i
USAID/MALAWI MONITORING, 
EVALUATION AND LEARNING 
SUPPORT (MELS) PROJECT
Verification Report for the FTF Agricultural Diversification Project
AID-OAA-I-15-00022 / AID-612-TO-17-00001
Submitted: January 7, 2022
International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 
8618 Westwood Center Drive, #400
Vienna, VA 22182
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI) for review 
by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The views expressed in this 
report do not necessarily reflect the views of the USAID or the United States Government (USG). 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................3
2. LIST OF VERIFIED INDICATORS ...................................................................................................4
3. OVERALL METHODOLOGY/APPROACH..................................................................................5
4. AgDiv VERIFICATION RESULTS.....................................................................................................9
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 20
iii
ACRONYMS
AgDiv Agricultural Diversification
AEDC Agriculture Extension Development Coordinators
AEDO Agriculture Extension Development Officers
DAES Department of Agricultural Extension Services
FTF Feed the Future
EPA Extension Planning Area
ENV
GCC
GPS
Environment
Global Climate Change
Global Positioning System
IDIQ
LQAS
Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity
Lot Quality Assurance Sampling
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MELS Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Support 
SEG Sustainable Economic Growth 
UP United Purpose
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USG United States Government
VS&L Village Savings and Loans
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides results from a verification activity conducted by the Malawi Monitoring 
Evaluation and Learning Support (MELS) project of output and nonfarm outcome indicator 
results reported by the Malawi Agricultural Diversification (AgDiv) project for FY2021. The 
exercise covered AgDiv activities from October 2020 to September 2021. The team verified 
a total of twelve (12) indicators and approved/accepted all of them. 
The MELS team verified and accepted the following indicators: 
1. Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance.
2. Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving agriculture-related credit as a result of 
USG assistance.
3. Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment leveraged by the USG 
to support food security and nutrition.
4. Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance.
5. Number of firms receiving USG-funded technical assistance for improving business 
performance.
6. Number of farmers in the target value chains receiving the contractor's assistance in 
production, access to finance, or access to markets.
7. Number of farmers and others who have received USG-supported short-term 
agricultural sector productivity or food security training. 
8. Number of people supported by the USG to adapt to the effects of climate change.
9. Number of agro-processors, cooperatives, care groups, and farmers' associations that 
received training on safe food processing for the targeted value chains. 
10.Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase 
access to productive economic resources (assets, credit, income, or employment).
11.Number of beneficiaries receiving socio-economic empowerment training.
12.Number of integration interventions completed in collaboration with USAID/Malawi 
partners or development partners.
It should be noted that one of the indicators changed in 2021 compared to the previous 
verification periods. Detailed explanation on this change is provided in the main body of the 
report. 
➢ Current indicator definition: Number of agro-processors, cooperatives, care groups, 
and farmers' associations that received training on safe food processing for the 
targeted value chains. 
➢ Previous indicator definition: Number of agro-processors, cooperatives, care groups, 
and farmers' associations that practice safe food processing for the targeted value 
chains.
2
Overall, AgDiv has substantially improved data quality during the past two years. The quality 
of data remained high in FY21 and the MELS team did not have any major difficulties with the 
verification process. Partner record keeping has improved and almost all data were digitized 
and available in an electronic database. MELS commends AgDiv and encourages them to
continue this practice and to provide additional partner training along with internal DQAs. 
Efforts to obtain and secure proper documentation for sensitive data, such as loans, 
investments and sales, should be continued. Often, the only source of verification for the 
sensitive data was email communication. AgDiv should find ways of securing necessary 
documents for such data. If copies of official records are not available (even under 
confidentiality agreements), it could be formal letters from recipients summarizing received 
technical and financial assistance.
Throughout the process, the AgDiv team was cooperative and transparent and provided the 
MELS team with all necessary assistance. 
3
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Support (MELS) activity is to 
implement performance evaluations and assessment services under the Monitoring and 
Evaluation (M&E) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contract (IDIQ). MELS provides 
support to the Feed the Future (FTF) and Environment (Global Climate Change (GCC) and 
biodiversity) activities that are managed by USAID/Malawi’s Sustainable Economic Growth 
(SEG) Office. The MELS activity aims to achieve the following four primary objectives:
Objective 1: performance evaluations of FTF and environment (ENV) activities and of 
the sustainable livelihoods project designed and implemented; 
Objective 2: assessments of FTF Malawi Ag Diversification (AgDiv) activity performance 
designed and implemented; 
Objective 3: studies and analyses on selected topical issues developed and conducted; 
and
Objective 4: local capacity to undertake evaluations and assessments strengthened. 
