USAID/GEORGIA’S
AGRICULTURE PROGRAM 
MID-TERM EVALUATION 
June 2022 
This publication is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency 
for International Development (USAID) and was prepared by Integra Government Services International 
LLC for the Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis Project (LEAP III) Activity. 
 
 
 
USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURE 
PROGRAM 
MID-TERM EVALUATION 
Contract Title: LEAP III: Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis Project 
Contract Number: GS-10F-083CA / 7200AA18M0004 
Activity Number: 1009.1064 
Submitted: Final Report – June 6, 2022 
Contractor: Integra Government Services International LLC 
1156 15th Street NW, Suite 800 
Washington, DC 20005 
USAID Office: USAID/Georgia 
COR: Katie Qutub, kqutub@usaid.gov 
Photo Credit: Georgian Product Renaissance, LTD (GRP), Pecan Processing Facility, in 
Khobi Municipality, Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti Region 
(Photo/USAID Georgia Agriculture Program) 
Prepared by: Nikolaus Eichman, Mikheil Pakatsoshvili, Lasha Kavtaradze 
DISCLAIMER 
This evaluation is made possible by the support of the American people through USAID. The authors’
views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States 
Government. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 1 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF TABLES 3 
LIST OF FIGURES 4 
ACRONYMS 7 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 9 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 17 
2. METHODOLOGY 22 
3. FINDINGS 25 
4. CONCLUSIONS 49 
5. RECOMMENDATIONS 51 
ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF WORK 55 
ANNEX II: EVALUATION WORK PLAN 71 
ANNEX III: DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 133 
ANNEX IV: KEY INFORMANTS, FOCUS GROUP, AND SURVEY RESPONDENTS 135 
ANNEX V: STATISTICAL ANNEX 144 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 2 
LIST OF TABLES 
TABLE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING 51 
TABLE 2: ILLUSTRATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX 59 
TABLE 3: GETTING TO ANSWERS MATRIX – AGRICULTURE PROGRAM EVALUATION 82 
TABLE 4: GETTING TO ANSWERS MATRIX – ECONOMIC SECURITY PROGRAM EVALUATION 86 
TABLE 5: STAKEHOLDER CATEGORIES 93 
TABLE 6: DELIVERABLES TIMELINE 96 
TABLE 7: USAID DISCUSSION GUIDE 119 
TABLE 8: DONOR-FUNDED PROGRAMS DISCUSSION GUIDE 120 
TABLE 9: GOVERNMENT OF GEORGIA DISCUSSION GUIDE 121 
TABLE 10: USAID AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM AOR/COR DISCUSSION GUIDE 125 
TABLE 11: CNFA TEAM DISCUSSION GUIDE 126 
TABLE 12: DIRECT BENEFICIARIES DISCUSSION GUIDE 127 
TABLE 13: PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS DISCUSSION GUIDE 129 
TABLE 14: PRIVATE SECTOR STAKEHOLDERS DISCUSSION GUIDE 130 
TABLE 15: SITE VISIT SUMMARY REPORT 132 
TABLE 16: CHALLENGES IN VCS IDENTIFIED IN THE SECTOR SELECTION AND VALUE CHAIN 
ANALYSIS REPORT 156 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 3 
LIST OF FIGURES 
FIGURE 1: SUMMARY OF MIXED METHODS—DESK REVIEW, SURVEYS, KIIS 23 
FIGURE 2: SALES BY GRANTEES AND TAA RECIPIENTS BEFORE AND AFTER JOINING THE
PROGRAM 27 
FIGURE 3: CHALLENGES IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 28 
FIGURE 4: THE MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED CHALLENGES IN EACH VALUE CHAIN 29 
FIGURE 5: NUMBER OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS RECEIVING SUPPORT FROM SOURCES
OTHER THAN GOG INSTITUTIONS 30 
FIGURE 6: SATISFACTION OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS WITH TECHNICAL SERVICES
RECEIVED FROM THE PROGRAM AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 31 
FIGURE 7: USEFULNESS OF PROGRAM SUPPORT 32 
FIGURE 8: VALUE CHAIN ACTORS WITH WHICH GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS IMPROVED 
RELATIONSHIPS 33 
FIGURE 9: STAKEHOLDERS FROM WHICH GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS RECEIVE SERVICES 34 
FIGURE 10: USEFULNESS OF PROGRAM SUPPORT FOR UTILIZING DIGITAL TOOLS 36 
FIGURE 11: PROGRAM IN-KIND GRANT DISBURSEMENT BY VALUE CHAIN 38 
FIGURE 12: VALUE OF EXPORTS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTION TO THE PROGRAM 39 
FIGURE 13: VOLUME OF EXPORTS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTION TO THE PROGRAM 40 
FIGURE 14: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME AND SEASONAL JOBS CREATED BY PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES 
40 
FIGURE 15: PROGRAM DATA ON YEAR-OVER-YEAR EXPORTS AND JOBS 41 
FIGURE 16: EXPORTS IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 2016 – SEPTEMBER 2021 (FIRST 9 MONTHS 
OF 2021) 43 
FIGURE 17: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COVID-19 AFFECTING PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES 44 
FIGURE 18: BUSINESS PERFORMANCE PERCEPTIONS FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS 45 
FIGURE 19: CHALLENGES IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 144 
FIGURE 20: USEFULNESS OF THE PROGRAM SUPPORT 145 
FIGURE 21: PLANS OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS TO DIVERSIFY EXPORTS BEFORE JOINING 
THE PROGRAM 145 
FIGURE 22: MARKETS TO WHICH THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS PLANNED TO SELL BEFORE 
JOINING THE PROGRAM 146 
FIGURE 23: ADVANTAGES OF SELLING TO RUSSIA AND/OR CIS COUNTRIES 147 
FIGURE 24: CHALLENGES WHEN EXPORTING TO HIGH-END MARKETS 147 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 4 
FIGURE 25: INTERVENTIONS OF THE PROGRAM THAT GRANTEES FOUND THE MOST USEFUL 
148 
FIGURE 26: NUMBER OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS, WHO RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM
OTHER SOURCES 149 
FIGURE 27: STAKEHOLDERS THAT PROVIDED SUPPORT TO GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS149 
FIGURE 28: REASONS WHY GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS COULD / DID NOT MAINTAIN 
MARKET LINKAGES TO HIGH-END EXPORT MARKETS 150 
FIGURE 29: SHARE OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS RECEIVING SERVICES FROM DIFFERENT
STAKEHOLDERS 150 
FIGURE 30: STAKEHOLDERS FROM WHOM GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS RECEIVE SERVICES 
151 
FIGURE 31: OVERALL SATISFACTION OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS WITH THE RECEIVED 
SERVICES FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 152 
FIGURE 32: SERVICES RECEIVED FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WITH WHICH THE SURVEY
RESPONDENTS WERE THE LEAST SATISFIED 152 
FIGURE 33: TRANSFORMATION OF RELATIONSHIPS OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS WITH 
OTHER VC ACTORS AFTER JOINING THE PROGRAM 153 
FIGURE 34: VALUE CHAIN ACTORS WITH WHOM GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS IMPROVED
THEIR RELATIONS 154 
FIGURE 35: RESPONDENTS WHO BUY PRODUCTS FROM OTHER FARMERS / PRODUCERS 154 
FIGURE 36: NUMBER OF FARMERS / PRODUCERS FROM WHOM THE PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES 
BUY PRODUCTS 155 
FIGURE 37: TOP THREE TYPES OF SUPPORT PROVIDED MOST FREQUENTLY TO THE TA
RECIPIENTS 155 
FIGURE 38: USEFULNESS OF PROGRAM’S SUPPORT IN UTILIZING DIGITAL TOOLS 156 
FIGURE 39: THE MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED CHALLENGES PER EACH VC 158 
FIGURE 40: THREE MOST USEFUL AREAS OF PROJECT INTERVENTION IDENTIFIED BY THE
GRANTEES 159 
FIGURE 41: USEFULNESS OF GRANTS BY THEIR TYPES 159 
FIGURE 42: INCOME CHANGE OF GRANTEES FROM EXPORTS 160 
FIGURE 43: INCOME CHANGE OF GRANTEES FROM DOMESTIC SALES 160 
FIGURE 44: VALUE OF EXPORTS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTION TO THE PROGRAM 161 
FIGURE 45: VOLUME OF EXPORTS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTION TO THE PROGRAM 161 
FIGURE 46: NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED BY THE GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS 162 
FIGURE 47: EFFECTS OF COVID-19 ON THE GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS 162 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 5 
FIGURE 48: OUTLOOK ON THE PERFORMANCE OF BUSINESSES IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS 163 
FIGURE 49: INVOLVEMENT OF WOMEN IN AGRICULTURAL VCS 164 
FIGURE 50: INVOLVEMENT OF YOUTH IN AGRICULTURAL VCS 164 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 6 
 
 
 
 
 
