○ Comerciantes intemediarios (5)
Q24 A quién vende su producto
○ Procesadores industriales grandes (1)
○ Carnicería (2)
○ Mercado local rural (3)
○ Mercado urbano local (4)
Display This Question:
If Tipo de procesador = Procesador de carne
Display This Question:
If Procesador de leche = Centro de recolección
134
Q25 A quién compra su producto
oCompra a productores a productores pequeños / medianos / grandes (1)
oCompra a intermediarios (2)
oCompra a transportistas (3)
Q27 A quién compra su producto
oCompra a productores a productores pequeños / medianos / grandes (1)
oCompra a intermediarios (2)
Q28 A quién compra su producto
oCompra a pequeños o grandes productores (1)
oCompra a intermediarios (2)
Q26 Quién y cómo se fijan los precios
End of Block: PROPIEDAD
Display This Question:
If Procesador de leche = Quesería
Display This Question:
If Tipo de procesador = Procesador de carne
135
Start of Block: CANTIDAD Y PRECIOS
Q29 CANTIDAD Y PRECIOS
Q30 Promedio mensual de leche vendida
Display This Question:
If Procesador de leche = Centro de recolección
Respuesta (1)
Precio de litro de leche vendido (1)
Cantidad mensual vendida (2)
Descripción de comprador (3)
Display This Question:
If Tipo de procesador = Procesador de carne
136
Q32 Promedio mensual de carne vendida
Q31 Realiza actividades adicionales que le generen ingresos fuera de su negocio de matadero o centro
recolector?
oSi (En caso afirmativo, describa) (1) 
o No (2)
End of Block: CANTIDAD Y PRECIOS
Start of Block: PARTICIPACIÓN EN EL PROYECTO PROGANA
Q44 PARTICIPACIÓN EN EL PROYECTO PROGANA
Respuesta (1)
Cantidad mensual vendida (1)
Descripción de comprador (2)
137
Q45 ¿En qué tipo de asistencia técnica del proyecto PROGANA usted participó? (Especificar si fue usted
o algiuen de su centro/matadero)
○ Análisis de la calidad de la leche/carne (A, B, C, D) (1)
○ Análisis de contenido sólidos y grasa de la leche (2)
○ Capacitación y asistencia técnica en calidad de la leche (3)
○ Capacitación y asistencia técnica en calidad de la carne (4)
○ Capacitación en gestión administrativa/financiera de centro/matadero (5)
○ Acceso a servicios financieros (6)
○ Vinculación comprador/vendedor (7)
○ Entrenamiento de SPS (8)
○ Reunión para stakeholder para equivalencia (9)
○ Capacitación en sello de calidad (10)
○ Eventos que promueven alianzas públicas y privadas (11)
○ Auditorías cárnicas/lácteas (12)
○ Participó en actividades de relacionamiento con proveedores de productos veterinarios,
alimentos, genética, equipos (carne y leche) (13)
○ Participó en actividades de relacionamiento con productores de (carne y leche) (14)
○ Participó en actividades de ASOCIATIVIDAD para ser o como miembro de asociación o
cooperativa. (15)
138
○ Accedió a créditos del sector financiero (16)
End of Block: PARTICIPACIÓN EN EL PROYECTO PROGANA
Start of Block: RESULTADOS DE LA INTERVENCIÓN DEL PROYECTO
Q46 RESULTADOS DE LA INTERVENCIÓN DEL PROYECTO
Q47 Hacer ranking de importancia de los que aplican
Si (1) No (6)
Ha tenido acceso a servicios de
calidad (1) o o
Ha participado en la membresía de
una asociación, cooperativa u otra
organización de processadores (2) o o
Ha tenido acceso a financiamiento
(3) o o
Q57 La participación en el proyecto le ha dado acceso a nuevos clientes
oSi (1)
o No (2)
139
Q58 Las mujeres han aumentado su participacion en la decisones en los centros de procesamiento y
mataderos
oSi (1)
o No (2)
140
Q51 Ha aumentado su relación con los siguientes actores
141
No aplica (1) Par nada (2) Un poco (3) Mucho (4)
Centros de
Recolección de
Leche
(1)
o o o o
Mataderos
(2)
o o o o
Productores de
queso
(3)
o o o o
Otros productores
(4)
o o o o
Proveedores de
servicios e insumos
(5)
o o o o
Cooperativeas y/o
asociacioens
(6)
o o o o
Instituciones
financieras
(7)
o o o o
Agencias del
gobierno
(8)
o o o o
142
Comercializadores
(9)
o o o o
ONGs/Sociedad civil
(10) o o o o
Q54 ¿Qué se debería hacer para aumentar la participación de las mujeres en la cadena de valor?
Q55 Si aplicable, por favor describir algunos logros relacionados con la participación de las mujeres en la
cadena de valor?
Q56 Responda las siguientes preguntas sí o no
Si (1) No (2)
¿Ha invertido en los últimos 3 años
en su actividad/negocio? (1) o o
Si ha invertido, ¿Esta consistió en
adquirir nuevas tecnologías o
técnicas de procesamiento? (2) o o
¿Ésta técnica le permitió mejorar su
productividad? (3) o o
¿Tiene pensado invertir en
maquinaria y/o tecnología en el
próximo año? (4) o o
143
Q61 Indique por favor que técnica o tecnología pudo adquirir
End of Block: RESULTADOS DE LA INTERVENCIÓN DEL PROYECTO
Start of Block: ASPIRACIONES DE LOS PROCESADORES
Q61 ASPIRACIONES DE LOS PROCESADORES
Q62 Mencione en que área le gustaria recibir mas apoyo
○ Acompañamiento técnico o capacitación (1)
○ Calidad de leche (4)
○ Herramientasfinancieras o de administración (5)
○ Salas de ordeño (7)
○ Acceso a financiamiento (9)
○ Otros, especifique (10) 
Display This Question:
If Responda las siguientes preguntas sí o no = Si ha invertido, ¿Esta consistió en adquirir nuevas tecnologías o
técnicas de procesamiento? [ Si ]
144
Q63 Mencione en que area le gustaria recibir mas capacitacion
○ Reproducción (1)
○ Sanidad (4)
○ Alimentación (5)
○ Calidad de leche (6)
○ Calidad de carne (7)
○ Cosecha de agua (8)
○ Buenas prácticas ganaderas (9)
○ Comercialización (10)
○ Manejo financiero (11)
○ Mercadeo (12)
○ Adaptación sequia (13)
○ Adaptación cambio climático (14)
○ Administración (15)
○ Otros, especifique (16) 
145
Q65 Comentarios generales de la persona entrevistada. Tienen preguntas para nosotros?