The activity outlined in this report falls under Objective 2, providing verification of AgDiv
reported indicators. These are all output indicators reported by AgDiv along with the 
outcome indicators that are non-farm level indicators. What follows below is a report on 
each indicator that illustrates the results reported by AgDiv and the comparative findings 
from the MELS team’s verification of the indicator. The report is organized by indicator and 
includes a discussion of any issues or challenges related to the indicator. The MELS team 
also provides an assessment on whether or not the indicator values reported by AgDiv are 
acceptable. This is the fifth year of reporting for AgDiv; the verification is for data submitted 
in 2021. After the indicator discussion, the report finishes with conclusions and 
recommendations.
4
2. LIST OF VERIFIED INDICATORS
The MELS team verified twelve (12) indicators reported and provided by AgDiv in 2021:
1. 1.1-2 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance (EG 
3.2-27).
2. 1.1-3 Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving agriculture-related credit as a 
result of USG assistance (EG 3.2-3).
3. 1.2-2 Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment leveraged by the 
USG to support food security and nutrition (EG 3.1-14).
4. 1.3-2 Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance (EG 3.2-26).
5. 1.3-4 Number of firms receiving USG-funded technical assistance for improving 
business performance (EG 5.2-1).
6. 1.4-1 Number of farmers in the target value chains receiving the contractor's 
assistance in production, access to finance, or access to markets (EG-Custom-33).
7. 1.4-6 Number of farmers and others who have received USG-supported short-term 
agricultural sector productivity or food security training (EG 3.2-1).
8. 2.1-1 Number of people supported by the USG to adapt to the effects of climate 
change (EG 11.5).
9. 3.1-1 Number of agro-processors, cooperatives, care groups, and farmers' 
associations that received training on safe food processing for the targeted value 
chains (EG-Custom-23). 
10.4.1-1 Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase 
access to productive economic resources (assets, credit, income, or employment) 
(GNDR-2).
11.4.1-2 Number of beneficiaries receiving socio-economic empowerment training (EG￾Custom-32).
12.5.1-1 Number of integration interventions completed in collaboration with 
USAID/Malawi partners or development partners (EG-Custom-31).
5
3. OVERALL METHODOLOGY/APPROACH 
Amid COVID-19, the MELS team has successfully completed the verification activity of 
AgDiv output and nonfarm outcome indicators. Similar to the previous years, the team 
applied a mixed methods approach that included a review of project related documents and 
interviews with randomly selected stakeholders and participants. The approach was 
enhanced with COVID related measures such as social distancing, wearing masks, and 
conducting interviews over the phone to mitigate risks related to the pandemic. 
Methodology
The MELS team applied a three-stage approach in its data quality verification activity. During 
the first stage the team looked at reported data and checked calculations to make sure there 
were no arithmetic errors. During the second stage the team looked for the existence of 
source documents for the target output indicators, such as sign-up sheets, and letters from 
supported organizations and partners. The result was basically a binomial response with the 
answer being either “yes” (source documents exist) or “no” (they do not exist). However, if 
source documents did not exist, it did not necessarily mean that the listed individual or the 
organization was not actually a participant/beneficiary of the AgDiv project. During the third
stage the team spot checked a small sample of participants to confirm their involvement in 
AgDiv activities. 
Figure 1: Verification of source documents at AgDiv office.
6
The MELS team adapted techniques from the Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS)
methods to work with this verification process. Given the imprecise nature of the data 
gathering in rural agricultural environments in Malawi and the need to borrow ideas from 
the LQAS literature, we looked at the measurement of confidence, which in most surveys 
was 95 percent. Various sources (listed below) tested LQAS for small sample sizes (i.e., N = 
19) and found it to be a useful tool for estimating binomial classification based on a binary 
indicator between acceptable and unacceptable. With a 95 percent confidence interval and a 
small sample size of 19 it was determined that 4 or more participants not receiving a service 
was deemed unacceptable (so acceptable is slightly over 84 percent, or at least 15 that 
received a service). If we use 84 percent for our verification, then we can say that the data 
is acceptable if the source documents exist for 84 percent or more of the data1.
Table 1: Sample of AgDiv Participants for Spot Checks
Indicators Sample for 
Spot Checks
1.1-2 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of 
USG assistance (EG 3.2-27). 