ACRONYMS 
BEE - Business Enabling Environment 
BSO - Business Service Organization 
CNFA - Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture 
EBRD - European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
EDA - Export Development Association 
ENPARD - European Neighbourhood Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development 
EQ - Evaluation Question 
ET - Evaluation Team 
FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization 
GDP - Gross Domestic Product 
GOG - Government of Georgia 
HACCP - Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point 
IP - Implementing Partner 
ISO - International Organization for Standardization 
KII - Key Informant Interview 
LEAP III - Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis Project III 
LOP - Life of Project 
M&E - Monitoring and Evaluation 
MEL - Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning 
MEPA - Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture 
MSD - Market Systems Development 
MSME - Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises 
NGO - Non-governmental Organization 
PPD - Public-Private Dialogue 
PSE - Private Sector Engagement 
PY - Project Year 
R&D - Research and Development 
RDA - Rural Development Agency 
TA - Technical Assistance 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 7 
USAID- United States Agency for International Development 
USG - United States Government 
VC - Value Chain 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the numerous respondents and beneficiaries of the 
USAID Agriculture Program during the evaluation, particularly those who shared their time and 
experiences during remote data collection and the preparation of this report. The authors thank 
USAID/Georgia Program Development Specialist Ketevan Chogovadze and Contracting Officer 
Representative Siobhan Pangerl, who contributed time and insights to the evaluation, and LEAP III 
Contracting Officer Representative Katie Qutub. We thank USAID Agriculture Program Chief of Party 
Louisa Namicheishvili and Deputy Chief of Party Shalva Pipia and other staff for providing information and 
support to this evaluation. The authors also acknowledge USAID/Georgia staff for their time and efforts 
in providing project documents, extensive feedback, and review during this evaluation. The team wants to 
thank all of our Georgian consultants who made our remote data collection go smoothly. Also, we 
acknowledge the support of LEAP III home-office staff, David Quinn, LEAP III Chief of Party; Ganyapak 
(Pin) Thanesnant, Director of Operations; and Liesl Kim, Senior Associate. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION 
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Georgia requested the Learning, 
Evaluation, and Analysis Project III (LEAP III) team to conduct a performance evaluation of the USAID 
Agriculture Program (the Program) implemented by Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). 
The evaluation looks at the performance and effectiveness of USAID’s Agriculture Program in accelerating
the growth of agricultural sub-sectors that demonstrate strong potential to create jobs and increase 
incomes and revenues of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in line with USAID’s updated
development objectives which include diversifying export markets away from malign countries (e.g., 
Russia). 
Ultimately, based on findings and conclusions, the evaluation team (ET) has outlined actionable 
recommendations to USAID/Georgia regarding any necessary adjustments to the implementation of the 
selected activities and future programming needs and approaches. These recommendations are drawn 
from the key findings of the four evaluation questions (EQs) that look at opportunities for change and 
possible adjustments that could enhance current Program activities and inform planning for future activities 
in the USAID/Georgia agriculture portfolio. These recommendations are presented as potential areas of 
intervention based on the current needs in the post-COVID-19 recovery and country situation. 
METHODOLOGY 
For this mid-term evaluation, the ET used a mixed-methods approach, pairing qualitative, in-depth remote 
interviews with key stakeholders, Program partners, and informants with online surveys and group 
interviews. Questionnaires created to answer the EQs focused on whether Program interventions have 
been necessary and sufficient to diversify agricultural exports beyond Russia; how the Program’s support
to sector associations, cooperatives, and government institutions catalyzed priority value chain (VC) 
development; and how the grant component strengthened each priority VC. Lastly, the ET looked into 
how the Program can adapt its approaches in the context of COVID-19 economic contractions to achieve 
its targets. All proposed semi-structured interviews and group discussions, as well as the surveys, were 
organized around the EQs and supported with detailed questionnaires. Each questionnaire (in Annex II) 
was developed for each key stakeholder group (see Annex IV) and included both common questions and 
questions unique to the group to obtain a full range of opinions regarding specific intervention areas but 
also to ensure that data is comparable across all respondent groups. USAID/Georgia’s development 
objectives (DOs) were updated in its 2020-2025 Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). 
Though the Agriculture Program Scope of Work (SOW) and design did not include the need to diversify 
exports away from Russian markets and other malign countries as stated in its new CDCS, this issue was 
embedded in the Evaluation Questions prepared by USAID/Georgia in order to better understand how 
current and future programming can support achievement of the Mission’s updated development
objectives. 
PROGRAM FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
Overall, based on the evaluation findings, the Program has been successful in generating impact in line with 
expected results—overcoming lagging LOP results from PY1 and PY2, with considerably increased results 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in PY3—a good sign for PY4 and PY5. The Program was particularly effective in leveraging deep 
connections, experience, and expertise of its staff to identify and address specific enterprise-level 
development challenges across the target VCs using a combination of grants and TA. The Program largely 
achieved its stated objectives as demonstrated in the findings and supported by its MEL framework. Since 
the original SOW and Agriculture Program design were approved, the USAID/Georgia Mission is now 
emphasizing the need to diversify exports away from Russian markets and other malign countries as stated 
in its new CDCS. The Agriculture Program may need to conduct assessments and further analysis to 
determine what steps may be taken to address this new criteria in its programmatic approaches. The 
conclusions and recommendations outlined below have been developed in alignment with 
USAID/Georgia’s current and future Development Objectives.
EQ1: To what extent has the USAID Agriculture Program’s export capacity building
interventions with firms, and export promotion interventions with the government, been 
necessary and sufficient to diversify agricultural exports of target products to United States 
Government (USG) preferred markets (i.e., outside of Russia)? 
The ET found that, although these interventions were necessary for and effective at increasing exports to 
USG preferred markets, more efforts are needed to diversify exports away from Russia, which remained 
a top destination market with increasing sales for Program beneficiaries. The Agriculture Program 
facilitated a fourfold increase in exports to the EU and US and established new linkages in Gulf markets. 
Beneficiaries view export promotion activities supported by the Program as particularly useful, including 
for gaining needed certifications and implementing branding and marketing strategies. Although they view 
these activities as useful, the attribution of impact is unclear, as most beneficiaries receive support from 
multiple stakeholders. There is also doubt that linkages to high-value markets can be sustained without 
continued TA and Grant support from future programming while also shifting toward more systems-level 
interventions. And, although interventions are well aligned with the main challenges that agricultural firms 
face, they do not sufficiently address the systemic challenges (e.g. BEE and access to finance) that are out 
of scope for the current project, but impede sustained export diversification. Other systemic challenges 
include a need for increased support from more capable associations and government institutions in 
export promotion activities. These are all challenges that can be further addressed through future 
programming. By concentrating remaining TA on expanding and sustaining already established market 
linkages with US preferred markets, the Agriculture Program will have opened these markets for an 
increasing number of enterprises that can be supported by associations and government institutions that 
are strengthened through future programming. 
Recommendations: 
Recommendations for the next 1.5 years: 
● Program TA for export capacity development and export promotion should focus on expanding and 
sustaining market linkages for individual enterprises and associations that have proven successful, 
including by: 
○ Increasing collaboration with Enterprise Georgia and BSOs; 
○ Concentrating on proven markets such as Gulf countries and Germany; and 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
○ Focusing on solidifying the prerequisites for sustaining market access, such as maintaining 
certifications and standards, conducting market analysis and improving branding and 
marketing strategies. 
● The Program can focus on tangible examples of opportunities for rapid agriculture sector growth, 
such as voluntary seed and seedling registration, to help associations push for accelerated policy 
implementation and investment related to export promotion. 
Recommendations for future programming: 
● Continue support for export promotion activities, including new strategies that phase out project 
dependency and add higher levels of cost-sharing based on the success of current programing. 
● In addition to new opportunities in local and export markets, the Program should explore and 
support alternative income-generating opportunities, such as agrotourism, in response to shifting 
consumer and domestic market dynamics. This support could start with an analysis of the 
opportunities and targeted TA by the Program and then can continue with TA and co-investment 
facilitated through future programming. 
EQ2: To what extent has the activity’s support to sector associations, cooperatives, and 
government institutions catalyzed priority VC development? 
The ET found that, although sector-level support to these organizations and institutions has shown results, 
at the time of the mid-term evaluation this impact had yet to catalyze into self-sustaining VC development. 
However, there are some positive signs of VC development, including improved relationships among VC 
actors in target sub-sectors and proactive compliance by Program beneficiaries with the high standards 
set by USG preferred markets, indicating a willingness to invest in sustaining market access. By 
concentrating remaining Program support on building the capacity of associations and other private sector 
partners that have shown the highest potential for growth, the Agriculture Program can provide a 
powerful demonstration effect that can catalyze self-sustaining VC development that can be supported by 
more systems-level interventions provided through future programming. Increased government support 
for export promotion activities via Enterprise Georgia is also a positive sign of VC development, with the 
number of firms registered in its Trade with Georgia catalog more than doubling. But there is also a need 
for more coordination with other programs to develop more dialogue mechanisms with the government 
to support an improved business enabling Environment (BEE). And though such an intervention would be 
outside of the scope of the current Program, initial action could be taken in collaboration with the 
Economic Governance Program. Increased access to finance is another positive sign of VC development. 
Grants provided by the Agriculture Program have facilitated an increase in investment in the agricultural 
sector, with financing options provided through bank partners for covering grantee cost-share obligations. 
Although facilitating access to finance to cover cost-share agreements can increase access to finance for 
agribusinesses, doing so for grantees that may already be viable candidates for loans would provide unclear 
additionality. This will be an important consideration as future programming builds on Agriculture Program 
results. And, although the Program facilitated new market linkages, value chain actors, including buyers 
and associations, are uncertain that producers can continue to comply with standards once Program 
support ends. Another positive sign of VC development is digitalization, and beneficiaries saw the 
Program’s support in utilizing digital tools that facilitate access to information, services, and markets as 
useful. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendations: 
Recommendations for the next 1.5 years: 
● Expand capacity development activities with well-established organizations, such as the nut and 
berry associations, to increase access to technical services for their members, with any subsidies 
phased out over the next few years. 
○ Expand foundational support to build the basic capacity and functionality of associations 
(e.g. management capacity and governing structure) with support for more business and 
support model development toward sustaining their growth, including targeting 
associations that show the highest potential for growth with additional international 
expertise and facilitated access to private capital; 
● Support local buyers in developing and transitioning to private sector-driven support models and 
accompanied investments through TA, expanded use of the Program Partnership Fund, and 
facilitated connections to other buyers and stakeholders that may be willing to co-invest., including 
by expanding investment in digitization and localizing supply chains. 
● Increase efforts to connect networks of smaller producers to anchor associations, buyers, and 
services providers. 
● In cooperation with the Economic Governance Program and/or through future programming, 
support increased development of coordination and dialogue mechanisms to assist the GOG in 
planning, prioritizing, and accelerating the implementation of key policy reforms and investments. 
● Support more innovation by digital service providers and online selling platforms (e.g 
customization of digital services) to better respond to the needs of the agriculture sector. 
Recommendations for future programming: 
● Develop strategies for digitization via consultations to support private sector partners in 
identifying and prioritizing their own technology needs (e.g. traceability systems). 
● Continue to facilitate access to finance via customized approaches and direct connections between 
associations and larger enterprises and bank partners, including; 
○ Improving the VC finance capacity of banks and non-bank financial institutions; 
○ Introducing more technology (e.g. digital financial services) and risk-sharing schemes that 
allow access to finance for otherwise unbankable beneficiaries; and 
○ Proactively facilitating competition in the financial sector via a range of alternative sources 
of private capital (e.g. financing from non-bank financial institutions, investor capital, 
financing from other value chain actors and service providers). 
● Support the development of buyer-led strategies to transition away from development program 
support for value chain development activities. 
● Focus future programming on priority business processes (e.g. value addition, technologies, 
services, management capacities and innovation) instead of VCs when targeting Program support, 
especially if this focus can be accompanied by an improved impact monitoring system, analytical 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
tools, and partner/activity selection criteria, thereby enabling future programs to identify more 
systems-level interventions that can benefit a number of VCs. 
EQ3: To what extent has the grant component strengthened each priority value chain and 
to what extent did grants address gaps or market failures in target value chains? 
The ET found that the grant program is well aligned in addressing the challenges that the agriculture sector 
faces and shows positive results in terms of increased investment, incomes, and jobs at the firm-level, but 
the extent to which grants are sufficiently addressing key gaps and market failures at a systems-level in 
order to sustain these results, is not clear. Beneficiaries view grants that address enterprise-level 
development challenges as particularly useful, bringing in needed technology, including technical capacity, 
by combining grants with technical assistance (TA). And the investment facilitated by grants contributed 
to the creation of over 1,000 jobs and a tripling of Project Year (PY) 3 export revenues in comparison to 
PY2, although this impact risks backsliding if not complemented with more systems-level interventions 
from future programming that address key gaps and market failures, such as those related to access to 
private capital, capacity related to innovation, or sector- and policy-level binding constraints. In line with 
the recommendations under EQ1 and EQ2, concentrating remaining grant support on strengthening 
already established linkages to high-value markets and building the capacity of associations and other 
private sector partners that have shown high potential for growth may prevent backsliding of Agriculture 
Program impact ahead of more systems-level support from future programming. 
Recommendations: 
Recommendations for the next 1.5 years: 
● Concentrate grant support on strengthening established linkages to high-value markets and
building the capacity of sector-level organizations, BSOs, and other important actors and
stakeholders in line with other recommendations related to TA.
● Award innovation grants for more technology, as well as business and service model, innovations.
● Provide more TA to women and youth during the grants application stage and lower cost-share
requirements for these applicants.
Recommendations for future programming: 
● Increase flexibility in the use of grants and partnership funds as co-investment mechanisms via a
more flexible Activity Fund that can adjust budget line items among grants, partnership funds, and
sub-contracts. Doing so will assist future programs in aligning with changing market opportunities,
including the need to co-invest in more digital and early-stage innovations (e.g. advances in
communications and traceability technologies) and to support a wider range of beneficiaries and
private sector partners.
● Incorporate selection criteria for grant themes and projects that support alignment with objectives
related to systemic change and adopt more nuanced approaches to the monitoring and attribution
of impact (e.g. additional custom indicators, qualitative methods for data collection, etc.) that will
help future programs make the case to USAID for use of funds for any given opportunity.
EQ4: In the context of COVID-19 economic contractions, how can the activity adapt its 
approaches? 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The ET found that the Program was successful in adapting its implementation tactics to mitigate activity 
delays but that it will need to adapt more elements of its overall approach to take advantage of emerging 
opportunities. Small-scale farming can be disadvantageous, primarily for competitiveness reasons related 
to low worker productivity and the high cost of and lack of capacity to comply with the standards of high￾value export markets. Further, the absence of government policies to address land fragmentation, 
incentivize diversification of export markets, and accelerate privatization processes were restricting 
growth in the agricultural sector even before the onset of COVID-19. Based on its analysis of the 
economic impact of COVID-19 and qualitative data, the ET concluded that Program support for the 
diversification of export markets could include more support for new opportunities in domestic markets. 
The Program should support associations and cooperatives in helping their members analyze these and 
other new market opportunities in response to the pandemic. In doing so, it should collaborate with 
current partners to forecast changes in market opportunities and coordinate with other USAID and donor 
partners to assess the potential revenue and job creation associated with these new opportunities. In 
response, the current emphasis on high-value export markets may also need to be rebalanced. 
Recommendations: 
Recommendations for the next 1.5 years: 
● Take stock of and widely share best practices in adapting implementation tactics amid the 
pandemic. 
● Continue support to current VCs while exploring new opportunities in response to increased 
domestic demand for a range of food products. 
● Work with other USAID-funded programs and donors to identify opportunities related to 
increased domestic tourism and related agrotourism services and products. 
Recommendations for future programming: 
● Explore and support alternative income-generating opportunities such as through agrotourism in 
response to shifting consumer and domestic market dynamics. 
● Use the momentum generated by high growth during the COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate more 
access to finance, market linkages, and investment in sector-level services; and focus future 
programming on facilitating access to private capital from a range of sources to fuel further growth. 
● Consider providing grants and TA to companies that specialize in e-commerce to develop new 
marketing platforms for agricultural production. 
● Ramp up training related to e-commerce and work with educational institutions or innovation 
centers to attract more highly skilled youth to agricultural export promotion and technology￾related services. 
● Launch a series of PPDs in coordination with associations and cooperatives to prioritize needed 
GOG reforms and investments that can accelerate the modernization of farming practices and 
food processing. 
Cross-Cutting: 
Recommendations for next 1.5 years 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
● Expand grant support for innovation and increased inclusion of women and youth. 
● Lower cost-share requirements for grants and consider further customizing TA to increase the 
participation of women and youth. 
● Analyze opportunities and make the business case to current private sector partners as a first 
step in developing a strategy for increasing inclusion and agency for women and youth. 
● Expand successful internship, training, and curriculum development activities over the remaining 
years of the Program. 
● Perform additional analysis as needed, including more private sector landscaping and organizational 
network and systems mapping, accompanied by convening of more market actors and 
stakeholders to better target PSE and support the utilization of selection criteria and impact 
metrics that can guide program interventions toward supporting more transformational impact 
from partnerships, including the interrelated elements of scale, sustainability, and systemic change. 
Recommendations for future programming 
● Better target gaps and market failures, drawing on improved analytical tools, selection criteria of 
private sector partners (e.g. supports increased sustainability, inclusion, innovation, collaboration, 
etc.), as well as grant themes, TA objectives, and other Program initiatives to ensure alignment 
with USAID/Georgia’s development objectives and priority policies and strategies. 
● Propose an incremental solution for improving impact monitoring in line with systems-level 
interventions; develop a new set of custom indicators that better account for systems-level and 
the longer-term potential impact of Program interventions. 
● Continue to facilitate access to finance via customized approaches and direct connections between 
associations and larger enterprises and bank partners; and use success cases to build momentum 
for and inform the ability of future programming to expand access to private capital in the 
agricultural sector as a whole. 
● Support the implementation of more global PSE models and best practices via expanded use of 
PSE opportunities analysis and co-investment funds. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. INTRODUCTION AND 
BACKGROUND 
1.1 PROGRAM BACKGROUND 
Agriculture is one of the targeted sectors—along with tourism, creative industries, shared intellectual 
services, solid waste management, and light manufacturing—identified as a key driver for Georgia’s 
economic growth and employment. While agriculture is not a large contributor to Georgia’s gross
domestic product (GDP), it provides a safety net to 50 percent of Georgia’s population. Georgia’s Euro￾Atlantic aspirations include becoming a major trade partner with the West. However, the country still 
depends on Russia as a market for its agricultural products. 
USAID/Georgia’s robust agriculture portfolio includes a range of activities that facilitate firm-level 
investments in entrepreneurial and market-driven enterprises and associations by supporting the private 
sector to meet the agriculture sector’s needs and enhancing the capacity of relevant government
stakeholders to catalyze agricultural development. This programming focuses on improving the 
competitiveness, diversity, value of production, and market access for identified VCs—increasing incomes 
and generating high-value employment through VC development. USAID’s Agriculture Program aims to
accelerate growth of agricultural sub-sectors that show strong potential to create jobs, increase incomes, 
and increase MSME revenues in line with USAID development objectives which now includes diversifying 
export markets away from malign countries (e.g., Russia). 
Horticulture sub-sectors include berries, culinary herbs, stone fruits, perishable vegetables, pome fruits, 
table grapes, mandarins, and nut crops. The development hypothesis for the Program is that the increased 
competitiveness of these key sub-sectors and VCs will advance inclusive high-value employment 
opportunities for Georgians. Increased competitiveness can also support increased access to high-value, 
US preferred export markets and the diversification of exports away from Russia. The Program is 
implemented through two integrated, mutually reinforcing components. Under Component One, the 
Program provides cost-share grants to target beneficiaries, including MSMEs, cooperatives, and 
associations as well as service, information, and extension providers. Component Two focuses on 
demand-driven TA, including technical and business training and a wide spectrum of customized 
consultancies aimed at building the capacity of targeted VC actors. 
Key LOP targets include building up 120 beneficiaries through cost-share grants totaling $7.4 million, which 
will leverage $9.04 million in additional investment from grant recipients. An additional 600 agribusinesses 
will benefit from the TA. Through its support, the Program anticipates creating 3,680 jobs and increasing 
agricultural sales by $70 million, including $23 million in new exports. 
As of its third year of implementation (when this evaluation was conducted), the Program continued to 
address major gaps within the priority VCs. The Program also expanded its focus on broad, sector-level 
activities that can have a systemic impact on Georgia’s agriculture sector. These activities included:
● Guided by an updated VC analysis, solicited for applications and committed additional in￾kind, innovation, and capacity building grants to MSMEs, agricultural cooperatives, and 
associations, and service, information, and extension providers. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
● In collaboration with Georgia’s Rural Development Agency (RDA), provided continuous 
assistance to grantee and non-grantee enterprises in obtaining necessary certifications, such 
as GlobalGAP, Organic Production, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP), and 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 22000 certifications to help them 
become more competitive in both local and international markets. 
● Provided branding support and supported participation in trade fairs, technical trainings and 
consultancies for grantee and non-grantee enterprises, in cooperation with the RDA. 
● In close cooperation with the Scientific-Research Center of Agriculture, implemented a 
voluntary nursery certification project and engaged beneficiary nurseries in the certification 
scheme. 
● Deepened supply chain activities and engaged with consolidators, producers, and retail 
supermarket chains to facilitate market linkages and agree on product grades and standards. 
● Worked with local banks to develop tailored financial products to address agricultural lending 
gaps. 
● Invested in export promotion with Enterprise Georgia and supported Georgian 
agribusinesses to participate in trade shows (e.g., Import Goods Fair in South Korea 2019, 
Biofach 2020, Gulfood 2020 and 2021, and Anuga 2021) with a new visual style, branding 
guidelines, and display structures, developed together with the Enterprise Georgia, RDA and 
National Wine Agency for Anuga 2021. 
● Worked with sectoral associations to build their capacity to deliver improved services to 
members in the targeted value chains. 
1.2 EVALUATION PURPOSE 
The purpose of this performance evaluation is to 1) determine the effectiveness of specific programmatic 
approaches in achieving intended LOP results; 2) provide recommendations on corrective actions and 
new directions for the remaining years of Program implementation; and 3) inform the design of future 
programs. 
To achieve the purpose of the performance evaluation, the team: 
● Assessed the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the Agriculture Program; 
● Analyzed the status of activities in relation to set objectives and the successes and weaknesses of 
activities; 
● Assessed the implementing organization’s performance in achieving Program objectives, including 
a special focus on uptake of principles and approaches in line with USAID’s private sector
engagement (PSE) policy and digital strategy, utilization of partnerships and market systems 
development (MSD) approaches, as well as its processes, implementation team performance, 
relations with stakeholders, performance feedback loops, reporting, timely management decisions, 
etc.; 
● Identified any external factors that might have impacted activity performance or created new 
opportunities, such as political, economic, or sector dynamics, as well as COVID-19; 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
● Provided recommendations on adjustments, corrective actions, and new directions for the 
remaining years of Program implementation; and 
● Developed recommendations to inform USAID/Georgia on future programming needs and 
approaches—in particular, the design of future follow-on projects. 
1.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The evaluation addressed the following EQs: 
EQ1. Diversification of export markets: To what extent have the export capacity building 
interventions with firms, and export promotion interventions with the government, been 
necessary and sufficient to diversify agricultural exports of target products to USG preferred 
markets (i.e., outside of Russia)? What have been the most pressing challenges in each 
priority value chain hindering the diversification of export markets? How sustainable are the 
USG-supported market linkages? 
● What are the main challenges to expanding export diversification for MSMEs away from Russia in 
targeted value chains? (Probe: Capacity building, export promotion, technologies, finding skilled 
labor, BEE, market information, quality and safety standards, etc.) 
● What are the top business opportunities from the perspective of target MSMEs? (Probe: Do they 
involve export diversification?) 
● What are the most important factors that influence decisions to diversify export markets? 
● How important are prevailing cultures, attitudes, and/or perceptions in driving export decisions? 
How successful has the USAID Agricultural Program been in shifting these factors? (Probe: What 
are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the Russian market?) 
● What support has the USAID Agricultural Program provided to MSMEs in entering international 
markets, particularly in Western Europe? How effective has this support been? (Probe: Have 
target MSMEs entered Western markets, what are the determining factors for this, and what 
challenges or opportunities are faced?) 
● What additional support is needed to facilitate expanded access to non-Russian export markets? 
● How effective are similar activities funded by other donors or the Government of Georgia (GOG) 
in capacity building and export promotion? 
● Is USAID Agriculture Program support to the GOG to develop a "Georgian brand" for 
international markets and promote agriculture exports through trade shows, digital platforms 
linking MSMEs to potential export markets, etc., yielding positive results? 
● Are linkages to non-Russian export markets sustainable? (Probe: Explore sustainability factors.) 
● Can services that support sustained exports to non-Russian export markets be cost-shared or 
offered as paid services? (Probe: Any currently available services from the private sector.) 
EQ2. Value-chain approach: To what extent has the activity’s support to sector associations, 
cooperatives, and government institutions catalyzed priority value chain development? How 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 19 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
important a role have these stakeholders played in increasing value chain competitiveness? 
To what extent have these stakeholders received sufficient and relevant support? 
● Who are the most important stakeholders that need to be involved in VC development and 
increasing competitiveness of MSMEs in priority VCs? 
● What services do these stakeholders provide to MSMEs and other sector stakeholders (e.g., 
individuals, GOG institutions, non-governmental organizations [NGOs], educational institutions, 
etc.)? (Probe: Are these services of acceptable quality? Are there gaps? How can these services 
be improved or expanded?) 
● Which associations, cooperatives, and/or other stakeholders have been most effective in 
catalyzing VC development and increasing VC competitiveness, and why? (Probe: How have 
USAID programs and partnerships supported them in these efforts, and was the support received 
sufficient and relevant?) 
● How can associations, cooperatives, other private sector organizations inform and support the 
GOG as it improves the BEE and encourages market systems strengthening? 
● Does USAID support to GOG agencies help address value chain gaps? (Probe: Certifications, such 
as nursery, phytosanitary, HAACP, ISO, etc.) 
● Which USAID activities, if any, encouraged greater female and youth participation in these 
targeted sectors? 
● To what extent did USAID programs support businesses in utilizing digital tools, including those 
that facilitate access to information, services, and markets, either administered by state or regional 
authorities or by private sector organizations? (Probe: Access to finance, certification, customs, 
public procurements, etc.) 
● What PSE opportunities have the Agricultural Program facilitated, and how have these 
partnerships supported priority VC development? (Probe: The role of PSE in value chain 
development across different Program activities, the types and number of engagements that have 
taken place, and the outcomes associated with engagements.) 
EQ3. Grant component: To what extent has the grant component strengthened each 
priority value chain? To what extent did the grants address gaps or market failures in target 
value chains? 
● What were the key market gaps in each target VC at the inception of the Agricultural Program? 
(Probe: Consolidation facilities, quality inputs, cold storage, distribution infrastructure, 
certification, packing and labeling, logistics, etc.) 
● To what degree did grants transform the priority VC by addressing these gaps? (Probe: Access to 
finance, increased sales, hiring talent, product differentiation, research and development [R&D], 
knowledge of customer demand, equipment, new varieties, expansion of production facilities, 
supply chain infrastructure.) 
● From the perspective of target MSMEs and market actors/stakeholders they work with, what 
types of grants, and in which areas of business operations, would grant support be most impactful? 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ4. COVID-19: In the context of COVID-19 economic contractions, how can the activity 
adapt its approaches (e.g., selection of grant solicitation themes, division of USAID 
investments across sub-sectors, sequencing of interventions, etc.) to improve its ability to 
achieve its targets: creation of 3,680 jobs and increase agricultural sales by $70 million, 
including $23 million in new exports? 
● What have been the biggest challenges and opportunities in the agriculture sector due to COVID￾19? 
● How has the Agricultural Program responded to these challenges and opportunities? (Probe: Using 
distance communication tools, introducing post-COVID recovery measures or programs, 
organizing capacity building in COVID-19-related topics, supporting hygiene tools and stocks, etc.) 
● What are best practices in how MSMEs and the market actors/stakeholders they work with have 
successfully adapted amid the COVID-19 pandemic? (Probe: Issues related to labor, new 
regulations, shifting to online sales.) 
● What further opportunities are there for the Agricultural Program to target? 
1.4 EVALUATION AUDIENCE 
The primary audience of this evaluation is USAID/Georgia’s Economic Growth team and the prime
implementing partner (IP), CNFA. USAID/Georgia may also share the results of this evaluation with local 
stakeholders such as the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development, RDA, partner NGOs, and 
other donors working in this area. Additionally, the results of the Agriculture Program evaluation may be 
shared with the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture (MEPA). 
1.5 EVALUATION OUTLINE 
This evaluation report is organized into these sections: 
● Executive Summary 
● Introduction and Background 
● Methodology 
● Findings for EQ1– EQ4 
● Cross-Cutting Findings 
● Conclusions 
● Recommendations 
● Annexes 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. METHODOLOGY 
2.1 EVALUATION METHODS 
Under LEAP III, two simultaneous mid-term 
performance evaluations were conducted in 
Georgia; the other assessed the Economic Security 
Program. Each ET used a similar team structure with 
an international Team Lead and a Georgian Senior 
Evaluation Specialist and Technical Expert. A 
Georgian Economist conducted research on the 
economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for 
both evaluations. All team members were briefed on 
USAID’s Human Subject Protection Policy and Evaluation Policy. The ET was trained on survey
methodology, USAID survey regulations, other relevant regulations, and the data collection plan. During 
the evaluation process, the two ETs worked closely to ensure strong collaboration and knowledge sharing 
across both evaluations. This collaboration included conducting joint key informant interviews (KIIs) with 
selected stakeholders from the GOG, USAID, and other donor partners to collect data efficiently. 
Agriculture Program Evaluation Team 
Team Lead: Nikolaus Eichman 
Senior Evaluation Specialist: Mikheil Pakatsoshvili 
Agriculture Expert: Grigol Modebadze 
Sector/Value Chain Advisor: Lasha Kavtaradze 
Facilitator: Ani Chokhonelidze 
USAID/Georgia’s development objectives (DOs) were updated in its 2020-2025 Country Development 
Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). The Agriculture Program Scope of Work (SOW) and design were 
complete under the old CDCS and therefore did not include the explicit focus on diversifying exports 
away from Russian markets and other malign countries as stated in Georgia’s new CDCS but at the same 
time, this issue was embedded in the Evaluation Questions prepared by USAID/Georgia. Therefore, the 
data collection instruments designed by the ET addressed this issue and USAID/Georgia approved the 
methodology. There is limited data available regarding this issue but going forward, the Agricultural 
Program can coordinate with USAID/Georgia as it adjusts its programmatic approaches. The SOW for 
the Agriculture Program can be reviewed in Annex I. 
For this mid-term evaluation the ET utilized a mixed methods approach that combined qualitative KIIs and 
quantitative surveys to assess programmatic approaches, opportunities, challenges, and the sustainability 
of Program results. This reflects USAID’s combination approaches that use two different methods to
collect and analyze information, and then synthesize the findings to answer the EQs. 
The ET conducted desk research prior to fieldwork to identify and analyze secondary information that it 
could triangulate with data collected in-country. The ET also held consultative meetings with the IP and 
USAID staff to gain inputs and solicit feedback during the design phase of the evaluation. 
SECONDARY DATA 
The ET conducted an extensive desk review of key Program and external documents, including secondary 
data and background documents (USAID policy papers, the MEL plan, quarterly and annual reports, and 
other documents produced by the IP, such as assessments, grant manuals, requests for applications, etc.). 
The ET reviewed a total of 34 documents to understand the context and identify constraints faced by the 
agriculture sector in Georgia in general, as well as by the Program. The list of reviewed documents can 
be found in Annex III. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 
In order to better understand the benefits of different stakeholder groups, the ET designed two online 
surveys in the Georgian language—one for grantees and the other for TA) recipients. The ET utilized the 
database supplied by the IP to establish a sampling frame. In total, online survey invitations were sent to 
195 beneficiaries, with a response rate of 86 percent for grantees and 49 percent for TA recipients. The 
high response rate was due to extensive support from the IP, which informed beneficiaries of the 
importance of the survey in advance. 
The ET conducted fieldwork remotely from August 12 to October 20, 2021. This extended data collection 
period reflects the difficulties of scheduling KIIs during lockdowns. The ET did not conduct in-person or 
site observations due to safety and security protocols in place at the height of the pandemic. The ET used 
telephone and internet-based options to carry out all interviews in both Georgian and English. Most 
interviews were conducted through online platforms, such as Zoom and Google Meet. The survey 
instruments are presented in English in Annex II but were translated into Georgian prior to dissemination. 
A total of 75 individual and group KIIs were carried out with 88 respondents. The list of KII respondents 
can be found in Annex IV. Figure 1 below shows key informant categories. The number of female and male 
respondents was equal. 
FIGURE 1: SUMMARY OF MIXED METHODS—DESK REVIEW, SURVEYS, KIIS 
DATA ANALYSIS 
The mid-term evaluation includes a comprehensive Getting to Answers matrix in the Evaluation Work 
Plan (Annex II) that maps the EQs to data sources and data analysis methods. The ET used a manual review 
process to extract key data such as keywords, quotations, or substantive information about activities from 
the transcripts and notes. The team sought to visualize results whenever possible. The ET used descriptive 
statistics to produce a quantitative overview of Agriculture Program activities, including characteristics 
such as the number of participants, regions, and VCs, based on survey responses. The team examined 
qualitative data from KIIs and online surveys to identify patterns, themes, and trends relevant to each EQ 
to better understand context and meaning. When the ET found a divergence in responses through this 
thematic and content analysis, it explored possible reasons, using other respondent group interviews and, 
in some cases, conducting follow-up interviews with IP staff. The ET coded its notes according to key 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
themes of interest across the interviews and summarized the distribution, number, and average responses 
by theme and respondents. The ET made use of the various data sources through triangulation to enhance 
the credibility of the analysis. Triangulation synthesizes multiple perspectives and leads to a fuller 
understanding of the issues being studied. Data from various lines of inquiry, including interviews, written 
documents, analytical procedures, and other sources (e.g., the online surveys), were considered separately 
and together to develop findings and conclusions. 
2.2 LIMITATIONS 
Evaluation methodology related to COVID-19. The Asian Development Bank assessed the 
economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the ET engaged an economist who conducted this 
research. Data collection and analysis related to EQ4 relied upon economic data provided solely by 
Geostat1 and other USAID programs. 
Selection bias. The ET relied upon USAID/Georgia’s IP to identify specific key stakeholders. There was 
some risk of selection bias due to the potential for selecting a large proportion of interviewees with only 
positive opinions of the Program. The ET mitigated this possible bias by reviewing all project documents 
and conducting strategic consultations with the IP to understand the full range of stakeholders, and then 
made decisions on others to contact at its own discretion. It is also possible that beneficiaries selected as 
KIIs were more likely to fill out online surveys, presenting an overlap between the two groups of 
respondents. This may reduce the value of the online surveys as an additional data source. 
Response bias. Most respondents interviewed by the ET have a vested interest in maintaining positive 
relationships with the Program and want to continue to benefit from grant funding or TA. The ET mitigated 
this bias by assuring informants at the start of each interview that their responses would be anonymous, 
that any comments would not be attributed to them unless they agreed, and that there would be no 
retaliation or direct consequences against them for their responses. 
Recall bias. The ET tried to overcome respondents’ bias in attributing impacts to their individual 
experiences by incorporating best practices for qualitative data collection, such as framing questions that 
rely less on recall of specific activities and more on the currently perceived implications of those activities. 
Data was also triangulated with other respondent categories (rejected grant applicants), helping to verify 
where responses may have been biased. 
1 Geostat is the National Statistics Office of Georgia. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 24 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. FINDINGS 
3.1 EVALUATION QUESTION 1 
EQ1. To what extent have the export capacity building interventions with firms, and export
promotion interventions with the government, been necessary and sufficient to diversify
agricultural exports of target products to USG preferred markets (i.e., outside of Russia)?
What have been the most pressing challenges in each priority VC hindering the
diversification of export markets? How sustainable are the USG-supported market linkages?
The ET found that, although export capacity building and promotion interventions have 
proven necessary and were successful in increasing exports to USG preferred markets, more 
efforts are needed to diversify the majority of agricultural exports away from Russia. 
There are considerable barriers to diversifying exports away from Russia. These include strong cultural 
ties, high demand for Georgian products, and the ease of transportation 
and transactions that make Russian markets attractive and in many cases A combined 65 percent of 
survey respondents said they 
planned to export to Russia 
and other former Soviet 
countries. Nearly four-fifths 
(77 percent) of exports from 
in-kind grantees actually went 
to those countries. 
profitable for Georgian producers.2 Russian markets are especially 
attractive for small Georgian producers given its familiarity (e.g., 
language, demand for products, ways of transacting). The opposite is the 
case for USG-preferred markets, where these small producers struggle 
to market their products and comply with higher quality and quantity 
standards. Although desirable, Russian markets are also widely viewed as 
risky and unstable in terms of price and access, making export 
diversification to higher-value markets an attractive proposition. 
Export capacity building interventions with firms and export promotion interventions with the 
government that the Agriculture Program supports can accelerate export diversification to USG-preferred 
markets such as those in the EU, US, and Gulf States. Although the Agriculture Program design was 
completed under Georgia's old CDCS and therefore did not include explicit focus on diversifying exports 
away from Russian markets and other malign countries as stated in Georgia’s new CDCS, the Agriculture 
Program implemented a number of important export diversification interventions. Although the 
Agriculture Program design was completed under Georgia's old CDCS and therefore did not include 
explicit focus on diversifying exports away from Russian markets as stated in Georgia’s new CDCS, the 
Agriculture Program implemented a number of important export diversification interventions. These 
interventions include export promotion activities implemented in cooperation with Enterprise Georgia 
and other key government institutions; support in obtaining GlobalGAP, HACCP, and ISO certifications; 
and other firm and systems-level interventions to improve access to the technical expertise, technologies, 
and services needed to sustain access to these high-value markets. The majority of respondents found 
these activities useful and shared their costs with the Program. Respondents also noted the need for 
continued support in order to maintain linkages to these markets. The Export Development Association 
(EDA) said that Georgian companies are reluctant to pay for export and other trade related services, such 
as market research and support in facilitating market linkages to new markets, noting that international 
2 See Annex V, Figure V-6: Advantages of selling to Russia and/or CIS countries.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
donors usually subsidize these costs. During KIIs, the ET found that the majority of grantees and TA 
recipients shared EDA’s point of view, saying that they would not be willing to cover these costs without
Project support. 
Although a majority of beneficiaries planned on export diversification to high-value EU markets even 
before receiving Program support, as noted above and as of the time when this evaluation was conducted, 
actual exports had not yet shifted away from Russian markets, which is still a major destination of actual 
exports by Program grantees.34 That said, Program interventions are showing signs of sustainable impact 
with export markets in the EU and US as evidenced by a fourfold increase in the number of beneficiaries 
exporting to the EU and US. New markets in the EU, US, and Gulf are now seen as the most attractive 
to respondents—not only in terms of market price but also stability. Especially in sub-sectors where there 
were already established linkages to high-value markets (e.g. hazelnuts). This is a good indication of 
Program beneficiaries’ interest in investing in sustaining access to high-value markets over the longer term. 
FINDING: THERE WAS A FOURFOLD INCREASE 
IN EXPORTS TO THE EU AND US AND NEW 
LINKAGES ESTABLISHED IN GULF MARKETS 
As a result of Program interventions, nearly half of 
respondents now sell to new markets (and most 
frequently export to more than one). And, as seen in 
Figure 2, there was a fourfold increase in the number of 
beneficiaries exporting to the EU and US. New linkages 
were also established in Gulf markets, with 18 percent 
of beneficiaries that sell to new markets now also selling 
to these countries. Respondents largely credit this 
success to Program-supported export capacity 
development (e.g., certifications) and promotion 
activities (e.g., branding and marketing), including 
support in developing the “Georgian Brand” in collaboration with Enterprise Georgia, RDA, and the
National Wine Agency. The Georgian market also has significant growth potential, with most respondents 
reporting domestic sales. This is not only a good market opportunity; it is good for food security and in 
line with the localization trends of major buyers such as grocery and restaurant chains. Therefore, the 
Agriculture Program has had significant success in supporting new market linkages and facilitating exports 
to high-value, USG-preferred markets. 
“The Russian market is not a priority for us. We want
to export to the EU as soon as we obtain the 
certificate.”
- Representative of a Program Beneficiary 
“Prices in Russia are lower and they do not pay 
attention to the quality of products. The EU market is 
more attractive, but we need to obtain a certificate to 
export our products there.”
- Representative of a Program Beneficiary 
“Gulf countries are very interesting new markets, while 
the Free Trade Agreement with China means that they 
can fully substitute the Russian market.”
- Representative of Enterprise Georgia 
3 Reference Annex V, Figure V-3: Plans of grantees and TA recipients to diversify exports before joining the Program. 4 Reference Annex V, Figure V-4: Markets to which the survey respondents planned to sell before joining the Program. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 26 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 2: SALES BY GRANTEES AND TAA RECIPIENTS BEFORE AND AFTER JOINING THE 
PROGRAM 
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients (91 responses) 
FINDING: BENEFICIARIES AND STAKEHOLDERS DOUBT THAT LINKAGES TO HIGH￾VALUE MARKETS CAN BE SUSTAINED WITHOUT CONTINUED SUPPORT 
Due to the considerable challenges that hinder 
competitiveness, beneficiaries and stakeholders doubt 
that linkages to high-value markets can be sustained
without continued capacity building in export processes 
and promotion support from the Program. These 
challenges include the low visibility of Georgian products 
in high-value markets, the high level of investment
needed to customize marketing strategies across target
markets, and a more general and persistent lack of 
access to the knowledge, technologies, and financing
needed to comply with the increasing standards of high￾value markets.5 Although beneficiaries viewed the
Program’s export support activities as effective in
overcoming these challenges, 84 percent of KII 
respondents expressed doubt in their ability to compete in these markets without continued subsidies or 
through GOG support alone. The majority of respondents from GOG institutions, including the RDA, the 
National Food Agency, and Enterprise Georgia, as well as KII respondents from the private sector (buyers, 
“Marketing across different countries is difficult as
costs are high and our company would not be able to 
do it without program support.”
- Representative of a Program Beneficiary 
“I participated in the Anuga Fair in Germany and it 
was very useful. People liked my product and I 
received new orders. However, without Program 
support I would not have been able to cover the costs. 
I also would not be able to pay for branding and 
marketing. A good branding company charges large 
sums and I require continued financial support to 
cover these.”
- Representative of a Program Beneficiary 
5 Reference Annex V, Figure V-7: Challenges when exporting to high-end markets 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 27 
associations, and banks), also doubted the sustainability of these market linkages, noting similar concerns 
related to competitiveness. And while respondents frequently cited restrictions related to COVID-19 as 
reasons for not maintaining these linkages (explored more under EQ 4), in several instances buyers or 
sellers did not renew contracts based on a range of other issues, including low income from sales, that 
should be further explored.6 
To further explore the question of sustaining linkages to high-value export markets, the ET looked at the 
alignment of Program interventions with the main challenges faced by the agriculture sector and the 
Program’s effectiveness in alleviating these challenges via its interventions with firms and government 
institutions. As shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 the ET found that all challenges that respondents face are 
persistent across the priority VCs (i.e., berries, culinary herbs, stone fruits, perishable vegetables, pome 
fruits, table grapes, mandarins, and nut crops), especially in areas critical to export diversification, such as 
difficulty in marketing products and lack of access to technologies and finance.7 
FIGURE 3: CHALLENGES IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients (102 respondents) 
6 Reference Annex V, Figure V-11: Reasons why Grantees and TA Recipients Could / Did Not Maintain Market Linkages to High￾End Export Markets 
7 Reference Annex V, Table V-1: Challenges in VCs identified in the Sector Selection and Value Chain Analysis Report. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 28 
 