Q66 Observaciones del encuestador
End of Block: ASPIRACIONES DE LOS PROCESADORES
146
Formulario de consentimiento para EACs y DGFs
Entrevistado Entrevistador Fecha y lugar de la entrevista
Por favor lea al entrevistado la siguiente declaración en voz alta para su consentimiento.
Sea lo mas natural y conversacional posible para mantener tranquilo al entrevistado.
Declaración de consentimiento
Gracias por tomarse el tiempo para reunirse con nosotros hoy. Mi nombre es [NOMBRE]. Soy un/a
investigador/a proveniente de una organización llamada Just Results, una compañía basada en los
Estados Unidos. Nuestro equipo está en la República Dominicana para llevar a cabo un estudio sobre el
Proyecto PROGANA, que fue financiado por el programa ‘Food for Progress’ del Departamento de
Agricultura de los Estados Unidos (USDA).
Quisiéramos conversar con usted hoy para conocer su perspectiva sobre el desarrollo del proyecto. Esta
información será utilizada en un reporte para USDA que será público. Es importante que entienda que,
aunque queremos su ayuda para este estudio, no tiene que hacerlo si así no lo desea, y tampoco tiene
que responder ninguna pregunta con la que no se sienta cómodo/a.
El objetivo de esta investigación es mejorar la performance de proyectos como PROGANA. Por tal
motivo, esta información podrá también ser usada por otra organización.
Se espera que la entrevista dure como máximo 60 minutos.
¿Tiene alguna pregunta? Por favor, siéntase libre de preguntar en cualquier momento. Al decir que ‘si’, y
al participar de este estudio, está indicando que ha oído esta declaración de consentimiento, que ha
tenido la oportunidad de hacer preguntas sobre su participación, y ha dado su consentimiento
voluntario para ser parte.
¿Desea participar de la entrevista? Puede responder si o no.
Consentimiento verbal
obtenido:
 Si, participaré  No, no participaré
147
Annex 5: Interviews and Focus Groups
Organizations participating in Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)
Project and Partners
• Cooperative Resources International (CRI/GENEX)
• Fundacion REDDOM
• Junta Agroempresarial Dominicana (JAD)
• National Cooperative Business Association – Cooperative League of the USA (NCBA CLUSA)
• Texas A&M Agrilife Research, a member of the Texas A&M University system (TAMU)
• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Government and International organizations
• Consejo Nacional para la Reglamentación y Fomento de la Industria Lechera (CONALECHE)
• Consejo Nacional de Competitividad
• Dirección General de Ganadería (DIGEGA)
• Dirección General de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Productos Sanitario (DIGEMAPS)
• Instituto Dominicano de Calidad (INDOCAL) in the Ministry of Industry and Trade
• Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
• Laboratorio Veterinario Central (LAVECEN) at the Ministry of Agriculture
• Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria (OIRSA)
Businesses, financial institutions, and other Value Chain Actors
• Banco ADEMI
• Banco ADOPEM
• Deliciel
• Grupo Rica
• MERCARNE
• NESTLE
• Organic Valley
• Quesería LUPA
• Quesería ROTTIS
Producer Organizations
• Asociación Dominicana de Agricultura (ADA)
• Asociación Dominicana de Hacendados y Agricultores (ADHA)
148
• ASOCIACIÓN DE GANADEROS DE CORDERO (AGACO)
• Asociación de Ganaderos de Arroyo Ancho
• Asociacion de Ganaderos de Dajabon
• Asociación de Ganaderos de Luperon
• Asociacion de Ganaderos de Partido, La gorra y Chacuey
• Asociación de Ganaderos de Restauración
• Asociacion de Ganaderos de San Juan de la Maguana (AGASAJUMA)
• Asociación de Ganaderos Elido Breton
• Asociación de Ganaderos Juancito Fermin
• Asociacion de Ganaderos Productores de Leche de San Juan (APROLESA)
• Asociacion de Ganaderos y Productores de leche Copeyito
• Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado de Carne (ASOCARNE)
• Asociación de Pequeños Ganaderos de Pedro Corto (ASOGAPECO)
• Asociación de Productores de Leche (APROLECHE)
• Cooperativa de Ganaderos de Dajabón
• Cooperativa FEDEGANORTE COOPFEDEGANORTE
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
FGD type Organization Province
Producers Asociación de Ganaderos de Villa Riva y Arenoso Duarte
Producers N/A Puerto Plata
Producers N/A Santiago Rodriguez
Producers Asociación de Productores de Leche de San Juan
(APROLESA)
San Juan
Extensionists Asociación de Productores de Leche de Santiago de la Cruz Dajabon
Extensionists Asociación de Productores de Leche de San Juan
(APROLESA)
San Juan
Extensionists MEGALECHE Santo Domingo
149
Annex 6: TOR for the Final Evaluation
NCBA CLUSA International
Safe Agriculture/Food Export
(SAFE)
Final Performance Evaluation
Request for Proposal (RFP)
November 2020
150
1. Statement of Work Detail
This Request for Proposals (RFP) is aimed at soliciting proposals from qualified individuals/organizations
interested in implementing a final evaluation of the “Safe Agriculture / Food Export (SAFE) Project”,
funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and implemented by NCBA CLUSA. This
request calls for a technical firm with demonstrated abilities to design and implement evaluation and
research studies and collect data from multiple stakeholders along the Dominican beef and dairy value
chains. The purpose of the final evaluation is to assess 1) project accomplishments in relation to its goals
and objectives, 2) relevance of project activities, 3) signs of project effectiveness and impact, 4)
efficiency of systems and processes, 5) sustainability efforts; and recommendations for USDA, project
participants, and other key stakeholders for future food assistance and capacity building programs.