19 MSMEs
1.1-3 Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving agriculture￾related credit as a result of USG assistance (EG 3.2-3). 
19 MSMEs
1.2-2 Value of new USG commitments and private sector 
investment leveraged by the USG to support food security and 
nutrition (EG 3.1-14).
No spot checks
1.3-2 Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG 
assistance (EG 3.2-26).
25 Firms
1.3-4 Number of firms receiving USG-funded technical assistance 
for improving business performance (EG 5.2-1). 
19 Firms
1.4-1 Number of farmers in the target value chains receiving the 
contractor's assistance in production, access to finance, or access 
to markets (EG-Custom-33).
20 Participants
1.4-6 Number of farmers and others who have received USG￾supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food 
security training (EG 3.2-1).
19 Producers
2.1-1 Number of people supported by the USG to adapt to the 
effects of climate change (EG 11.5). 
30 Participants
3.1-1 Number of agro-processors, cooperatives, care groups, and 
farmers' associations that received training on safe food 
processing for the targeted value chains (EG-Custom-23). 
19 Care Groups
4.1-1 Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs 
designed to increase access to productive economic resources 
(assets, credit, income, or employment) (GNDR-2). 
No spot checks
4.1-2 Number of beneficiaries receiving socio-economic 
empowerment training (EG-Custom-32). 
19 Participants
1 Using LQAS for Baseline Surveys and Regular Monitoring, Manual, 2002; and Review of Health and Agriculture 
Project Monitoring Tools for Title II Funded PVOs, Prepared for Food Aid Management by Thomas P. Davis Jr., 
MPH & Julie Mobley, MSPH, 2001. 
7
Indicators Sample for 
Spot Checks
5.1-1 Number of integration interventions completed in 
collaboration with USAID/Malawi partners or development 
partners in accordance with the criteria identified in Section C5.5
(EG-Custom-31).
No spot checks
Total Sample: 170
Figure 2: Spot Checks in the Field by the MELS Team
Main limitations
The assessment’s main limitations included the possibility of social desirability bias and recall 
bias. 
• Social desirability bias: This type of response bias exists when key informants answer 
questions in a way that they feel will be viewed positively and may make the project 
look more favorable to the evaluation team. Therefore, the informants who 
cooperated extensively with the project may overstate the positive effects of the 
interventions and understate its negative effects.
• Recall bias: Some respondents may not clearly remember all activities. 
8
The assessment team mitigated the bias through the professional preparation of the team. 
The team members asked the same question from different angles, and reformulated it when 
necessary. More importantly, the interviewers built a rapport with respondents to make 
them more open and honest in their responses. The MELS field team involved in the 
verification activity had a lot of relevant experience in similar activities in Malawi during the 
past several years, and conducted all previous AgDiv verification activities. 
COVID-19 mitigation
In assuring safety of the MELS team and respondents in the field, IBTCI followed all 
recommendations provided by CDC Malawi and CDC United States during all stages of the 
verification process, including, but not limited to, the following actions: 
• Avoiding close contacts/social distancing;
• Washing hands often with soap and water;
• Using alcohol-based hand sanitizers; and
• Covering mouth and nose with a cloth face cover when around others. 
The risk management plan included:
1. Constant risk analysis: a constant analysis of COVID-related risks in Malawi was
performed by IBTCI. Bi-weekly meetings were conducted to discuss recent 
developments and additional measures that could be undertaken, if necessary. IBTCI 
constantly monitored recommendations provided by CDC offices of Malawi and the 
United States to take necessary and timely measures.
2. Increasing awareness of the team members about COVID-related risks and mitigation 
measures through specialized training and provision of guidelines/instructions.
3. Providing personal protective equipment (PPE) to all team members (masks, gloves,
sanitizers, and soap).
4. Regular monitoring of the team members’ health. All team members with suspicious 
symptoms would be isolated and not allowed to continue the verification activity.
We believe that measures described above, which were in line with CDC recommendations
and local Malawi regulations, ensured safety of the team. IBTCI successfully applied all listed 
COVID-related measures, and it proved to be an effective way of protecting the team: no 
COVID cases were reported either among the team members or stakeholders.
9
4. AgDiv VERIFICATION RESULTS
1) 1.1-2 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG 
assistance (EG 3.2-27)
Reported Verified
USD 3,031,352 USD 3,031,352 (100%)
Reporting: Pyxus, CoFi, WOLREC, and Limbe Leaf.