FIGURE 4: THE MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED CHALLENGES IN EACH VALUE CHAIN 
Source: Survey of grantees (73 respondents) 
FINDING: INTERVENTIONS ARE WELL ALIGNED WITH THE MAIN CHALLENGES THAT 
AGRICULTURAL FIRMS FACE BUT DO NOT ADDRESS MORE SYSTEMIC CHALLENGES 
By design, Program interventions aligned well with the main challenges that the agriculture sector faces; 
the most important areas of support from the perspective of respondents were those related to export 
promotion and access to finance and technology. The latter two were related, given financing options for 
cost-share requirements facilitated by the Program. Respondents also mentioned the importance of 
support in developing productive infrastructure, as well as gaining certifications and access to high-value 
inputs, such as new plant varieties. The ET reviewed Program reports, noting activities that aligned with 
each challenge area. The ET also noted this alignment based on findings from the Program’s VC
assessments, which guided its support. 
The fact that these challenges persist after several 
iterations of similar programming points to systemic 
issues, including those related to the BEE and lack of 
access to finance, local knowledge, and capacity. 
Therefore, by focusing on firm-level operational 
challenges in the absence of coordination with other 
programs that can address these systemic issues, the 
Agriculture Program is responding to the immediate
needs of beneficiaries but is not alleviating the sources of the challenges they face. In response, the
Program is shifting its approach to support more systems-level change, but its TA and grants appear to be
better set up to alleviate more specific, firm-level challenges by facilitating access to expertise and
technologies that are of immediate operational importance to the target beneficiaries. 
“Since 2012 many reforms were done quickly and there 
was a hectic moment of approving different legislation 
with very little capacity or intention to implement them.”
- Representative of an International Donor
“There is a lack of formal public private dialogue led by
strong sector associations in the agriculture sector of 
Georgia.”
- Representative of an International Donor
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 29 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FINDING: BENEFICIARIES RECEIVE SUPPORT FROM MULTIPLE DONORS AND GOG 
INSTITUTIONS 
As shown in Figure 5, and due to costly systemic and persistent challenges in the agricultural sector, 
respondents including representatives from the berry, walnut, almond, and dried fruits associations said 
they sought and received support from multiple donors and GOG institutions, and the EDA reported 
receiving concurrent support from USAID and other donors such as the European Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and World Bank. Although support from multiple donors and 
GOG institutions may be necessary, it is difficult for any one Program to attribute impact and target 
activities accurately. 
FIGURE 5: NUMBER OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS RECEIVING SUPPORT FROM 
SOURCES OTHER THAN GOG INSTITUTIONS 
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients (52 respondents) 
The Program and other donor partners appeared diligent in avoiding overlapping support to specific 
enterprises and associations by, for example, participating in donor coordination mechanisms such as the 
EBRD-sponsored Investment Council. The Program also coordinated activities with the Food and 
Agriculture Organization (FAO)’s matching grant component under the European Neighbourhood
Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (ENPARD). The ET also found that the Program held 
regular consultations and shared grant information with its donor partners, although there was limited 
evidence that the Program had fully explored opportunities for implementing joint programs through 
pooled funding arrangements, parallel funding, or other mechanisms. GOG subsidy support to farmers in 
the agricultural sector was significant, according to respondents, but did not address significant gaps or 
market failures. The ET found a need for Georgian enterprises, associations, and cooperatives to bridge 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
this support gap by building partnership platforms, which could reduce the potential for overlaps in funding 
from multiple donors and the GOG that makes it difficult to attribute causality to different interventions. 
FINDING: EXPORT PROMOTION INTERVENTIONS ARE VIEWED AS PARTICULARLY 
USEFUL 
As shown in Figure 6, survey respondents viewed interventions supported by the Program as particularly 
useful, while their satisfaction with similar services from other stakeholders, such as the GOG, is relatively 
low. In KIIs, beneficiaries also identified export promotion activities supported by the Program as very 
beneficial in facilitating linkages to new markets. This important finding is an indication of the effectiveness 
of Program export promotion activities from the perspective of beneficiaries, at least compared to support 
received by other stakeholders. 
FIGURE 6: SATISFACTION OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS WITH TECHNICAL SERVICES 
RECEIVED FROM THE PROGRAM AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients (52 respondents) 
Although Program support is seen as useful, as shown in Figure 7, TA recipients were not as satisfied as 
grantees with the quality of services they received. Grantees’ satisfaction could be explained by the fact
that they received both grants and TA, but KII respondents also suggested that their dissatisfaction reflects 
the challenges and frustrations that beneficiaries experienced, including the Program’s inability to address
challenges that were out of scope of the Program (e.g. BEE, access to finance and development of skilled 
labor) and the beneficiaries’ own lack of knowledge and capacity to maintain quality production without
continuous TA. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 31 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 7: USEFULNESS OF PROGRAM SUPPORT 
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients (102 respondents) 
Despite considerable challenges, Georgian producers see value in sustaining linkages with high-value 
markets now that they recognize their value and have greater interest in diversifying exports to these 
markets. To be sustainable, continued support is needed and will need to include new strategies that phase 
out project dependency and add higher levels of cost-sharing for export promotion activities based on the 
success of current programing. Support should also include increased 
interventions that target systems-level impact, such as building the 
capacity of associations and business service organizations (BSOs) to 
collaborate more directly with government institutions to provide 
export promotion services, including improved access to reliable 
market information from sources such as Fresh Plaza and Euro Fruit 
to support market linkages and decision-making. Recommendations 
for support strategies related to EQ 1 are presented in Section 5. 
“The lack of agronomists is the biggest 
challenge. Even though the Program 
brough in experts from other 
countries, local capacity remains low.”
- Association Beneficiary of 
the Agriculture Program 
3.2 EVALUATION QUESTION 2 
EQ2. To what extent has the activity’s support to sector associations, cooperatives, and
government institutions catalyzed priority value chain development? How important a role
have these stakeholders played in increasing value chain competitiveness? To what extent
have these stakeholders received sufficient and relevant support? 
The ET found that, although sector-level support to these organizations and institutions has 
shown results, there is little evidence that this impact has catalyzed self-sustaining VC 
development. 
In line with PSE and MSD best practices, the Agriculture Program’s updated Sector and VC Analysis 
revealed that enterprise-level activities are more impactful when supported by sector-level interventions. 
In response, the Program increased its support to sector-level organizations and institutions (e.g., by 
building the capacity of associations and GOG institutions) while shifting interventions toward post￾USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 32 
 