General Information:
Activity Title SAFE Final Performance Evaluation
Project Name USDA Safe Agriculture / Food Export (SAFE) Project
Agreement Number FCC-517-2015/008-00-A
Donor United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Project Duration October 2015-March 2021
Funding
USD $16,212,120.85 resulting from the monetization of 16,100 MT of
Crude Degummed Soybean Oil (CDSO) and of 4,320 MT of Yellow Grease
Tallow
Implementing
Organization
National Cooperative Business Association’s (NCBA) Cooperative League
of the USA (CLUSA)
Partner Organizations
Junta Agroempresarial Dominicana (JAD)
GENEX Cooperative (GENEX)
Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University (TAMU) AgriLife Research
Geographic Coverage
Puerto Plata, Duarte, María Trinidad Sánchez, Monte Plata, El Seibo,
Hato Mayor, La Altagracia, San Juan, Independencia, Dajabón, Santiago
Rodríguez and Santo Domingo provinces
151
2. Project Background
The SAFE project, known locally as PROGANA, is being implemented over a period of five years, in the
provinces of: Santiago Rodríguez, Dajabón, Independencia, San Juan, Monte Plata, La Altagracia, Hato
Mayor, El Seibo, María Trinidad Sánchez, Duarte and Puerto Plata.
Prior to the implementation of the Safe Agriculture/Food Export (SAFE) project, NCBA CLUSA conducted
a baseline study about the Dominican Republic Livestock value chain and production systems and a
midterm evaluation of the project, focusing on the eleven target provinces. The Project seeks to work
with 14,407 individuals, out of which 13,200 are farmers and 1,207 are public and private extension
workers, beef and dairy processors, decision makers, public and private stakeholder representatives,
and 60 producer organizations.
The following are the specific objectives of the project:
• Improve agricultural productivity in the livestock (beef and dairy) value chain by increasing the
use of improved techniques and technologies; improving farm management; increasing the
availability of improved inputs and use of financial services; strengthen the capacity of
government institutions and key groups; and increasing the leverage of private sector resources.
• Expand trade of beef and dairy products by adding value to post-production; increasing the
adoption of established standards; increasing accessto markets; building linkages between buyers
and sellers; improving post-harvest infrastructure; increasing the use and efficiency of post-
152
production processes; improving the policy and regulatory framework; and strengthening the
capacity of key organizations in the trade sector.
Project Results Frameworks 1 and 2
To achieve the two main objectives of the Project, twelve essential activities were considered in its
design to address all the links of the Dominican livestock value chain. Each activity is disaggregated into
different tasks and specific actions that together contribute to accomplishing the 57 established
indicators to be achieved during the five years of the Project, and their end results. Below is the
project’s results framework representing the theory of change and strategic objectives linked to Food for
Progress’ expected results.
153
154
The Theory of Change dictates the following 12 project activities:
ACTIVITY 1: TRAINING ON IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL TECHNIQUES
The project focuses on the adoption of improved agricultural techniques through training and technical
assistance on the planting of improved pastures and their pasture management techniques with training
sessions on the following: animal nutrition, animal feed; milking and milk-handling practices, animal
health (use of pharmaceuticals, herd vaccinations, ticks prevention and animal handling), sanitary
standards for dairy and beef processing facilities (Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), Hazard Analysis
and Critical Control Points (HACCP), sanitary registration of products) and training on the
implementation of sustainable livestock management.
ACTIVITY 2: TRAINING ON FARM MANAGEMENT
This activity refers to the implementation of training on agribusiness and training and application of
tools and techniques to improve farmers’ capacity in terms of farm administration and management in
an orderly and documented way by recording the relevant information of the farms in terms of
production (quantity of milk, number of cows, reproductive records), management of personnel and
payroll, and farm economic management (income and expenses records). The documentation and
registration of activities on the farm is a tool for making administrative and productive decisions that
allow for a business approach to farm management thereby improving the levels of herd profitability.
ACTIVITY 3: FACILITATE AGRODEALERS AND OTHER INPUT SUPPLIERS
The project coordinates technical assistance activities with input suppliers (Semillas Latinas, ABODOM,
Ferquido, Vitrogan, Enda Caribe, Nestle, Rica and others) to design and establish demonstration farms
for management, milking parlors, and other modules of improved practices. Inputs include seeds,
fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, etc. The project links input suppliers which are interested in supplying inputs
to producers in the target provinces, providing technical training to extension agents on the use of their
inputs, discounting and sharing the cost of the required inputs for establishing demonstration plots and
providing specific technical assistance (TA) to farmers.
ACTIVITY 4: IMPROVE THE BEEF AND DAIRY VALUE CHAIN
The project provides matching grants for dairy processors and Producer Organizations (POs) to
strengthen milk collection centers (MCCs) and beef processors supporting the Equivalence process.
Infrastructure improvements for dairy include milk handling equipment for farmers, chilling equipment
for MCCs and laboratory equipment for milk testing facilities. The infrastructure improvements in beef
processing includes Sanitary Performance Standards control systems identified by the regulatory
assessment and agreed to by the GoDR and private sector partners. SAFE works with the Ministry of
Agriculture, Ministry of Public Health, the Administrative Ministry of the Presidency, laboratories, the DR
Beef Producers Association (ASOCARNE), and slaughterhouses as private sector partners to achieve
Equivalence.