Comments:
AgDiv calculated this indicator from data reported by the following local partners: Pyxus, 
CoFi, WOLREC, and Limbe Leaf. The MELS team verified this value both in the AgDiv 
electronic database and looking through the source documents – delivery notes. 
Additionally, 19 participants were randomly sampled for spot checks from provided lists. All 
selected participants confirmed the values of the agriculture-related financing they had 
received. 
Overall, all reported financing data were verified and confirmed as follows:
Reported Verified
Total Value: 3,031,352 3,031,352
Recipient
Sex
Male recipients: 1,740,027 1,740,027
Female recipients: 1,291,325 1,291,325
Disaggregates not available: - -
Recipient Type Producers: 3,031,352 3,031,352
Duration New: 3,031,352 3,031,352
Continuing: - -
2) 1.1-3 Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving agriculture related 
credit as a result of USG assistance (EG 3.2-3).
Reported Verified
25,481 25,481 (100%)
Reporting: Pyxus, CoFi, WOLREC, and Limbe Leaf.
Comments: 
Similar to the indicator 1.1-2 above, the MELS team checked AgDiv’s digital dataset and the 
source documents (delivery notes). Four partners reported on the number of MSMEs and 
farmers who received agriculture-related financing: Pyxus, CoFi, WOLREC, and Limbe Leaf. 
The verification team randomly selected 19 credit recipients for spot checks. All confirmed 
that they received the financing: either seed loans (nine entrepreneurs), or cash injections 
(10 entrepreneurs). 
10
The verification team further probed the MSMEs on how they actually spent received loans, 
and on what particular purposes. An overwhelming majority of the interviewees (13 out of 
19 participants) spent it on crop farming, four entrepreneurs used it as working capital for 
income generating activities in their small businesses, one MSME spent it on livestock 
farming, and one participant to solve general household-related issues. 
Overall, all reported data were verified and confirmed as follows:
Reported Verified
Total Number: 25,481 25,481
Owner/producer 
Sex
Male: 12,057 12,057
Female: 13,424 13,424
MSME Size Micro: 25,481 25,481
Duration New: 25,481 25,481
Continuing: - -
3) 1.2-2 Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment 
leveraged by the USG to support food security and nutrition (EG 3.1-14).
Reported Verified
USD 1,979,323 USD 1,979,323 (100%)
Reporting: Pyxus, FES, WOTA, and Netafim. 
Comments: 
AgDiv calculated this number from data reported by Pyxus Agricultural Limited, Farmers 
Engineering Services (FES), WOTA, and Netafim. The four partners reported investments 
leveraged to support food security and nutrition: Pyxus reported investments into 
agricultural inputs in Lilongwe; FES, WOTA, and Netafim – investments into irrigation 
equipment in Blantyre and Lilongwe. The MELS team verified this number from the AgDiv 
electronic database and available source documents. Also, the evaluation team went 
through email exchanges between AgDiv and its partners that included relevant information. 
Due to the confidential nature of the data, no spot checks were done on this indicator.2
The total value of investment was fully confirmed. 
Overall, all reported data were verified and confirmed as follows: 
Reported Verified
Total Number: 1,979,323 1,979,323
Duration New: 1,979,323 1,979,323
Continuing: - -
2 According to AgDiv, its partners were reluctant to provide official financial documents that could prove 
investments made in their enterprises. Under a confidentiality condition, they did share the total amounts invested 
via email, but without any formal documents to back it up.
11
4) 1.3-2 Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance (EG 
3.2-26).
Reported Verified
USD 26,860,073 USD 26,860,073 (100%)
Reporting: PICS Global ESA, Mandolo Plus, WOTA, Netafim, FES, Good Nature, and AgDiv. 
Comments: 
AgDiv reported annual sales values provided by the following local partners: PICS Global 
ESA, Mandolo Plus, WOTA, Netafim, Farm Engineering Services (FES), Good Nature, and 
AgDiv Office from Lilongwe. The MELS team verified reported values from the AgDiv 
electronic database and randomly sampled three local partners (WOTA, PICS Global, and 
FES) and 25 participants for spot checks. WOTA reported sales of drip kits, flexi pumps, 
and other irrigation equipment and accessories worth USD136,570.35 (equivalent of 
MWK109,256,283.40). PICS Global reported sales of PICS bags, inoculant, and soy products
worth USD1,107,167.94 (equivalent of MWK885,734,392). PICS Global’s sales were 
consistent with the sales reported last year. It used mass advertising to boost sales and it 
worked well despite an overall recession in the local market caused by COVID. FES 
reported sales of drip kits (1000 M2 model) worth USD50,713.44 (equivalent of 
MWK40,570,754.00). The MELS team received access to all sales data in the spot-checked 
organizations, and there were no issues with its verification. The sales values provided by 
the partners and participants matched numbers reported by AgDiv. 