 
harvest, cold chain, and market access activities and away from inventions related to primary production. 
The challenges pointed out in the updated Sector and VC Analysis8 did not change materially from the 
original analysis conducted at the inception of the Program, which points to the persistent nature of these 
challenges. To help address these firm- and sector-level challenges, the Program has facilitated a number 
of additional PSE opportunities, including partnerships with buyers (e.g., McDonald’s, GRA), financial
institutions (e.g., TBC Bank), and service and technology providers (e.g., Trece, UGT). These partnerships 
have yielded significant results in line with Program outcome indicators (e.g., increased incomes and jobs) 
and include new contracts with buyers, access to finance to cover cost-share requirements for grantees, 
and increased use of important production and digital technologies. These partnerships have also helped 
to improve VC relationships. Increased emphasis on developing PSE opportunities that can be pursued by 
the Agriculture Program and future programming, including applying more global PSE models and best 
practices could amplify this impact over the remaining years of this current program. 
FINDING: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VALUE CHAIN ACTORS HAVE IMPROVED 
One area that the ET studied in order to determine whether 
Program inventions have catalyzed priority VC development was 
how the relationships between VC actors in target sub-sectors 
have changed. As shown in Figure 8, relationships have improved 
both vertically—with suppliers, input providers, and buyers—
and horizontally—with other producers. Although there is little 
additional evidence of systems-level impact, this result is a very 
important indicator for and a potential legacy of the Agriculture 
Program for catalyzing value chain development. 
Improved horizontal value chain 
relationships increased collaboration and 
information sharing between associations 
and among association members. 
Improved vertical relationships included 
cooperation between the GRA and 
multiple supermarket chains to increase 
producer access to shelf space and 
promote Georgian production. 
FIGURE 8: VALUE CHAIN ACTORS WITH WHICH GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS 
IMPROVED RELATIONSHIPS 
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients (66 respondents) 
8 Reference Annex V, Table V-1: Challenges in VCs identified in the Sector Selection and Value Chain Analysis Report. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 33 
 