ACTIVITY 5: CAPACITY BUILDING OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
AGENTS/ SERVICES
155
The project will provide more support to key private sector value chain actors to establish and improve
private extension systems. To date, 38 students were trained at the Technological Institute of San
Ignacio de Loyola (ITESIL) as new extension agents, of which two are working on farms around the area.
Also, SAFE worked with project partners to provide training to private and public agricultural extension
workers. Private sector companies included ABODOM, HESATECH, NUGEGA, MULTILAB, Nestle, and
Rica. Public sector organizations included Ministry of Agriculture, Vitrogan, and the Autonomous
University of Santo Domingo (UASD).
ACTIVITY 6: CAPACITY BUILDING OF PRODUCER GROUPS
There are five livestock federations collaborating with the project (FEDEGANO, FEDEGANORTE,
FEGACIBAO, FEDAGARES, and FEGASUR). The project has signed coordination agreements with the first
two federations and with many of the cattlemen’s associations geographic zone of intervention. The five
federations aggregate around 90% of associated livestock farmers within the eleven target provinces.
The obligations of both parties are to share resources, mainly technical support and expertise to
contribute to the Project´s goals. One of the SAFE Project’s goals is to strengthen the capacities of
livestock POs focusing on organizational, administrative, financial and technical aspects.
ACTIVITY 7: CAPACITY BUILDING FOR PROMOTING IMPROVED POLICY AND REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
Under this activity, the project is supporting the development of necessary infrastructure overseeing the
control and implementation of the sanitary standards equivalent to those demanded in the U.S. for the
beef sector that are required to export beef to the U.S. market in Puerto Rico. Three main actors of the
beef value chain are essential to attaining Equivalence: DIGEMAPS (General Directorate of Medicines,
Food and Health Products of the MoH), the official public agency responsible for the sanitary inspection
system in the Dominican Republic; the reference laboratories to be audited by the FSIS; and, the three
preselected slaughterhouses (Mercarne , Agrocarne, and Suplidora de Carne A&B); at least one of which
will be selected and audited by FSIS, to determine whether the MoH is operating a beef inspection
system for beef that is equivalent to the U.S. inspection system. SAFE is providing technical assistance to
slaughterhouses and beef farmers supplying slaughterhouses on a proposed course of action needed to
achieve those standards.
ACTIVITY 8: FINANCIAL SERVICES - FACILITATE AGRICULTURAL LENDING AND PRIVATE AND
PUBLICSECTOR INVESTMENT
The project provides training to financial institutions (FIs) on the financing needs of dairy farmers and
processors. The SAFE project collaborates with FIs to conduct outreach to identify credit-worthy dairy
producers and processors. Investment plans for small farms are developed as part of the support of the
project. The project links these small farmers with financial agencies to facilitate producers’ and
processors’ access to credit based on the result of the small investment plans supported by the project.
Additionally, the SAFE project facilitates the participation of farmers and processors at exposition, trade,
and finance fairs to promote available financial products.
ACTIVITY 9: TRAINING - BEEF AND DAIRY QUALITY STANDARDS
SAFE provides training to small and medium dairy manufacturers throughout the Dominican Republic.
These trainings guide processors on how to improve the quality of cheese and other dairy products by
156
applying GMP such as the use of sanitation materials, avoidance of adulterating milk with peroxide, the
use of proper manufacturing clothes (hats, boots, etc.), and avoiding product cross contamination. For
beef, the project trains beef processing staff on GMP, specifically related to SPS gaps. Additional training
on HACCP will be aimed at beef processors and slaughterhouses.
ACTIVITY 10: MARKET ACCESS: FACILITATE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS
SAFE signed a general agreement with DIGEGA that was made operational by the articulation of 26
MEGALECHE agents responsible for providing TA to targeted farmers and POs through the public
extension system. In addition, SAFE works with a Consultative Technical Council (CTC) and the
Equivalence Group to achieve the Equivalence certification to export beef to the USA (Puerto Rico). The
approach establishes public-private partnerships to focus on the Equivalence certification (SAFE’s
primary result) with FSIS standards.
ACTIVITY 11: CAPACITY BUILDING - DEVELOP PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN AND IMPROVE
MARKETING AND BRANDING
The project implements a comprehensive approach to develop the use of the Seal of Quality in dairy
products. To improve the quality of milk at the consumer level, the project works from the beginning of
the milk value chain, training milk producers on hygienic and safe milking techniques that will improve
the quality of the milk, seeking to produce Grade “A”. Next, the Project trains milk processors on the
requirements for the attainment of the Seal of Quality. Finally, the Project accompanies milk processors
in the attainment of the sanitary registration from the Ministry of Health and the posterior attainment
of the Seal of Quality through technical assistance. Several visual materials are developed and
distributed along the value chain with messages about adequate production and processing practices.
ACTIVITY 12: MARKET ACCESS - FACILITATE BUYER-SELLER RELATIONSHIPS
In the dairy sub-sector, the SAFE project aims to facilitate linkages at four levels: 1) between POs/MCCs
and processors; 2) between processors and individual farmers; 3) between equipment and service
providers and processors; and 4) between producers and equipment and service providers. The project
organizes meetings between MCCs and processors with nearby independent dairy farmers. The
following interventions are currently part of the project’s interventions.
Table 1: Value Chain Partners and Intervention
Value Chain Partner Intervention
Producers NCBA CLUSA’s interventions with producers include training 3,271 dairy and
beef producers on improved agricultural techniques and technologies via
workshops, demonstration plots, training in farm management and the
development of 3,750 small business plans for small farmers.
157
Processors NCBA CLUSA’s interventions with processors include: training approximately
300 dairy processing staff on milk quality and best manufacturing practices,
training 140 dairy producer association members on milk collection center
management, and investments in quality and production improving
infrastructure. For beef, technical assistance and three audits about
Sanitation Performance Standard (SPS) measures for slaughterhouses
supporting the Equivalence process and training 24 beef processors staff on
SPS measures.