Figure 3: Visit to the PICS Global Office in Blantyre for Spot Checks.
12
5) 1.3-4 Number of firms receiving USG-funded technical assistance for 
improving business performance (EG 5.2-1).
Reported Verified
18,174 18,174 (100%)
Reporting: WOLREC, and CoFi.
Comments: 
AgDiv reported that 18,174 firms received technical assistance for improving business 
performance over the past year. The MELS team verified all of them through an electronic 
database provided by AgDiv. Assisted firms included only informal businesses/ 
entrepreneurs in 2021. The following partners provided data for this indicator in 2021: 
WOLREC and CoFi. 
Additionally, the MELS team randomly selected 19 entrepreneurs to conduct spot checks. 
All randomly selected firms confirmed that they received technical assistance from AgDiv 
and its partners to improve their business performance, participated in training, and 
received or procured agricultural inputs and equipment from AgDiv partners. All sampled 
enterprises also received financial assistance through the AgDiv project (cash loans) ranging 
from MWK40,000 to MWK140,000. An average cash loan value was MWK93,684. 
The verification team asked MSMEs whether the provided cash loans contributed to 
improved performance of their businesses. The majority of the interviewed participants said 
“Yes” (16 MSMEs); three entrepreneurs said “No”. 
Overall, all reported data were verified and confirmed as follows: 
Reported Verified
Total Number: 18,174 18,174
Type of firm Formal: - -
Informal: 18,174 18,174
Duration New: 18,174 18,174
Continuing: - -
6) 1.4-1 Number of farmers in the target value chains receiving the contractor's
assistance in production, access to finance, or access to markets (EG￾Custom-33). 
Reported Verified
124,393 124,393 (100%)
Reporting: DAES, United Purpose, CoFi, Pyxus, Limbe Leaf, and WOLREC.
Comments:
AgDiv calculated this indicator from the values reported by the following local partners: 
DAES, United Purpose, CoFi, Pyxus, Limbe Leaf, and WOLREC. These farmers were 
13
involved in activities related to improved production and access to finance. The MELS team 
verified this number going through the AgDiv electronic database and by checking source 
documents. Additionally, the verification team randomly selected 20 farmers to conduct 
spot checks to confirm their participation in relevant activities: ten (10) farmers received 
assistance with agricultural production through distribution and application of inoculant, and 
ten (10) other farmers received assistance with access to finance (cash loans). All spot￾checked farmers were happy with the assistance provided to them and indicated that it 
helped them to increase yield, generate additional income, and/or improve overall 
household food security compared to the previous years when such assistance was not 
provided. All sampled farmers were available for the spot checks, and all of them confirmed 
their participation. Hence, the number of participants has been verified.
Overall, all reported data were verified and confirmed as follows: 
Reported Verified
Total Number: 124,393 124,393
Sex Male: 49,733 49,733 
Female: 74,660 74,660 
Duration New: 98,645 98,645 
Continuing: 25,748 25,748 
Type of 
assistance
In production: 100,057 100,057 
In access to finance: 19,554 19,554 
In access to markets: 4,782 4,782
Crop
Soy: - - 
Groundnuts: - - 
OFSP: - - 
Unknown/ multiple value chains 124,393 124,393 
FIELD HIGHLIGHTS
INOCULANT BOOSTS INCOMES 
*** 
For a long time, farming has been seen as an enterprise of the poor, and that there is nothing 
good that could come out of that. To remove that myth, AgDiv, a USAID-funded project,
delivers interventions and technologies that promote agribusiness and improve farmers’
incomes. These interventions, that included application of inoculant in soy production, are 
bearing fruits now. Kondwani Simoko, a farmer from Chadza GVH, TA Mazengela, Chitekwere 
EPA in Lilongwe, is all smiles this year when his yield and income from soy production have
more than tripled. He told the evaluation team that he has realized that farming could, indeed, 
be profitable. “I have been a farmer for a long time, and I have been cultivating soybeans on 
my 5 acres of land, and I collected on average 50 bags of soy per season. Last year, AgDiv
introduced me to inoculant. First, I was hesitant to use it, but then decided to give it a try. I 
have never regretted about it. I harvested 180 bags of soy after I applied inoculant. I kept 5 bags 
as seeds and sold the rest (175 bags) making a revenue worth MWK1,580,000.” The verification 
team could see how happy the farmer was. Indeed, inoculant helps to boost incomes of 
soybean producers.