In addition to improved VC relationships, the majority of respondents received services from different 
VC actors and stakeholders,9 including export promotion support from the GOG; TA from associations, 
and BSOs; and services from other VC actors, NGOs, and educational institutions.10 Respondents 
mentioned support from government institutions and associations as especially important for VC 
development. Although viewed as important, satisfaction with the support received from these other VC 
actors and stakeholders was notably low, especially support in accessing market information, developing 
infrastructure, and accessing markets.11,12 Therefore, increased investment in building the capacity of these 
actors and stakeholders to support the agricultural sector may be necessary. 
KIIs also suggested that the lack of knowledge and capacity that constrains growth in the agriculture sector 
cannot be addressed through TA and training alone (direct or supported through grants). Therefore, 
linkages (e.g., information sharing, collaboration, and services) with educational institutions and BSOs are 
especially important for increasing local knowledge and capacity in the agriculture sector. However, as 
shown in Figure 9, respondents were least likely to cite linkages with these institutions.13 The Agriculture 
Program is supporting successful internship, training, and curriculum development programs and should 
seek more linkages with educational institutions and BSOs to build technical and management capacity. 
FIGURE 9: STAKEHOLDERS FROM WHICH GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS RECEIVE 
SERVICES 
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients (53 respondents) 
9 Reference Annex V, Figure V-12: Share of grantees and TA recipients receiving services from different stakeholders. 
10 Reference Figure 9: Stakeholders from which grantees and TA recipients receive support. 
11 Reference Annex V, Figure V-14: Overall satisfaction of grantees and TA recipients with the support received from other 
stakeholders. 
12 Reference Annex V, Figure V-15: Services received from other stakeholders with which the survey respondents were the least 
satisfied 
13 Reference Figure 9: Stakeholders from which grantees and TA recipients receive support. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 34 
 
 
FINDING: PROACTIVE COMPLIANCE WITH MARKET STANDARDS INDICATES A 
WILLINGNESS TO INVEST IN SUSTAINING MARKET ACCESS 
Another sign of VC development is the Program’s success in supporting proactive registration of seeds
and seedlings in compliance with the standards set by high-value markets, indicating a willingness to invest 
in market access over the long term and a development of the capacity of these firms. Support for 
compliance with these standards included establishing relationships with quality breeders and initiating the 
seed and seedling registration process. If this momentum can be used to further influence policy reform 
and prioritize government investment in supporting compliance with standards in other areas, such as 
traceability, it will be another example of a Program activity catalyzing VC development. 
“The program was a great help to the farmers as they covered costs of training across every region in Georgia to support 
compliance with seed and seedling registration standards set in high-value markets. Record keeping is mandatory and the 
program has helped to develop three types of logs to track the work, movement of planting materials in the nursery, and 
the phytosanitary log. Around 40 nurseries received the logs and were able to systematize the information.” 
-SRCA Representative 
FINDING: FINANCING COST-SHARE AGREEMENTS DEMONSTRATES UNCLEAR 
ADDITIONALITY FOR INCREASING ACCESS TO FINANCE 
Increased access to finance is also a sign of VC development. The 
Program has facilitated linkages to multiple potential sources of financing,
including Gazelle Finance, SEAF, TBC Bank and Bank of Georgia, and was
highly successful in leveraging grant funding from other sources and 
facilitating finance from TBC Bank to cover beneficiary cost-share
obligations for grants. Financing cost-share obligations is a great model
for blended finance when grant recipients would not otherwise be viable
candidates for loans. However, interviews with TBC Bank and the Bank 
of Georgia indicated that most grant beneficiaries that received this
financing were already viable loan candidates. Therefore, financing cost-share agreements for grantees that 
may already be viable candidates for loans would provide unclear additionality for expanding access to 
finance. This will be an important consideration as future programming builds on Agriculture Program 
results, and additional interventions may be needed for otherwise unbankable beneficiaries, such as start￾ups. 
“Financing cost-share obligations 
for grants is more useful as a
risk-sharing mechanism when 
funding start-ups. Already viable 
candidates for a loan will get the 
credit they need from the bank 
with or without the grant.”
- Bank Representative 
FINDING: VALUE CHAIN ACTORS ARE UNCERTAIN THAT PRODUCERS CAN COMPLY 
WITH STANDARDS ONCE SUPPORT ENDS 
Yet another sign of VC development is improved linkages with local buyers. However, at the time of this 
evaluation, partners such as McDonald’s were uncertain that producers can continue to comply with their
standards after support from the Agriculture Program ends. The ET also found little evidence of buyer￾led strategies in place to transition away from Program support, although buyers were open to developing 
these strategies and indicated interest in doing so in cooperation with the Program. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 35 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Strong associations are critical to VC development, and most of those
that the Program supports are still at early stages of growth. This
means that foundational support from the Program to build basic
capacity and functionality is critical, but needs to be accompanied with
more comprehensive plans for sustaining growth. For example, some
associations use Program support to hire staff to provide member
services, but membership fees are not sufficient to keep this staff on
after Program support ends. 
“We can become a proactive
association and provide technical 
assistance across the value chain. 
However, at this stage we need 
more holistic support and 
knowledge is crucial for us.”
- Representative of an 
Association Beneficiary 
FINDING: SUPPORT IN UTILIZING DIGITAL TOOLS IS SEEN 
AS USEFUL 
Increased inclusion and digitization as part of inclusive growth strategies are 
also important signs of VC development. As shown in Figure 10, grantees 
saw Program support in utilizing digital tools, including those that facilitate 
access to information, services, and markets as useful. Although Program 
impact data was unclear on the level of uptake of digital tools that the 
Program has facilitated, it is a positive sign that beneficiaries saw these 
interventions as useful. 
In partnership with UGT, 
the Program developed a 
mobile harvest application 
that reduces workloads 
and generates statistical 
data related to payments, 
yields, and quality control. 
FIGURE 10: USEFULNESS OF PROGRAM SUPPORT FOR UTILIZING DIGITAL TOOLS 
Source: Survey of grantees (51 respondents) 
FINDING: THERE IS A LACK OF COORDINATION AND DIALOGUE MECHANISMS 
BETWEEN MARKET ACTORS AND THE GOVERNMENT 
According to respondents, the GOG is the most important stakeholder for supporting VC development 
and increased competitiveness in the agriculture sector. However, an unfavorable BEE was identified as a 
significant challenge, pointing in part to a lack of coordination and dialogue mechanisms. For example, KII 
respondents noted that the RDA—a funding agency under the MEPA with the mandate to promote rural 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 36 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
development in Georgia— is mainly focused on engaging with larger firms (from the perspective of the 
respondents) and that there are few mechanisms for MSMEs to advocate for the support they need. 
Meanwhile, the RDA expressed its awareness of challenges in the agriculture sector and stated that it has 
no need for additional communication channels with MSMEs, indicating a lack of awareness of the 
importance of engaging MSMEs. Other than the government, beneficiaries consider well-established 
associations (such as the berry and nut associations) and other sector-level organizations as important 
stakeholders for supporting VC development and competitiveness. In addition to facilitating access to 
markets and filling service gaps, these sector-level associations can play an important role in improving the 
BEE, starting with effective public-private dialogue (PPD) campaigns, which are discussed in the 
Recommendations section. 
FINDING: THE NUMBER OF ENTERPRISES REGISTERED IN THE TRADE WITH GEORGIA 
CATALOG MORE THAN DOUBLED 
A good example of improving support from the GOG is manifesting through Program support to 
Enterprise Georgia. The impact of this collaboration on income and employment is difficult to quantify at 
this stage, as Enterprise Georgia was still developing monitoring tools during this evaluation. However, 
the number of enterprises registered in the Trade with Georgia catalog has more than doubled, from 200 
to over 500. It will be important for the Program to follow up and investigate the actual impact of this 
platform over the next several years, as this information will be vital to making the case for further 
government investment and can inform future programming needs. Recommendations for support 
strategies related to EQ 2 are included in Section 5. 
3.3 EVALUATION QUESTION 3 
EQ3. To what extent has the grant component strengthened each priority VC? To what
extent did the grants address gaps or market failures in target value chains? 
The ET found that the grant Program is well aligned in addressing challenges that the 
agriculture sector faces and shows positive results in terms of increased investment, 
incomes, and jobs. However, it is not clear to what extent grants are addressing key gaps 
and market failures at a systems-level in order to sustain these results. 
Respondents view the persistent lack of access to finance, 
technologies, knowledge, and capacity as the most pressing 
challenges to the development of Georgia’s agriculture sector.
Although all target VCs faced similar, persistent challenges, as 
described under EQ 1, there were also key gaps in each VC 
(outlined in detail in the Sector and VC analyses conducted by the 
Program). Examples include the need for14: 
“The Program helped us to obtain
GlobalGAP certification. Now they are
supporting us to establish a post-harvest
cooling and sorting facility. This will enable
us to help small farmers to sell their
products.”
- Program Grant beneficiary 
“Through the grant from the Program we
bought a forkloft and its accessories for our 
cold storage.”
- Program Grant beneficiary 
● Increased access to modern varieties in the berry VC; 
● Technical advice on crop selection and practices for 
organic production in the culinary herbs VC; 
● Improvement and expansion of processing facilities, in the 
14
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 37 
Reference Annex V, Table V-1: Challenges in VCs identified in the Sector Selection and Value Chain Analysis Report. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
perishable vegetables VC; 
● Improved production technologies and post-harvest handling in the stone fruits VC; 
● Improved access to high-quality inputs in the apple VC; and 
● Improved storage facilities in the mandarin VC. 
These VC studies were comprehensive and, by design, the 
Agriculture Program and several iterations of previous programming 
were well-positioned to apply a combination of grants and TA to 
alleviate these challenges at the enterprise level. This is done by 
facilitating access to technical expertise (e.g., in gaining certifications) 
and technologies (e.g., equipment) via grant funding and access to 
finance to cover cost share obligations. The Program can also fund 
innovation grants (e.g., for new technologies) and partnerships (e.g., 
to co-fund beneficiary support initiatives) to fill gaps. 
“The grant helped us to build the 
internal capacity of the Association, 
including hiring more staff members 
and increasing outreach. It also gave 
us access to international expertise 
and allowed us to work closely with 
universities, including in the US to 
receive the technical support we 
needed.”
- Representative of a 
Beneficiary Association 
According to the Program Grants Manual, grants are used to support achievement of Program objectives 
by facilitating investments in expanded business operations and sub-sector growth that would not 
otherwise occur. Grants target enterprises and organizations that support and strengthen selected VCs, 
including MSMEs, cooperatives, associations, and service providers, to buy down risk of launching or 
expanding their operations. Figure 11 summarizes the level of grant support across target value chains. 
This support was especially high in high-potential VCs, such as berries. 
FIGURE 11: PROGRAM IN-KIND GRANT DISBURSEMENT BY VALUE CHAIN 
Source: Program monitoring data 
The majority of respondents saw in-kind grants as the most useful, as they allow beneficiaries to purchase 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 38 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
equipment and gain access to technical expertise.15 Although successful in alleviating specific challenges, as 
mentioned above, the persistent nature of those challenges points to a need to target root causes and 
effect more systems-level impact, which the current Program was 
not designed to do. For example, challenges are similar across the 
target VCs; in some, such as the nuts sub-sector, 100 percent of 
respondents identified all challenges as equal. In others, the 
challenges were more specific. And although the Sector and VC 
Analyses did a good job of providing a rationale for targeting 
certain VCs, they did not provide sufficient perspective on the 
root causes of key development challenges or clarify how the 
Program can help address them. Therefore, additional analysis 
may be needed and will be beneficial for future programming. 
“Support in ISO certification was very
important for us. There are many 
companies that have high standards, 
including international ones, and the 
certificate enabled us to sell to these higher￾value clients. 
- Representative of a Beneficiary 
Distribution Company 
FINDING: GRANTS THAT ADDRESS ENTERPRISE-LEVEL DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES 
ARE SEEN AS USEFUL TO BENEFICIARIES 
The Program appears to address enterprise-level challenges in a way that beneficiaries see as useful in 
terms of increasing income and supporting growth that creates employment. As shown in Figures 12, 13, 
and 14, respondents reported significant increases in jobs created and incomes from exports—two 
important Program impact indicators. Reporting from respondents also shows that grant beneficiaries 
largely attribute this impact to Program support. These figures are in line with Agriculture Program impact 
monitoring data, according to which progress in PY3 is most significant. 
FIGURE 12: VALUE OF EXPORTS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTION TO THE PROGRAM 
Source: Survey of grantees (24 respondents) 
15 Reference Annex V, Figure V-24: Usefulness of grants by their types 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 39 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 13: VOLUME OF EXPORTS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTION TO THE PROGRAM 
Source: Survey of grantees (22 respondents) 
FIGURE 14: NUMBER OF FULL-TIME AND SEASONAL JOBS CREATED BY PROGRAM 
BENEFICIARIES 
Source: Survey of grantees (44 respondents) 
FINDING: INVESTMENT FACILITATED BY GRANTS CONTRIBUTED TO A TRIPLING OF 
EXPORT REVENUE IN PY3 
In fact, and as shown in Figure 15, increased investment by the Program and its beneficiaries contributed 
to the creation of over 1,000 jobs and a tripling of export revenues in comparison to PY2. This level of 
impact was in line with the survey findings of the evaluation outlined in Figures 12 and 14. And the ET 
believes there is a high likelihood of a continued increase in impact over the remaining years of the 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 40 
 