Coops & POs NCBA CLUSA’s interventions with Co-ops and POs include the signing of
coordination agreements, the development of building strategies for the
federations and diagnostics of the federations, development of 24
assessments for cooperatives to determine organizational capacity and
sustainability as businesses; the establishment of linkages with Peace Corps
volunteers,
multiple USAID Farmer-to-Farmer Volunteer experts, and exchanges of best
practices with U.S. dairy cooperatives such as Organic Valley and Cabot
Creamery to provide administrative and management support.
Input Suppliers NCBA CLUSA’s interventions with input suppliers include: organizing exchange
visits for project partner suppliers with demonstration plots and training on
improved inputs.
Buyers - Sellers NCBA CLUSA’s interventions to connect buyers and sellers include: facilitating
the linkages between international buyers and local sellers, sponsoring the
participation of local sellers at trade expos, participating in trade shows,
supporting 3 beef processing companies and two dairy processors for export.
Additionally, promoting a Seal of Quality for final consumers to increase
demand for beef and dairy products that meet GoDR and USDA food safety
standards.
Financial Services
Institutions
NCBA CLUSA’s interventions for Financial Services Institutions include
organizing intermediation workshops between input suppliers, MFIs, and
producers, sponsoring participation at credit fairs, and creating 3,750
business plans for producers and processing facilities, and providing TA to POs
to develop micro-credit programs for their members to invest in beef and
dairy production and quality improving technologies and practices.
158
Government
Institutions
NCBA CLUSA’s interventions for government institutions include: developing a
training program for government extension agents on the dairy value chain,
training on extension methodology to the government extension service,
training and provision of M&E tools, 30 trainings on beef and dairy farm
management, 24 trainings on artificial insemination, 24 trainings to public
credit agents on farm valuation. Also, training 25 newly hired slaughterhouse
inspectors from the Ministry of Health (DIGEMAPS) on the necessary
measures and controls for an adequate beef inspection system and three
laboratory analysts from the Dr. Defillo National Laboratory staff on how to
evaluate the supporting third-party laboratories and the prevention of
conflicts of interest ; the creation and follow up of the Technical Consultative
Committee (CTC), strengthening of the Technical Equivalency Group and the
Presidential Commission for Beef Export.
3. Purpose and Scope of the Final Evaluation
Purpose of this final evaluation is to assess the extent to which the objectives and results of the project
have been achieved compared to the baseline and midterm results, specifically to what extent the
activities have contributed to increased agricultural productivity and marketing of agricultural products.
Additional objectives include 1) to provide an independent, third party assessment of the project’s
results; 2) assessing to what extent midterm recommendations were implemented; 3) to document
lessons learned; and 4) to assess the potential for sustainability.
The evaluation will aim to measure the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of
the project activities. To do this, the evaluators will address the following questions:
159
Table 2: Evaluation Questions:
Categories Evaluation Questions
Relevance • To what extent has the project responded to the actual needs and
interests of the target farmers, associations, groups, and other
stakeholders?
• To what extent does the project integrate or strengthen the national
sectoral strategy to improve production and market access?
• To what extent does the project fit into the strategies of the DR
government?
• What was the added value of the project considering perspectives
from key stakeholders such as USDA WA, USDA DR, POs, and
implementing partners?
Effectiveness • To what extent have the expected results of the project been
achieved?
• What factors have been critical to the achievement or
nonachievement of project objectives?
• Has the project led the planned activities? Has it achieved the
expected results?
• What adaptations, if any, were made to the project’s implementation
process in order to achieve project objectives and targets based on
mid-term evaluation findings?
• To what extent the activity changes after midterm evaluation results
and recommendations were successful in improving effectiveness and
ability of the project to achieve its expected results?
• What were the planned and unplanned outcomes that can be
attributed to the project?
• What are the evolutions of the project indicators?
• Has the implementation process (approach - methodology) been
effective?
• What is the evidence and estimate by how much agricultural
productivity and the marketing of agricultural products have been
improved through project actions?
• To what extent did the Livestock Farmer Field School methodology
contribute to improved agrobusiness management, production and
quality compared to traditional adult education methodologies?
• To what extent did project activities prepare stakeholders to
participate in virtual activities versus in-person as a result of the
global pandemic from the novel coronavirus COVID-19?
160
• To what extent did stakeholders benefit from the project’s attempts
to provide virtual trainings as a result of the pandemic? To what
extent did the technical assistance received by beneficiaries improve
the management of their agrobusinesses, production and quality?
• To what extent did beneficiaries adopt the project’s improved
practices and technologies and improve their agrobusiness’s
management, production, and quality?
Efficiency • To what extent, appropriateness, and functionality have the various
units / levels of management and coordination (grants, project staff,
M & E, local committees, USDA/W, USDA/Santo Domingo and others)
supported the implementation of the project?
• To what extent were the size and composition of the teams
appropriate to the strategies?
• To what extent do the various project activities support each other?
• To what extent has the process of project implementation including
finance and administration optimized time and resources?
Impact • What was the impact of the project on:
 Increased household income
 Increased agricultural productivity
 Increased market access and expanded trade
 Increased quality of agricultural products
 Increased public and private extension services
• How does the beneficiaries’ perception of the project’s
achievements, especially the increase in productivity and income vary
across value chains and regions?
• What is the legacy of the project? Organize achievement categories
from most significant impact to least significant impact.
• Which activities were the most successful and the least successful?
Why? Breakdown by intervention / activity.
• To what extent have beef and dairy ranchers’ capacity to respond to
on-farm shocks and daily activities improved as a result of the project,
and why?
• How has the project’s activities strengthened local producer
organization’s governance, member services and equity, as well as
incomes?
Sustainability • To what extent have local actors (JAD, cooperatives and farmers'
organizations, MCCs, Slaughterhouses, local government and civil
society groups) been involved in the management of the project?
• Which local counterparts have increased their capabilities to continue
with the project’s actions, and why?