14
7) 1.4-6 Number of farmers and others who have received USG-supported 
short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training (EG 3.2-
1).
Reported Verified
147,818 147,818 (100%)
Reporting: DAESS, United Purpose, WOLREC, CoFi, Pyxus, and Limbe Leaf.
Comments: 
AgDiv calculated this indicator from 
data reported by the following local 
partners: DAESS, United Purpose, 
WOLREC, CoFi, Pyxus, and Limbe 
Leaf. The MELS team verified this 
number from the AgDiv electronic 
database and available source 
documents, such as signup sheets. 
Additionally, the verification team 
randomly selected 19 participants
to conduct spot checks to confirm 
their participation in AgDiv training.
All sampled participants were 
available for the spot checks; all of 
them confirmed that they 
participated in the training.
Participants randomly selected for 
this verification confirmed that they 
received training from the 
Agriculture Extension Development 
Coordinators (AEDCs) and 
Agriculture Extension Development 
Officers (AEDOs). Interviewed
farmers confirmed that they took 
part in training on agriculture
productivity and food security 
including post-harvest handling and 
storage. The training covered 
proper application of inoculant and 
utilization of PICS bags. Most 
participants received inoculant and one or two PICS bags per farmer (depending on the 
training location). The participants, especially those who used PICS bags for storage of 
maize, noted that the bags reduced their post-harvest/storage losses. There were many 
farmers who used PICS bags for storage of maize. Additionally, many farmers kept seeds for 
FIELD HIGHLIGHTS
PICS BAGS PREVENT FARMERS FROM USING 
HARMFUL PRESERVATION CHEMICALS 
*** 
PICS bags have come into play as one of the cost￾effective methods of storing grains that could help 
to retain the grains’ high quality in a long term. In 
addition, PICS bags are playing an important role in 
adapting to the effects of climate change, since the 
use of PICS bags by farmers prevents them from 
using such chemicals as Actelic to preserve their 
grains. This produces a large positive long-term 
environmental impact. Steven Mvula, a farmer from 
Chimphamba GVH, TA Namkumba in Mangochi, is 
one of the farmers the MELS team visited for an 
interview. He uses PICS bags for storing all his 
grains. He is a Chairperson of the Agriculture Area 
Stakeholder Panel (ASP) within M’bwadzulu EPA. 
He stated that when he was introduced to PICS 
bags this year, he received five bags. And when he 
heard of the advantages of using PICS bags, he went 
further and bought 10 more PICS bags. When he 
practically saw how the quality of his maize was 
preserved in the PICS bags, he vowed never to use 
the Actelic chemical again, which he said was
detrimental to the health of human beings when 
consumed. He said he was forced to use the Actelic 
chemical because he had no other alternatives for 
preserving his grains. Introduction of the PICS bags 
creates conditions for not using harmful chemicals in 
the future anymore. 
15
various crops in the PICS bags and claimed that it helped them to preserve seeds in good 
condition till the next season. 
All spot-checked farmers were happy with provided training and inputs and said that they 
managed to apply new knowledge obtained during the training in practice: seven farmers 
stored maize in PICS bags, three farmers stored soya in PICS bags, and nine farmers applied 
inoculant on soya fields. 
Figure 4: Farmers using PICS bags for preservation of maize and other crops.
Overall, all reported data were verified and confirmed as follows: 
Reported Verified
Total Number: 147,818 147,818
Sex Male: 59,659 59,659 
Female: 88,159 88,159 
Duration New: 121,261 121,261 
Continuing: 26,557 26,557 
Type of 
individual
Producers/farmers: 147,784 147,784 
Civil Society Organizations (NGO, 
CBO, FBO, research etc.) 34 34 
16
8) 2.1-1 Number of people supported by the USG to adapt to the effects of 
climate change (EG 11.5).
Reported Verified
144,945 144,945 (100%)
Reporting: WOLREC, United Purpose, Pyxus, CoFi, CQC, District Forestry Office, and DAESS.
Comments: 
AgDiv calculated this indicator from data reported by the following local partners: 
WOLREC, United Purpose, Pyxus, CoFi, CQC, District Forestry Office, and DAESS. 