 
 
 
Program. 
FIGURE 15: PROGRAM DATA ON YEAR-OVER-YEAR EXPORTS AND JOBS 
Source: Program monitoring data 
However, the Program attributes 100 percent of results to its grants and uses a subjective questionnaire 
to attribute results from TA, making it difficult to understand impact amid the support of other Programs 
and target specific gaps and market failures. 
Access to finance was identified as a major challenge in all VCs although the grants Program assists in 
addressing this challenge by providing grants and facilitating bank financing to comply with cost-share 
obligations. As mentioned above, however, financing cost-share 
obligations for otherwise bankable MSMEs does not sustainably 
address the gap in access to finance. Future programming could 
continue to facilitate access to finance via customized lending 
approaches and VC finance strategies with associations and larger 
enterprises, including support for the improved VC finance capacity 
of banks and non-bank financial institutions; increased utilization of 
technology and risk-sharing schemes that allow access to finance for 
otherwise unbankable beneficiaries; and proactive facilitation of 
competition in the financial sector via a range of alternative sources 
of private capital 
“The impact data we collect is
incomplete and may be inaccurate. 
And we did not agree to give the 
Program the level of detail they are 
asking for. This requirement came as 
a surprise after the grant was 
received. 
- Representative of a Grant 
Beneficiary 
FINDING: SUSTAINABILITY OF ENTERPRISE-LEVEL IMPACT FROM GRANTS IS 
UNCERTAIN AND RISKS BACKSLIDING IF NOT CONTINUED 
The grants Program has strengthened priority VCs by bringing in needed technology and building technical 
capacity by combining grants with TA. However, the sustainability of this impact is uncertain and risks 
backsliding if not continued while also shifting toward more systems-level interventions, including an 
increased focus on building the capacity of systems-level organizations and institutions to support the 
agriculture sector. This said, and based on experiences and best practices shared by the IP during KIIs, the 
combination of TA with grants appears to be more effective at increasing and sustaining enterprise-level 
impact than grants alone. This makes sense, given that TA strengthens grant beneficiaries’ capacity to
utilize the technology and expertise to which the grants provide access. It is important to build on this 
experience as USAID programming continues to shift toward more systems-level interventions. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 41 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FINDING: GRANTS DO NOT SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESS GAPS AND MARKET FAILURES 
Although grants effectively address enterprise-level challenges, in general and by design for the current 
program, they do not directly or sufficiently address systemic challenges, such as those related to access 
to private capital, capacity for innovation, or sector- and policy-level binding constraints. Though these 
systemic challenges may be out of scope for the Agriculture Program, there could be a higher level of 
coordination with other programs to address them. Recommendations for support strategies related to 
EQ 3 are provided in Section 5. 
3.4 EVALUATION QUESTION 4 
EQ4. In the context of COVID-19 economic contractions, how can the activity adapt its
approaches (e.g., selection of grant solicitation themes, division of USAID investments
across sub-sectors, sequencing of interventions, etc.) to improve its ability to achieve its
targets: creation of 3,680 jobs and increase agricultural sales by $70 million, including $23
million in new exports? 
The ET found that the Program adjusted its operational and programmatic approach well 
to mitigate activity delays amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but it is unclear whether any major 
adjustments took advantage of emerging opportunities. 
The past two years have been very challenging for Georgia—and the world. The COVID-19 crisis has led 
to a major economic recession in Georgia, resulting in loss of jobs and devaluation of local currency. It is 
estimated that the economy of Georgia contracted by 6.2 percent in 2020. The height of the crisis 
occurred from April to May 2020, when about 9 percent of formally employed workers lost their jobs 
and about 370,000 self-employed workers registered for unemployment assistance. In response, the GOG 
swiftly mobilized about $2.3 billion from the International Monetary Fund and other international financial 
institutions to bolster vulnerable sectors including tourism, agriculture, and real estate. The economy was 
also supported by remittances, along with fiscal stimulus measures. 
About 41 percent of Georgia’s population lives in rural areas, and 247,000 people were employed in the 
agricultural sector in 2019. The share of the agriculture sector to GDP fell from 8.8 percent in 2015 to 
7.4 percent in 2019. However, several supply chains experienced significant growth during the same 
period. Georgian exports of wine, spirits, and mineral water increased 38 percent from 2015 to 2019. 
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, food insecurity rose quickly because Georgia and 
neighboring countries closed their borders and restricted the export of essential agricultural products. In 
response to the pandemic, the GOG developed a crisis management plan that provided unprecedented 
financial and technical support to farmers in key VCs. Overall, about 200,000 farmers benefitted from a 
one-time subsidy, which created a fiscal stimulus for farmers to harvest crops in 2020 and 2021. Many 
donors provided grants to Georgian partners, which helped to reduce food insecurity and stabilize prices 
and highlighted the need for Georgian agricultural and processing firms to update equipment and 
modernize agricultural production. 
Amid this crisis, GOG and private sector respondents noted that the Program remained operational, 
pivoted rapidly to adjust its activities, and delivered interventions effectively through online platforms 
while supporting partners and grantees. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 42 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FINDING: GOVERNMENT SUPPORT RESOLVED SHORT-TERM PROBLEMS DURING THE 
PANDEMIC 
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the GOG developed a farmer support program that provided 
financial and technical support for key agricultural value chains. Due to low self-sufficiency ratios for 
essential food products and weak productivity in the agriculture sector, the GOG worked closely with 
donor partners to develop a comprehensive plan for recovery and transition. The overall stimulus package 
was diversified and supported small and medium-sized agricultural businesses. These support measures 
and increased demand for agricultural products caused sector exports to grow in 2020 as seen in Figure 
16. Data was only available for the first nine months of 2021 but there was an evident decrease in exports. 
FIGURE 16: EXPORTS IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 2016 – SEPTEMBER 2021 (FIRST 9 
MONTHS OF 2021) 
Source: Geostat 
FINDING: A HIGH NUMBER OF PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES WERE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED 
BY COVID-19 
About three-fourths (73 percent) of the 88 KII respondents stated that COVID-19 had a very negative or 
negative impact on their operations, as seen in Figure 17 below. Respondents cited major disruptions in 
access to input supplies, challenges related to transportation during lockdowns in 2019 and 2020, and 
infections among their staff that negatively affected production. A large number of respondents also 
identified COVID-19 as the main reason for not selling to new markets. Although exports increased, 
related restrictions contributed greatly to lower than anticipated export diversification for Program 
beneficiaries. Other challenges included increased costs that negatively affected competitiveness and 
further underscored the need to connect networks of smaller producers to anchor associations, buyers, 
and service providers with a focus on high-value, low-volume production. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 43 
 
 
 
FIGURE 17: ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COVID-19 AFFECTING PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES 
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients (80 responses) 
FINDING: AGRICULTURE JOBS WERE DECREASING PRIOR TO COVID-19 
According to Geostat, 1,170 people lost jobs in this sector in 2020. Georgia’s agricultural workforce is 
characterized by unskilled labor and lack of experience operating advanced farming and processing 
technologies. Before the pandemic, agriculture had one of the country’s lowest levels of productivity for
workers, as evidenced by the fact that 20 percent of total workers in the Georgian economy contributed 
only 7 percent to 8 percent of goods and services to GDP from 2015 to 2019. The Program’s current
approach to job creation, which is aligned with best practices in this sector, may encounter new challenges 
for creating employment opportunities to offset job losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
FINDING: THERE ARE NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASING AGRICULTURE REVENUE 
Despite the negative economic impact of the pandemic, nearly all respondents (97 percent) believed the 
worst effects of COVID-19 had already occurred and they expressed optimism that the agricultural sector 
would see increased revenues in the next five years as shown in Figure 18. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 44 
 
 
FIGURE 18: BUSINESS PERFORMANCE PERCEPTIONS FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS 
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients (80 responses) 
Respondents suggested several reasons for this positive outlook. Prior to the onset of the COVID-19 
pandemic, Georgia imported $1.1 billion worth of food and agriculture products in 2019—an increase of 
12.6 percent since 2015. The closed borders and supply chain disruptions due to the pandemic created 
higher domestic demand for Georgian agricultural products. The increased demand for locally produced 
and processed food was offset by a reduction in food imports, indicating that Georgia has the potential to 
replace imported food products with locally produced meat, dairy, cereals, fruits, and vegetables. 
According to statistics provided by Geostat, international tourists spent an average of 24-27 percent 
(2015-2019) of their expenditures on food and drink. The decline in tourism has had an overall impact on 
the consumption of some Georgian agricultural products from 2019 to 2020 but the value of this loss in 
revenue was not available at the time of this evaluation. The statistics provided by Geostat did not specify 
whether tourists consumed local or imported food and drink products. 
At the time of this evaluation, the Program’s ongoing partnerships with McDonald’s and GRA may provide
opportunities to take advantage of this trend in the localization of supply chains. This localization trend 
may be an opportunity for the Program to adapt its programmatic approach in response to greater 
domestic consumption of local production and changes in consumer preferences and behaviors. Prior to 
the pandemic, the highest profits in the sector were in plant propagation, fishing, and animal production.16 
There was no evidence available at the time of the evaluation to measure the extent to which potential 
changes in domestic consumption preferences and behavior may have changed during the pandemic. 
Domestic tourism increased slightly during the third quarter of 2020, which may have created 
opportunities for income generated through agrotourism and related alternative income-generating 
16 Services for Accounting, Reporting, Auditing and Supervision (SARAS), 2018-2019. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 45 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
opportunities.17 By design, the Program did not have a specific focus on supply chains related to domestic 
tourism. However, some interventions with companies such as HORECA have addressed this issue in 
coordination with the Economic Security Program, and further collaboration could provide relevant 
market forecasts and help identify other tourism-related opportunities. Foreign direct investment in 
agriculture was low before COVID-19, but new domestic investments may spur demand for Georgian 
food products. 
Amid COVID related constraints in regional supply chains, the potential for export diversification in high￾value export markets increased. And increased GOG and donor commitment to modernizing agricultural 
practices and providing new technology and equipment may ease exports to high-value markets. These 
subsidies, however, may lead to dependency on GOG and donor support and delay needed structural 
changes in supply chains, according to several respondents. 
FINDING: NEED FOR URGENT POLICY REFORMS HIGHLIGHTED DURING COVID-19 
According to beneficiary respondents, COVID-19 increased awareness of urgently needed policy reforms. 
By design, the Program does not have many activities that facilitate PPD regarding policy reform. Though 
it could do more, in coordination with the Economic Governance Program, to encourage and support 
associations and cooperatives in launching PPDs to prioritize needed reforms that would address the main 
challenges of access to finance and support model innovation that could increase revenues and stimulate 
job creation, as outlined in EQ1. Potentially, the grants mechanism could be used to build the capacity of 
selected associations and cooperatives to launch a series of PPDs around lessons learned during COVID￾19 in collaboration with other USAID and donor-funded programs. Respondents cited evidence of good 
momentum to work with the GOG and other donors to incentivize investments to upgrade equipment 
and modernize production in targeted value chains. 
FINDING: THE PROGRAM ADJUSTED ITS OPERATIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC 
APPROACH TO PROVIDE SUPPORT DURING COVID-19 
The Agriculture Program experienced considerable challenges amid the COVID-19 pandemic, including 
delayed implementation of grants and TA for activities that require in-person inspections for certification. 
Many grantees experienced limited access to finance, which affected their abilities to meet cost-share 
obligations during the pandemic. In addition, fewer applications were submitted for innovation grants due 
to increased risk aversion for related investments in the agriculture sector. In response, the Program 
delivered information and consultations regarding investment funds or other sources of financing more 
suitable for those businesses. In addition, the Program facilitated linkages between the Small Enterprise 
Assistance Funds (SEAF) and its beneficiaries. 
The Program adjusted its operational approach by introducing online mechanisms for delivering training 
and TA. For example, the Program expanded utilization of its AgriTalk Live Facebook page, which saw a 
large increase in visits by beneficiaries. At the programmatic level, the Program also engaged e-commerce 
companies to increase access to online services and improve selling platforms for producers. Program 
documents indicated an accelerated shift to more of these sector-level activities as the Program continues. 
Recommendations for support strategies related to EQ 4 are provided in Section 5. 
17 GNTA tracks international and “domestic tourist trips.” There was a reported increase in domestic tourist trips in the third
quarter of 2020. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 46 
 
 
 
 
3.5 CROSS-CUTTING FINDINGS 
The gender gap in agriculture is significant, with women suffering from limited access to information, 
knowledge, land, inputs, and markets.18 The ET assessed gender equity and strengthening youth as a cross￾cutting theme and investigated how the Program encouraged greater female and youth participation and 
contributed to their empowerment. 
 