161
• Which partnerships were the strongest and why?
• What is the probability that these actors will be able to provide
succession?
• Are the techniques and technologies used in the project easy to
maintain locally? To what extent are the conditions for local control of
these techniques and technologies guaranteed? Are people facing
any additional challenges in light of the pandemic? Prioritize activities
to continue after the project closes from most likely to least likely.
• To what extent do the project interventions support and stimulate the
local economy? When possible, consider adding tools to get insight on
quantifying the project’s impact on the local economy.
• Which of the following project impacts are likely to be
sustained and/or scaled-up after the project closes? o
Increased household income
o Increased agricultural productivity o
Increased market access and trade o
Increased quality of products
• Identify and explain short and mid-term challenges to sustain
program results, and what actions could be taken before the end of
the project to mitigate those challenges, if any.
• To what extent are local government actors likely to achieve FSIS
equivalence and continue strengthening the food safety inspection
system?
•
•
To what extent did modifying the traditional training methodology to
the methodology in the “Collective Efficiency Schools” permit
improved learning and application of the concepts?
The successful evaluator will lead the entire evaluation process from design to report writing. NCBA
CLUSA staff will provide logistical and other administrative support. Key activities will include:
• Review project documents and other published and grey literature related to the project. Thisincludes
the project’sinternal documents e.g., work-plan and strategies as well asrelevant external documents
including, but not limited to, national policies and regulations, special studies carried out by other
agencies, etc.
• Develop study design and methodsthat will have a balance of quantitative and qualitative techniques,
analysis of secondary data, observations, and document reviews.
• Identify and select study participants from the sampling frame provided by the project staff. The
sampling frame will include all the beneficiaries of both value chains from all the regions.
• Develop, edit and finalize data collection tools e.g., household survey questionnaire, PO survey
questionnaire, and key informant interview and focus group guides.
• Develop data collection guide specifying data collection and management structure, field schedules
and data quality assurance methodology.
162
• Train field supervisors, key informant interviewers and focus-group facilitator on the methods and
processes.
• Perform quality assurance during design, testing, fieldwork, data entry, data analysis and reporting; •
Prepare study report
• Present findings, conclusions and recommendations(in both written report and PowerPoint formats).
Project evaluation activities must not threaten the health of the evaluation team, project staff,
participants, or the public. Furthermore, evaluators must comply with local health ordinances to protect
public health (for example, wearing face masks that cover their nose and mouth, practice social
distancing, etc.).
4. Methodology
In adherence to RFP requirements, the final evaluation will be conducted by an independent external
evaluator that will be selected by a procurement committee. The project’s M&E Specialist will be the
lead NCBA CLUSA representative, however all project personnel will be expected to contribute to the
evaluation by providing information, assisting wherever feasible, and helping to determine any
appropriate project corrections to be made and implemented as determined by the evaluator.
The evaluation team will propose a robust study design that will involve both quantitative and
qualitative methods to collect and synthesize information in providing detailed answers to the specified
evaluation questions related to relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability dimensions.
Achievement in key project outcomes will be determined by comparing target value with actual
accomplishment. Change in key outcome indicators will be assessed by comparing baseline values with
the findings of the final evaluation. This will be a non-experimental pre-post design. Baseline and
midterm information on outcome indicators will be compared to final information to assess the extent
and direction of change. The baseline study did not include a control group, and therefore it will not be
feasible to apply experimental or quasi-experimental designs.
The baseline study was conducted in July-August 2016 before the start of the project activities. The
objectives of the baseline study were primarily to establish baseline values for the outcome indicators
and identification of activities and strategies for dairy and beef value chains. Methods included a survey
of a representative sample of 505 farms, structured and semi-structured interviews with dairy
distributors, small beef processors, financial institutions, public regulatory agencies, private input
suppliers, and farmers and PO officials. The midterm evaluation was conducted between January and
March 2019 to determine the effectiveness and impact of the project to date and provide
recommendation for any necessary implementation corrections to ensure the project achieves its stated
objectives.
163
Data Collection: Data will be collected from organizational and individual level beneficiaries and market
participants e.g., producer organizations, individual and organizational level processors, buyers,
individual beneficiaries, government officials, financial institutions and so forth. NCBA CLUSA will
provide sampling frame and other necessary support to the evaluation team e.g., literature to be
reviewed; project briefing that will include context, activities and indicators; and briefing on
stakeholders and beneficiary groups. There will be time spent in the SAFE project office in Santo
Domingo and in the field. The evaluator and SAFE management staff will develop a more detailed travel
schedule based on the evaluator’s meeting requirements prior to arrival in country, if international. Data
collection strategy and logistics will be adjusted considering the evolution of COVID-19 at the time of
this evaluation. The safety of the evaluation team, beneficiaries and all staff should always be prioritized
by complying with the recommendation of health authorities, respecting physical distancing and
wearing masks as appropriate.
• Sampling: Individual farmers will be selected using multi-stage cluster sampling methods.
Proportionate random technique will be used to select males and females from each sub-cluster.
Beef and dairy will be the first level cluster. Second and tertiary level cluster will be determined
based on the geographic spread. The sample selected for the final evaluation will closely match the
study samples of baseline and midline. For the quantitative data collection e.g., focus group
discussion and key informant interviews purposeful/availability/ snow-ball sampling methods will be
used.
Table 3: Illustrative Sampling and Data Collection Method
Value Chain
Actor/Partner
Selection Method Data Collection Method
Direct and indirect
beneficiaries
• Use project’s beneficiary listing as a
sampling frame
• Treat each region as a stratum.
• Determine the sample size for each
region utilizing appropriate sample size
estimation formula.
• Select sample randomly from each
stratum.
Household survey to capture
quantitative information
M&E report and other
project document review
164
Federations,
Associations,
Cooperatives, and
POs
Quantitative Data
• Use project’s associations and POs listing
as a sample frame
• Treat each region as a stratum
• Determine the sample size utilizing
appropriate sample size estimation
formula.