Climate mitigation activities included in this indicator were bamboo cultivation, utilization of 
drip irrigation kits, improved storage technologies, improved cook stoves, utilization of 
inoculant, and improved varieties of crops. The MELS team verified this indicator from the 
AgDiv electronic database and available source documents and sampled 30 participants for 
spot checks. All sampled participants confirmed their involvement in relevant AgDiv 
activities and expressed their satisfaction with the provided assistance. The only complaint 
the verification team received was a small number of bamboo seeds provided to each 
participant – as reported by the farmers, most of them received only one bamboo seed, 
which, they believed, was not sufficient. 
Figure 4 below illustrates the rocket cookstove promoted by AgDiv to minimize usage of 
excessing firewood for food preparation in local communities. 
Figure 5: Improved Cookstove (Rocket Stove) Promoted by AgDiv.
17
Overall, all reported data were verified and confirmed as follows: 
Reported Verified
Total Number: 144,945 144,945
Sex: Male: 62,805 62,805 
Female: 82,140 82,140 
Duration: New: 135,517 135,517 
Continuing: 9,428 9,428 
Promoted 
technologies:
Improved Storage: 67,413 67,413 
Drip Irrigation: 2,946 2,946 
Diversification/Varieties: 19,320 19,320 
Bamboo/agroforestry/resilience: 31,341 31,341 
Improved Cookstoves: 5,880 5,880 
Inoculant: 18,045 18,045 
9) 3.1-1 Number of agro-processors, cooperatives, care groups, and farmers' 
associations that received training on safe food processing for the targeted 
value chains (EG-Custom-23).
Reported Verified
1,826 1,826 (100%)
Reporting: CoFi, Catholic Health Commission, TAKAFUL, CYECE, Norwegian Church Aid, Saver of 
the Heart, and WOLREC.
Comments: 
During the previous verification periods (2017-2020) the indicator 3.1-1 looked at agro￾processors, cooperatives, care groups, and farmers’ associations that practiced safe food 
processing. Although the MELS team confirmed that all reported organizations participated 
in safe food processing training, the team was not able to find sufficient evidence that the 
participants applied safe food processing in practice. The MELS team recommended AgDiv 
either to define safe food processing requirements clearly to ensure that this indicator is 
properly tracked, and all necessary data is accumulated for verification, or to change this 
indicator from the number of MSMEs that practice safe food processing to the number of 
MSMEs that receive training on safety food processing to reflect actual activities completed 
by AgDiv. In the latter case, the indicator would be more an output rather than outcome 
indicator. AgDiv has changed the indicator as follows: 
➢ Current indicator definition: 3.1-1 Number of agro-processors, cooperatives, 
care groups, and farmers' associations that received training on safe food 
processing for the targeted value chains.
➢ Previous indicator definition: 3.1-1 Number of agro-processors, cooperatives, 
care groups, and farmers' associations that practice safe food processing for the 
targeted value chains. 
AgDiv reported that 1,826 supported organizations received training on safe food 
processing. All of them were listed in the electronic database provided by AgDiv. The 
18
following partners provided these data: CoFi, Catholic Health Commission, TAKAFUL, 
CYECE, Norwegian Church Aid, Saver of the Heart, and WOLREC.
The team randomly selected 19 Care Groups that received soy kits and were reported to 
receive safe food processing training. All sampled participants confirmed that they 
participated in the training organized by AgDiv and its partners. The training included safety 
measures that agro-processing firms should apply in practice including washing hands before 
and after using soy kits/soy cows, cleaning all utensils regularly, wearing protective gear 
(gloves, head caps) and some other general cleanliness principles.
Overall, all reported data were verified and confirmed as follows: 
Reported Verified
Total Number: 1,826 1,826
Duration: New: 1,826 1,826
Continuing: - -
Duration:
Agro-processors: - -
Cooperatives: - -
Care Groups: 1,826 1,826
Commodity: Soy: 1,826 1,826
10) 4.1-1 Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed 
to increase access to productive economic resources (assets, credit, income,
or employment) (GNDR-2). 
Reported Verified
62% 62%
Comments: 
AgDiv reported that 62 percent of its participants involved in activities aimed at increasing 
access to productive economic resources (assets, credit, income, or employment) were 
females. Analysis of AgDiv data revealed that actual share of female participants was, indeed,
62 percent. No spot checks were required for this indicator. 
Overall, all reported data were verified and confirmed as follows: 
Reported Verified
Total Value: 62% 62%
Production: - -
Economic resources/Credit: 62% 62%
Assets: - -
19
11) 4.1-2 Number of beneficiaries receiving socio-economic empowerment 
training (EG-Custom-32).