FINDING: THE PROGRAM PRIORITIZED ENGAGEMENT 
OF WOMEN AND YOUTH 
The ET’s review of Program documents and interviews with its
Gender Specialist revealed prioritized engagement of women and 
youth. This included the allocation of additional points to grant 
applications from agribusinesses owned by women and youth, or 
those that employ women or youth as managers and technical 
specialists. In addition, the Program launched a capacity building 
grant to facilitate engagement of women and youth in agribusiness. 
In total, the Program awarded three capacity building grants to the Georgian Association of Women in 
Business, Georgian Young Artists Association, and Georgian Business Development Center Caucasia. 
These organizations supported the Program’s goal of greater inclusivity by organizing outreach activities
and provided TA to a large number of women and youth (e.g., training sessions in business skills, food 
safety, and drying technologies) as well as training on agricultural technologies, social media, marketing, 
branding, and entrepreneurship for over 100 students. 
“Grants can help women take
advantage of opportunities, but the 
TA is especially important for helping 
them build and sustain their 
capacities. For having a greater 
impact, the Program works with local 
groups that support women and 
youth economic empowerment.”
- CNFA Gender Specialist 
The Program collects sex-disaggregated data for all activities and reports on gender and youth indicators. 
These efforts increased the engagement of women and youth, with Program monitoring and evaluation 
(M&E) reporting an increase in female participants from 2,288 (37 percent) in 2020 to 29,074 (58 percent) 
in 2021 and in youth participants from 928 (5 percent) in 2020 to 11,116 (22 percent in 2021)- exceeding 
Program targets. 
FINDING: PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT SELECTION CRITERIA NEED ADJUSTMENT 
PSE and MSD approaches are both key to advancing sustainable, scaled, and 
inclusive outcomes. The Agriculture Program has facilitated a range of PSE 
opportunities, including successful partnerships with buyers (e.g., 
McDonald’s), financial institutions (e.g., TBC Bank) and technology
companies (e.g., UGT). However, the ET’s findings indicated the need for
improved cross-cutting analytical frameworks and assessment tools to 
support selection criteria for private sector partners and Program activities 
in order to scale and sustain impact. The Program’s approach to PSE is
practical—seeking buyers, service providers, and other partners to leverage 
resources toward achieving expected Program outcomes (jobs, incomes, 
etc.). Therefore, the impact of partnerships is mainly being measured in 
terms of dollars leveraged through partnerships and grants, which does not 
predict the transformational impact of USAID investment. 
“Access to finance remains a
challenge and co-financing 
requirements of development 
initiatives often excludes 
vulnerable groups and women. 
Previous experience of 
Enterprise Georgia shows that 
lower co-financing triggers 
higher engagement of women 
in grant components.”
- Representative of 
UNDP 
18 FAO. 2018. Gender, agriculture, and rural development in Georgia—Country Gender Assessment Series. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 47 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Without more evidence-based data regarding how these partnerships advance MSD approaches and 
generate enduring changes in incentives, rules, norms, or support functioning of the system, the ET could 
not assess the extent to which these partnerships are transformational or merely one-off transactions. 
According to USAID PSE and MSD guidance, transformational impact is measured by how MSD can 
leverage the strengths of PSE in corporate relationship management in diverse investment and partnership 
strategies. The qualities of transformation include the interrelated elements of scale, sustainability, and 
systemic change. The ET did not discount the possibility that some partnerships were indeed 
transformational but did not see sufficient evidence to support this finding. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 48 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. CONCLUSIONS
Overall, based on the evaluation findings, the Program has been successful in generating impact in line with 
expected results—overcoming lagging LOP results from PY1 and PY2, with considerably increased results 
in PY3—a good sign for PY4 and PY5. The Program was particularly effective in leveraging deep 
connections, experience, and expertise of its staff to identify and address specific enterprise-level 
development challenges across the target VCs using a combination of grants and TA. The Agricultural 
Program largely achieved its stated objectives as demonstrated in the findings and supported by its MEL 
framework. Since the original SOW and Agriculture Program design were approved, the USAID/Georgia 
Mission is now emphasizing the need to diversify exports away from Russian markets and other malign 
countries as stated in its new CDCS. The Agriculture Program may need to conduct assessments and 
further analysis to determine what steps may be taken to address this new criteria in its programmatic 
approaches. The conclusions and recommendations outlined below have been developed in alignment 
with USAID/Georgia’s current and future Development Objectives.
EQ1. The ET found that, although its export capacity development and promotion interventions were 
necessary for and effective at increasing exports to USG preferred markets, more efforts are needed to 
diversify exports away from Russia, which remained a top destination market with increasing sales for 
Program beneficiaries. The Program facilitated a fourfold increase in exports to the EU and US and 
established new linkages in Gulf markets. Beneficiaries view export promotion activities supported by the 
Program as particularly useful, including for gaining needed certifications and implementing branding and 
marketing strategies. Although they view these activities as useful, the attribution of impact is unclear, as 
most beneficiaries receive support from multiple stakeholders. There is also doubt that linkages to high￾value markets can be sustained without continued TA and Grant support from future programming while 
also shifting toward more systems-level interventions. And, although interventions are well aligned with 
the main challenges that agricultural firms face, they do not sufficiently address the systemic challenges 
(e.g. BEE and access to finance) that are out of scope for the current project, but impede sustained export 
diversification. Other systemic challenges include a need for increased support from more capable 
associations and government institutions in export promotion activities, which are all challenges that can 
be further addressed through future programming. 
EQ2: The ET found that, although sector-level support to associations, cooperatives, and government 
institutions has shown results, at the time of the mid-term evaluation, this impact had yet to catalyze into 
self-sustaining VC development. However, there are some positive signs of VC development, including 
improved relationships among VC actors in target sub-sectors and proactive compliance by Program 
beneficiaries with the high standards set by USG preferred markets, indicating a willingness to invest in 
sustaining market access. Increased government support for export promotion activities via Enterprise 
Georgia is also a positive sign of VC development, with the number of firms registered in its trade with 
Georgia catalog more than doubling. But there is also a need for more coordination with other programs 
to develop more dialogue mechanisms with the government to support an improved business enabling 
Environment (BEE). Increased access to finance is another positive sign of VC development. Grants 
provided by the Agriculture Program have facilitated an increase in investment in the agricultural sector, 
with financing options provided through bank partners for covering grantee cost-share obligations. 
Although facilitating access finance to cover cost-share agreements can increase access to finance for 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 49 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
agribusinesses and catalyze additional resources and investments into agriculture, doing so for grantees 
that may already be viable candidates for loans would provide unclear additionality. This will be an 
important consideration as future programming builds on Agriculture Program results. Although the 
Program facilitated new market linkages, value chain actors, including buyers and associations, it is 
uncertain that producers can continue to comply with standards once Program support ends. Another 
positive sign of VC development is digitalization, and beneficiaries saw the Program’s support in utilizing
digital tools that facilitate access to information, services, and markets as useful. 
EQ3: The ET found that the grant program is well aligned in addressing the challenges that the agriculture 
sector faces and shows positive results in terms of increased investment, incomes, and jobs at the firm￾level, but the extent to which grants are sufficiently addressing key gaps and market failures at a systems￾level in order to sustain these results, is not clear. Beneficiaries view grants that address enterprise-level 
development challenges as particularly useful, bringing in needed technology, including technical capacity, 
by combining grants with TA. And the investment facilitated by grants contributed to a tripling of export 
revenue in PY 3, although this impact risks backsliding if not complemented with more systems-level 
interventions from future programming that address key gaps and market failures, such as those related 
to access to private capital, capacity related to innovation, or sector- and policy-level binding constraints. 
EQ4: The ET found that the Program was successful in adapting its implementation tactics to mitigate 
activity delays but that it will need to adapt more elements of its overall approach to take advantage of 
emerging opportunities. Small-scale farming can be disadvantageous, primarily for competitiveness reasons 
related to low worker productivity and the high cost of and lack of capacity to comply with the standards 
of high-value export markets. Further, the absence of government policies to address land fragmentation, 
incentivize diversification of export markets, and accelerate privatization processes were restricting 
growth in the agricultural sector even before the onset of COVID-19. Based on analysis of the economic 
impact of COVID-19 and qualitative data, the ET concluded that Program support for diversification of 
export markets could include more support for new opportunities in domestic markets. The Program 
should support associations and cooperatives in helping their members analyze these and other new 
market opportunities in response to the pandemic. In doing so, it should collaborate with current partners 
to forecast changes in market opportunities and coordinate with other USAID and donor partners to 
assess potential revenue and job creation associated with these new opportunities. In response, the 
current emphasis on high-value export markets may also need to be rebalanced. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 50 
5. RECOMMENDATIONS 
As requested by the Mission, the ET concentrated on actionable recommendations for the Agriculture 
Program over its remaining years while also considering future programming. As discussed with the 
Mission, the Team engaged with the CNFA team through strategic consultations to draw on its experience 
and perspective. Recommendations are organized under each EQ, with additional cross-cutting 
recommendations and others related to analysis and impact monitoring. 
RECOMMENDATIONS: FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING 
TABLE 1: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EQ1. TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THE EXPORT CAPACITY BUILDING INTERVENTIONS 
WITH FIRMS, AND EXPORT PROMOTION INTERVENTIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT, 
BEEN NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT TO DIVERSIFY AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS OF 
TARGET PRODUCTS TO USG PREFERRED MARKETS (I.E., OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA)? WHAT 
HAVE BEEN THE MOST PRESSING CHALLENGES IN EACH PRIORITY VALUE CHAIN 
HINDERING THE DIVERSIFICATION OF EXPORT MARKETS? HOW SUSTAINABLE ARE THE 
USG-SUPPORTED MARKET LINKAGES? 
RECOMMENDATION FOR NEXT 1.5 YEARS 
● Program TA for export capacity development and export promotion should focus on expanding and 
sustaining market linkages for individual enterprises and associations that have proven successful, including 
by: 
○ Increasing collaboration with Enterprise Georgia and BSOs; 
○ Concentrating on proven markets such as Gulf countries and Germany; and 
○ Focusing on solidifying the prerequisites for sustaining market access, such as maintaining 
certifications and standards, conducting market analysis and improving branding and marketing 
strategies. 
● The Program can focus on tangible examples of opportunities for rapid agriculture sector growth, such 
as voluntary seed and seedling registration, to help associations push for accelerated policy 
implementation and investment related to export promotion. 
RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING 
● Continue support for export promotion activities, including new strategies that phase out project 
dependency and add higher levels of cost-sharing based on the success of current programing. 
● In addition to new opportunities in local and export markets, the Program should explore and support 
alternative income-generating opportunities, such as agrotourism, in response to shifting consumer and 
domestic market dynamics. This support could start with an analysis of the opportunities and targeted TA 
by the Program and then can continue with TA and co-investment facilitated through future programming. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 51 
EQ2. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE ACTIVITY’S SUPPORT TO SECTOR ASSOCIATIONS,
COOPERATIVES AND GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS CATALYZED PRIORITY VALUE
CHAIN DEVELOPMENT? HOW IMPORTANT A ROLE HAVE THESE STAKEHOLDERS
PLAYED IN INCREASING VALUE CHAIN COMPETITIVENESS? TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE
THESE STAKEHOLDERS RECEIVED SUFFICIENT AND RELEVANT SUPPORT? 
RECOMMENDATION FOR NEXT 1.5 YEARS 
● Expand capacity development activities with well-established organizations, such as the nut and berry
associations, to increase access to technical services for their members, with any subsidies phased out 
over the next few years. 
○ Expand foundational support to build the basic capacity and functionality of sector-level 
associations (e.g. management capacity and governing structure), accompanied with support for 
more business and support model development toward sustaining their growth, including 
targeting associations that show the highest potential for growth with additional international 
expertise and facilitated access to private capital; 
● Support local buyers in developing and transitioning to private sector-driven support models and 
accompanied investments through TA, expanded use of the Program Partnership Fund, and facilitated 
connections to other buyers and stakeholders that may be willing to co-invest., including by expanding 
investment in digitization and localizing supply chains 
● Increase efforts to connect networks of smaller producers to anchor associations, buyers, and services
providers. 
● In cooperation with the Economic Governance Program and/or through future programming, support 
increased development of coordination and dialogue mechanisms to assist the GOG in planning,
prioritizing, and accelerating the implementation of key policy reforms and investments. 
● Support more innovation by digital service providers and online selling platforms (e.g customization of 
digital services) to better respond to the needs of the agriculture sector. 
RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING 
● Develop strategies for digitization via consultations to support private sector partners in identifying and 
prioritizing their own technology needs (e.g. traceability systems). 
● Continue to facilitate access to finance via customized approaches and direct connections between 
associations and larger enterprises and bank partners, including; 
○ Improving the VC finance capacity of banks and non-bank financial institutions; 
○ Introducing more technology(e.g. digital financial services) and risk-sharing schemes that allow 
access to finance for otherwise unbankable beneficiaries; and 
○ Proactively facilitating competition in the financial sector via a range of alternative sources of 
private capital (e.g. financing from non-bank financial institutions, investor capital, financing from 
other value chain actors and service providers). 
● Support the development of buyer-led strategies to transition away from development program support 
for value chain development activities. 
● Focus future programming on priority business processes (e.g. value addition, technologies, services, 
management capacities and innovation) instead of VCs when targeting Program support, especially if this 
focus can be accompanied by an improved impact monitoring system, analytical tools, and partner/activity 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 52 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
selection criteria, thereby enabling future programs to identify more systems-level interventions that can 
benefit a number of VCs. 
EQ3. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE GRANT COMPONENT STRENGTHENED EACH 
PRIORITY VALUE CHAIN? TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE GRANTS ADDRESS GAPS OR 
MARKET FAILURES IN TARGET VALUE CHAINS? 
RECOMMENDATION FOR NEXT 1.5 YEARS 
● Concentrate grant support on strengthening established linkages to high-value markets and building the 
capacity of sector-level organizations, BSOs, and other important actors and stakeholders in line with 
other recommendations related to TA. 
● Award innovation grants for more technology, as well as business and service model, innovations. 
● Provide more TA to women and youth during the grants application stage and lower cost-share 
requirements for these applicants. 
RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING 
● Increase flexibility in the use of grants and partnership funds as co-investment mechanisms via a more 
flexible Activity Fund that can adjust budget line items among grants, partnership funds, and sub-contracts. 
Doing so will assist future programs in aligning with changing market opportunities, including the need to 
co-invest in more digital and early-stage innovations (e.g. advances in communications and traceability 
technologies) and to support a wider range of beneficiaries and private sector partners. 
● Incorporate selection criteria for grant themes and projects that support alignment with objectives 
related to systemic change and adopt more nuanced approaches to the monitoring and attribution of 
impact (e.g. additional custom indicators, qualitative methods for data collection, etc.) that will help future 
programs make the case to USAID for use of funds for any given opportunity. 
EQ4. IN THE CONTEXT OF COVID-19 ECONOMIC CONTRACTIONS, HOW CAN THE 
ACTIVITY ADAPT ITS APPROACHES (E.G., SELECTION OF GRANT SOLICITATION 
THEMES, DIVISION OF USAID INVESTMENTS ACROSS SUB-SECTORS, SEQUENCING OF 
INTERVENTIONS, ETC.) TO IMPROVE ITS ABILITY TO ACHIEVE ITS TARGETS: CREATION 
OF 3,680 JOBS AND INCREASE AGRICULTURAL SALES BY $70 MILLION, INCLUDING $23 
MILLION IN NEW EXPORTS? 
RECOMMENDATION FOR NEXT 1.5 YEARS 
● Take stock of and widely share best practices in adapting implementation tactics amid the pandemic. 
● Continue support to current VCs while exploring new opportunities in response to increased domestic 
demand for a range of food products. 
● Work with other USAID-funded programs and donors to identify opportunities related to increased
domestic tourism and related agrotourism services and products. 
RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING 
● Explore and support alternative income-generating opportunities such as through agrotourism in 
response to shifting consumer and domestic market dynamics. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 53 
● Use the momentum generated by high growth during the COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate more access 
to finance, market linkages, and investment in sector-level services; and focus future programming on 
facilitating access to private capital from a range of sources to fuel further growth. 
● Consider providing grants and TA to companies that specialize in e-commerce to develop new marketing 
platforms for agricultural production. 
● Ramp up training related to e-commerce and work with educational institutions or innovation centers to 
attract more highly skilled youth to agricultural export promotion and technology-related services. 
● Launch a series of PPDs in coordination with associations and cooperatives to prioritize needed GOG 
reforms and investments that can accelerate the modernization of farming practices and food processing. 
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS 
RECOMMENDATION FOR NEXT 1.5 YEARS 
● Expand grant support for innovation and increased inclusion of women and youth. 
● Lower cost-share requirements for grants and consider further customizing TA to increase the 
participation of women and youth. 
● Analyze opportunities and make the business case to current private sector partners as a first step in 
developing a strategy for increasing inclusion and agency for women and youth. 
● Expand successful internship, training, and curriculum development activities over the remaining years of 
the Program. 
● Perform additional analysis as needed, including more private sector landscaping and organizational 
network and systems mapping, accompanied by convening of more market actors and stakeholders to 
better target PSE and support the utilization of selection criteria and impact metrics that can guide 
program interventions toward supporting more transformational impact from partnerships, including the 
interrelated elements of scale, sustainability, and systemic change. 
RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING 
● Better target gaps and market failures, drawing on improved analytical tools, selection criteria of private 
sector partners, grant themes, TA objectives, and other Program initiatives to ensure alignment with 
USAID/Georgia’s development objectives and priority policies and strategies. 
● Propose an incremental solution for improving impact monitoring in line with systems-level interventions; 
develop a new set of custom indicators that better account for systems-level and the longer-term 
potential impact of Program interventions. 
● Continue to facilitate access to finance via customized approaches and direct connections between 
associations and larger enterprises and bank partners; and use success cases to build momentum for and 
inform the ability of future programming to expand access to private capital in the agricultural sector as 
a whole. 
● Support the implementation of more global PSE models and best practices via expanded use of PSE 
opportunities analysis and co-investment funds. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 54 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: STATEMENT OF WORK 
STATEMENT OF WORK 
MID-TERM EVALUATION OF USAID’S AGRICULTURE PROGRAM
1. EVALUATION PURPOSE 
The purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of specific 
programmatic approaches, which are referenced in the evaluation questions below, in achieving intended 
life-of-program results and to provide recommendations on corrective actions and new directions for 
the remaining years of program implementation. 
The primary audience of the evaluation will be USAID/Georgia’s Economic Growth (EG) office and 
USAID’s Agriculture Program implementing partner (CNFA). The results of the study may be shared 
with local stakeholders (Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture, Ministry of Economy and 
Sustainable Development, Rural Development Agency, partner NGOs, etc.,) and other donors working 
in this area. 
2. SUMMARY INFORMATION 
Name: USAID’s Agriculture Program
Award Number: Contract No. 72011418C00001 
Award Dates: 24-Sept-2018 - 23-Sep-2023 
Total Estimated Cost: $23,160,395 
Implementing organization CNFA 
Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR): David Tsiklauri 
Alternate COR: Sophiko Skhirtladze 
3. BACKGROUND 
A. Description of the Problem, Context, and Theory of Change 
Agriculture is one of three sectors, along with tourism and light manufacturing, identified as a key driver 
for Georgia’s economic growth and employment. While agriculture is not a large contributor to 
Georgia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it provides a safety net to 50 percent of Georgia’s 
population. Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations include becoming a major trade partner with the West, 
however Georgia still depends on Russia as the destination market for their agricultural products. 
USAID/Georgia has a robust agricultural portfolio that facilitates firm-level investments in 
entrepreneurial and market-driven enterprises and associations, by supporting the private sector to 
meet the sector’s needs, and by enhancing the capacity of relevant government stakeholders to catalyze 
agricultural development. The programming focuses on improving the competitiveness, diversity, value, 
and market access for identified value chains, and using those value chains as providers of high-value 
employment. 
 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 55 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In September 2018, USAID/Georgia awarded a five-year, $23,160,395 contract to CNFA to implement 
USAID’s Agriculture Program. Since then, USAID processed 6 contract modifications. 
B. Description of the Intervention to be Evaluated 
USAID’s Agriculture Program aims to accelerate the growth of agricultural sub-sectors that 
demonstrate strong potential to create jobs, increase incomes and revenues of micro, small, and 
medium enterprises (MSMEs), and diversify export markets away from malign countries. These sub￾sectors include: berries (including kiwi fruit), culinary herbs, stone fruits, perishable vegetables, pome 
fruits (apples), table grapes, mandarins, and nut crops (pistachios, almonds, walnuts). The development 
hypothesis for the program is that increased competitiveness of these key sub-sectors and value chains 
will advance inclusive high-value employment opportunities for Georgians and help diversify export 
markets away from Russia. 
The program is implemented through two integrated, mutually reinforcing components. Under 
Component One, the program provides cost-share grants to MSMEs, cooperatives, 
service/information/extension providers, and associations, while Component Two focuses on demand￾driven technical assistance, including technical and/or business trainings, and a wide spectrum of 
customized consultancies aimed at building the capacity of targeted value chain actors. 
Key Life of Program (LOP) targets include building up 120 beneficiaries through cost-share grants of 
$7.4 million, which will leverage $9.04 million from grant recipients. An additional 600 agribusinesses will 
benefit from the technical assistance. Through its support, the program anticipates creating 3,680 jobs 
and increasing agricultural sales by $70 million, including $23 million in new exports. 
C. FY 2021 Planned Intervention 
During the current year work plan, the program will continue addressing major gaps within the priority 
value chains. It will also focus more extensively on broad, sectoral-level activities that can have a 
systemic impact on Georgia’s agriculture sector. In particular, the program will: 
● implement the voluntary nursery certification project and engage beneficiary nurseries in the 
certification scheme. 
● in cooperation with Trécé Inc., assist the NFA to develop integrated pest management 
protocols and measures. 
● finalize and launch short certificate courses for berry and herb growers. 
● continue assisting grantee and non-grantee enterprises in obtaining the necessary certifications, 
such as GlobalGAP, Organic Production, HACCP, and ISO 22000, to help them become more 
competitive both locally and internationally. The activity is co-funded with Georgia’s Rural
Development Agency (RDA). 
● solicit applications and commit additional in-kind, innovations, and capacity building grants to 
MSMEs, agricultural cooperatives, service/information/extension providers, and associations. 
● launch the first anti-hail net production factory in Georgia. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 56 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
● continue working with McDonald’s Georgia to support the development of a sustainable local
food supply chain for the company, while also replicating the model with other potential private 
sector partners, such as Wendy’s Georgia.
● deepen supply chain activities and engage with consolidators, producers, and retail supermarket 
chains to facilitate market linkages and agree on product grades and standards. 
● work with local banks to develop tailored financial products to address agricultural lending gaps. 
● promote AgriTalk live show and deliver episodes with engagement of relevant partners. 
● continue investing in export promotion together with Enterprise Georgia and support Georgian 
agribusinesses to participate in upcoming trade shows (e.g. Gulfood 2021, Birmingham Food and 
Drink Expo 2021, Anuga 2021) with new visual style, branding guidelines, and display structures. 
● continue providing branding support to grantee and non-grantee enterprises, in cooperation 
with the RDA. 
● commission a study regarding the post-COVID situation and update the sector and value chain 
analysis report. 
● support improvements in the legislative framework for association development and work with 
sectoral associations to build their capacity and deliver improved services to members in the 
targeted value chains. 
4. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The evaluation should address the following specific questions: 
1. Diversification of export markets: To what extent have the export capacity building 
interventions with firms, and export promotion interventions with the government, been 
necessary and sufficient to diversify agricultural exports of target products to USG preferred 
markets (i.e. outside of Russia)? What have been the most pressing challenges in each priority 
value chain hindering the diversification of export markets? How sustainable are the USG￾supported market linkages? 
2. Value-chain approach: To what extent has the activity’s support to sector associations, 
cooperatives and government institutions catalyzed priority value chain development? How 
important a role have these stakeholders played in increasing value chain competitiveness? To 
what extent have these stakeholders received sufficient and relevant support? 
3. Grant component: To what extent has the grant component strengthened each priority value 
chain? To what extent did the grants address gaps or market failures in target value chains? 
4. COVID-19: In the context of COVID-19 economic contractions, how can the activity adapt its 
approaches (e.g. selection of grant solicitation themes, division of USAID investments across 
sub-sectors, sequencing of interventions, etc.) to improve its ability to achieve its targets: 
creation of 3,680 jobs and increase agricultural sales by $70 million, including $23 million in new 
exports? 
5. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 57 
 