• Apply stratified random sampling
methods to select participants from each
region.
Qualitative Data
• Use of availability and snow-ball sampling
method to select focus group
participants.
Document reviews
Structured surveys to
capture qualitative data
Focus group discussion to
capture qualitative
information.
Agro-dealer and input
suppliers
Quantitative Data
• Census instead of sample as the number
of is manageable.
Qualitative Data
• Use of availability and snow-ball sampling
method to select focus group
participants.
Document reviews
Structured surveys to
capture qualitative data
Focus group discussion to
capture qualitative
information.
Government officials
(local and national)
Purposeful and availability sampling method Document reviews
Key informant interviews
MCCs, Beef & Dairy
Processors
Quantitative data
• Census instead of sample as the number
of is manageable.
Qualitative data
• Availability and snow-ball sampling
method to select focus group
participants.
Document review
Structured survey to collect
quantitative data
Focus group discussion to
capture qualitative
information
Data Analysis: Data will be analysed at the regional and project level. The regional level analysis will
include exploration as well as explaining of the emerging themes and concepts within each value chain.
Project level analysis will involve putting the emerging themes and concepts and explanatory factors
from all the regions together.
Quantitative data will be analysed using SPSS or similar statistical solutions. The analysis will involve
descriptive analysis that will be presented in tabular/chart formats. Within region and across region
analysis will be conducted for each indicator and participant category. The evaluation team will develop
a code book that will include codes for location, participant type, questions and response categories.
165
Analysis of qualitative data will follow the framework of data reduction, data visualization, and
conclusion drawing and verification. Data reduction phase will include selecting, focusing, simplifying,
abstracting, and transforming the data that appear in written-up field notes or transcripts. All the field
notes will be transcribed first in the local language and then will be translated in English. Findings from
the document review will be noted in the document summary forms. Data will be presented in visual
format that will help conclusion drawing and verifications. Finally, the team will draw conclusions based
on regularities, patterns, explanations, causal flows, and propositions.
5. Addressing Limitations
Due to the complexity of different components of the project and the geographical location of its
activities, opportunities for errors exist. The evaluation team is expected to be aware of such complexity
and develop strategies to minimize opportunities for the errors. The evaluation team will develop
quality control systems, including developing detailed data collection guides and overseeing field data
collection.
This evaluation will heavily rely on secondary performance information reported in quarterly and annual
reports. The quality of performance data will affect the accuracy of projected trends. The evaluation
team should check the validity and the reliability of performance data before analyzing it.
Primary data collected from beneficiaries may reflect the opinions of the most dominant groups without
capturing the perceptions of less vocal groups. The evaluation team should take this into account and
make sure that all parties are freely expressing their views. The evaluation team will mitigate this
potential oversight by organizing focus groups based on the need to ensure that participants speak
freely during discussions.
6. Deliverables
• Inception report that will include methodology, sampling approach, data analysis, field procedures.
USDA will publish evaluation reports in the future and final copies of reports should be free of PII and
otherwise ready to publish. The evaluator will be asked to sign the attached waiver with the final
report.
• Data quality assurance plan and method.
• Data collection and analysis tools: Set of questionnaires, formats, and Excel spreadsheets used to
collect and analyze data, and their implementation guidelines.
• Data files: raw field notes, transcribed notes, tabulated data.
• Weekly Progress Reports: A written and/or electronic report of the evaluation’s progress made in the
field covering key scheduled activities, completion status and found constraints regarding data
collection.
166
• Initial presentation: A PowerPoint presentation on results and conclusion of the evaluation. The
presentation should not be more than 15 slides.
• Submission of Draft Evaluation Report: The team will submit a draft report to the NCBA CLUSA key
staff (Project COP and M&E Specialist; and Program Manager at HQ) and USDA Analyst, who will
provide comments for revision.
• Final Report: A written and electronic document that includes an executive summary, table of
contents, methodology, findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations. The evaluator
will collect and report data on all relevant performance indicators. The report will also include annexes
that will have all custom and standard indicators with disaggregates and updated values in
comparison to baseline values. All the personal identifying information must be scrubbed in the final
version of the report. The report will be submitted in English with an executive summary in Spanish
and should include a database with all collected information and an analytical framework. The
evaluation should assess:
• A 2-3 page stand-alone brief describing the evaluation design, key findings and other relevant
considerations. It will serve to inform any interested stakeholders of the final evaluation and should
be written in language easy to understand by non-evaluators and with appropriate graphics and
tables.
• Final presentation in Spanish: A PowerPoint presentation on definitive results and conclusion of the
evaluation to the project staff and select local stakeholders.
Evaluation Management and Coordination
Per the requirement of USDA policy, this evaluation will be conducted by independent third-party
evaluators. NCBA CLUSA will provide logistical support that will also include inviting stakeholders for the
meetings. Evaluators will present methodology and findings to USDA officials and NCBA CLUSA team.
Draft report will be shared with USDA for their review and comments. The report will be finalized after
the approval from USDA.
All final versions of international food assistance evaluation reports will be made publicly available.
Evaluators shall provide a copy of the evaluation reports that is free of personally identifiable
information (PII) and proprietary information. Final versions of evaluation reports ready for
publication should be accessible to persons with disabilities. For guidance on creating documents
accessible to persons with disabilities, please see the following resources:
https://www.section508.gov/create/documents
https://www.section508.gov/create/pdfs
7. Audience and Intended Use
This evaluation will help measure project performance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability
and relevance of the project’s approach in achieving its stated goals. Performance results, lessons
learned, and the success of the supported activity are to be shared with USDA to inform future activity
167
design. The audience will include all key stakeholders e.g., USDA, NCBA CLUSA, partner organizations
e.g., Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University (Texas A&M), GENEX Cooperative, Dominican
Agricultural Business Board (JAD), project participants, the MEGALECHE extension program from the
General Livestock Directorate (DIGEGA) of the Ministry of Agriculture, the General Directorate for
Medicines, Food, and Sanitary Products (DIGEMAPS) from the Ministry of Health, and the National
Council for the Support of Dairy Production (CONALECHE), private sector partners, and other non￾governmental organizations working in synergy with the SAFE project. Other audiences may include
individuals and groups who are not necessarily engaged in the project activities but may benefit from
the findings that may be published and disseminated through CLUSA website and/or presentation in
national and international conferences.