Reported Verified
27,258 27,258 (100%)
Reporting: CoFi and WOLREC. 
Comments: 
According to the electronic database provided by AgDiv, 27,258 participants received 
socio-economic empowerment training over the past year. The following AgDiv partners
reported data on this indicator: CoFi and WOLREC. The MELS team verified this number 
by going through the electronic database of AgDiv and checking source documents. 
Additionally, the verification team randomly selected 19 participants to conduct spot checks 
to confirm their participation in relevant activities. All selected participants confirmed their 
involvement in GAL training. Some of the topics covered during the training were Gender 
Empowerment, Joint Decision Making, and Self-Belief. All spot-checked participants 
indicated that they have since applied gained knowledge in practice. 
Overall, all reported data were verified and confirmed as follows: 
Reported Verified
Total Number: 27,258 27,258
Sex: Male: 7,212 7,212 
Female: 20,046 20,046 
Duration: New: 15,057 15,057 
Continuing: 12,201 12,201 
12) 5.1-1 Number of integration interventions completed in collaboration with 
USAID/Malawi partners or development partners (EG-Custom-31).
Reported Verified
11 11 (100%)
Comments: 
AgDiv reported that 11 integration interventions were conducted over the past year: 
conferences, workshops, or training. No field days were reported during the past year. 
Verification of source documents confirmed it. No spot checks were required for this 
indicator. Overall, all reported data were verified and confirmed as follows:
Reported Verified
Total Number: 11 11
Type of 
intervention:
Conferences, Workshops, Training: 11 11
Field Days: - -
Duration: New: 11 11
20
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall results of the verification activity are summarized in the table below: 
# Indicator
Reported Verified Acceptable
n n Yes/No % from 
reported
1
1.1-2 Value of agriculture-related financing 
accessed as a result of USG assistance (EG 3.2-27).
USD 
3,031,352
USD 
3,031,352 100% Yes
2
1.1-3 Number of MSMEs, including farmers,
receiving agriculture related credit as a result of 
USG assistance (EG 3.2-3).
25,481 25,481 100% Yes
3
1.2-2 Value of new USG commitments and private 
sector investment leveraged by the USG to 
support food security and nutrition (EG 3.1-14).
USD 
1,979,323
USD 
1,979,323 100% Yes
4
1.3-2 Value of annual sales of farms and firms 
receiving USG assistance (EG 3.2-26).
USD 
26,860,073
USD 
26,860,073 100% Yes
5
1.3-4 Number of firms receiving USG-funded 
technical assistance for improving business 
performance (EG 5.2-1).
18,174 18,174 100% Yes
6
1.4-1 Number of farmers in the target value chains 
receiving the contractor's assistance in production, 
access to finance, or access to markets (EG￾Custom-33).
124,393 124,393 100% Yes
7
1.4-6 Number of farmers and others who have 
received USG supported short-term agricultural 
sector productivity or food security training (EG 
3.2-1).
147,818 147,818 100% Yes
8
2.1-1 Number of people supported by the USG to 
adapt to the effects of climate change (EG 11.5). 144,945 144,945 100% Yes
9
3.1-1 Number of agro-processors, cooperatives, 
care groups, and farmers' associations that 
received training on safe food processing for the 
targeted value chains (EG-Custom-23).
1,826 1,826 100% Yes
10
4.1-1 Percentage of female participants in USG￾assisted programs designed to increase access to 
productive economic resources (assets, credit, 
income, or employment) (GNDR-2).
62% 62% 100% Yes
11
4.1-2 Number of beneficiaries receiving socio￾economic empowerment training (EG-Custom￾32).
27,258 27,258 100% Yes
12
5.1-1 Number of integration interventions 
completed in collaboration with USAID/Malawi 
partners or development partners in accordance 
with the criteria identified in Section C5.5 (EG￾Custom-31).
11 11 100% Yes
21
The MELS team recommends that AgDiv: 
• Continue improving record keeping and digitalization of data. Provide additional 
partner training and conduct internal DQAs. 
• Make effort to obtain and secure proper documentation for sensitive data, such as 
loans, investments, and sales. Often, the only source of verification for the sensitive 
data was email communication. AgDiv should find ways of securing necessary 
documents for such data. If copies of official records are not available (even under 
confidentiality agreements), it could use formal letters from recipients summarizing 
received technical and financial assistance.