8. Selection of the Evaluation Team
An outside firm/external evaluator will be selected for the final evaluation. Through this competitive
process NCBA CLUSA will select an evaluation firm who has local expertise and experience evaluating
agricultural and trade initiatives with similar target audiences. Major requirements for the evaluator will
include:
• Demonstrated knowledge, analytical capability, language skills and experience in conducting
evaluations of development programs and/or projects involving agriculture and ideally livestock,
trade, and marketing in DR.
• Technical skills and capacity in the application of analytical frameworks such as conducting qualitative
and quantitative surveys, involvement of stakeholders in the evaluation, and statistical analyses.
• Have knowledge of US Government projects including either USDA or USAID.
• Have experience managing or evaluating agricultural value chain projects.
• Ability to travel to rural areas of DR on difficult roads to meet with stakeholder partners.
• Budget Competitiveness.
• Fluent English and Spanish language and writing skills.
• Competency to write detailed, concise and coherent final evaluation report.
• Gender balance and cultural sensitivity.
9. Conditions of application
Consultants and companies wishing to carry out this mission must send the following items (12-point
font) in the order specified below to be considered during selection:
1. Technical proposal
The technical proposal (12 pages max.) must reflect how the offeror will carry out the tasks included in
the work. Candidate companies will provide a detailed plan of the specific activities, the timetable for
168
carrying out the mission, as well as the data collection and analysis activities. In addition, it will include a
proposal for the statistical approach.
2. Financial application
The candidate companies/consultants will propose a realistic estimate of the cost of this mission,
including a detailed budget and a justification of the expenditure. The budget will only contain costs that
can be directly attributed to the proposed activities, with an explanation of the line items. All training
costs, such as rental of premises, advance transport, etc. must be clearly articulated for each training.
Applicants must present adequate administrative and financial systems to manage the funds covered by
this agreement. If the candidate companies charge overhead, they will need to provide their NICRA. The
maximum amount available is $100,000.
3. Organization
The candidate companies/consultants must briefly list and describe their history, vision, objectives, legal
status, ownership and management structure, current projects/services, current clients/assignors,
current geographic scope and experience.
4. Personnel
The candidate companies/consultants must briefly list and describe the names and qualifications of the
key personnel assigned to the assignment (the CVs of the proposed staff must be included in the Annex).
The proposed team should preferably be multidisciplinary and include at least (A) a team leader for
monitoring and evaluation, with extensive experience designing and implementing evaluations and
analyzing the results (ex: a statistician and / or analyst familiar with the analysis of quantitative and
qualitative data); Experience in the target regions is desirable; (B) an agricultural economist, a rural
development specialist or a person with an equivalent level of competence, specializing in economic
development and data collection activities; (C) a database and information system specialist; (d) a data
entry team; and (e) enumerators.
5. Proof of Experience
Applicant companies/consultants will have to prove their experience in similar missions by providing a
list of all contracts and/or cooperative agreements involving similar or related work during the last two
years. Additionally, the applicants must submit a work sample and at least three reference letters from
previous consultancies.
6. Legal registration
169
Candidate companies/consultants’ engagement is subject to the consultant obtaining necessary visas
and work authorization.
10. Criteria for the evaluation of the proposal
The following criteria are those under which all proposals will be judged:
1. Quality of technical approach and methodology (30%)
2. Experience in agriculture and/or livestock economics (20%)
3. Past experience of individual and/or company with USDA and/or USAID or other International
Development Organizations (10%)
4. Demonstrated experience and technical skills of the team/reference letters (10%)
5. Completeness of proposal, including schedules, total budget, employee CVs, etc. (10%)
6. Cost realism, budget justification and effectiveness. Given it meets these standards, competitive
budgets will receive a higher score. (20%)
11. Application Deadline
Applications must be in English and with single spacing. The pages must be numbered, and each page
must contain the name of the company. Proposals must be sent by e-mail with Subject line “SAFE Final
Evaluation Proposal” to NCBA CLUSA at the following address: progana@ncbaclusa.net and/or
ygeadion@ncbaclusa.net
Please include the name of the person in your organization sending the application, as well as the phone
number, fax number and e-mail address. Applications must be submitted by December 15th, 2020 at
5:00 pm EST at the latest.
If you need more details, please contact our offices by email at progana@ncbaclusa.net and/or
ygeadion@ncbaclusa.net. NCBA CLUSA reserves the right to subsidize all or none of the applications
submitted and / or to modify the terms of reference / geographical areas before the project begins.
Table 4: Approximate Timeline of Events
Activity Deadline
170
Develop a scope of work for the evaluation and list of
required qualifications for the external evaluation
team, publish a request for proposals
Three months prior to evaluation (November
2020)
Review applications Two months prior to evaluation (December
2020)
Select external evaluation team/consultants One/Two months prior to evaluation
(December 2020/January 2021)
Work with the external evaluation team to finalize
project evaluation TORs and agree on evaluation
methodology
One month prior to evaluation (January
2021)
Field work – data collection (interview, focus groups) 3-4 weeks in February/March 2021
External evaluators prepare analysis documents and
reports
One month after the evaluation activities
(April 2021)
Project team (COP, senior leadership in HQ, M&E
Specialist, technical teams where appropriate) review
evaluation report and analysis, as well as lessons
learned and other documentation
One month after evaluation (April 2021)
Submit final evaluation report to USDA May 2021
Presentation of findings to stakeholders One month after evaluation (May 2021)