 
This evaluation will utilize a non-experimental, mixed-methods evaluation design. The Contractor is 
expected to suggest the use of appropriate data collection and analysis methods, both quantitative and 
qualitative, including document review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, direct 
observation, survey instruments (if applicable), etc., with program stakeholders, beneficiaries, the GOG, 
the private sector, and other players. The methodology for any evaluation process that involves the 
selection of participants (e.g. surveys, focus groups, interviews) must be clearly explained and justified. 
For example, for a survey or mini-survey (if proposed), the number of respondents and their selection 
process should be explained and justified. The same is true for key informants, focus group discussions, 
and other methods as well. Selected respondents should be representative of women, youth, and 
vulnerable groups, where appropriate. The Contractor must conduct a desk review of USAID’s 
Agriculture Program related documents, which will help identify areas that merit closer attention once 
the team begins its fieldwork. Reading materials will be available to the team shortly after signing the 
Contract. 
The Contractor must develop a detailed evaluation design and a workplan, including data collection plan 
and drafts of data collection tools. A draft of the work plan and evaluation design must be shared with 
USAID/Georgia for review prior to the fieldwork. The plan will then be presented to the Mission during 
the in brief in more detail. The evaluation design must include the evaluation matrix (an illustrative 
evaluation matrix for this study is given below). The evaluation design must explain how the evaluation 
Contractor intends to conduct the study in detail, including a detailed description of one or more 
proposed methodologies as well as limitations of proposed methodologies. It must explain in detail what 
methods will be used to obtain answers for each evaluation question. The design must also explain how 
the proposed methodology (mix of methods) to conduct the study generates evidence to ensure rigor 
and reliability of results; and how and why the proposed methodology will minimize bias. The evaluation 
design must also include the data analysis plan for each question, draft questionnaires (to be included as 
an attachment), and other data collection instruments or their main features, criteria for assessing 
responses to evaluation questions, known limitations, and a dissemination plan. The evaluation design 
might also include specific sub-questions for each evaluation question, where needed. 
Again, the methods described herein are only illustrative and USAID expects that the Contractor will 
suggest the best methods that would generate most reliable and evidence-based answers to the key 
evaluation questions. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 58 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 59
TABLE 2: ILLUSTRATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX
Research Question Data Source Methodology
1. Diversification of export markets: To what 
extent have the export capacity building 
interventions with firms, and export 
promotion interventions with government, 
been necessary and sufficient to diversify 
agricultural exports of target products to 
USG preferred markets (i.e. outside of Russia 
and China)? What have been the most 
pressing challenges in each priority value 
chain hindering the diversification of export 
markets? How sustainable are the new USG￾supported market linkages?
Activity documentation: program description, quarterly and annual 
reports, M&E plan, results framework, work plans, sub-awards 
documentation, value chain assessments, and other documentation.
● Project staff
● Representatives of sub-contractors
● Government of Georgia entities (MEPA, MOESD, RDA, 
SRCS, Enterprise Georgia, NFA, others)
● Beneficiary agribusinesses (e.g. those receiving support to 
obtain international certification, participate in trade fairs, 
etc)
● Private sector partners
● Academic institutions (GIPA, Agriculture University, etc.)
● Other donors
● Agricultural associations, farmers groups, cooperatives, 
others
Document reviews (e.g. to 
compare achieved results 
and set benchmarks.)
Direct Observation/ Key 
Informant Interviews / 
Focus Group Discussions 
and/or Mini-Survey with 
identified data sources.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 60
2. Value-chain approach: To what extent has 
the activity’s support to sector associations, 
cooperatives and government institutions 
catalyzed priority value chain development? 
How important a role have they played in 
increasing value chain competitiveness? To
what extent have these enabling institutions 
received the optimal type and level of 
support? 
Activity documentation: program description, quarterly and annual 
reports, M&E plan, results framework, work plans, sub-awards 
documentation, value chain assessments, and other documentation.
● Project staff
● Representatives of sub-contractors
● Government of Georgia entities (MEPA, MOESD, RDA, 
SRCS, Enterprise Georgia, NFA, others)
● Beneficiary agribusinesses (grantees and non grantees)
● Private sector partners
● Academic institutions (GIPA, Agriculture University, etc.)
● Other donors
● Agricultural associations, farmers groups, cooperatives, 
others
Document reviews (e.g. to 
compare achieved results 
and set benchmarks.)
Direct Observation/ Key 
Informant Interviews / 
Focus Group Discussions 
and/or Mini-Survey with 
identified data sources.
Research Question Data Source Methodology
3. Grant component: To what extent has the 
grant component strengthened each priority 
value chain? To what extent did the grants 
address the most important gaps or market 
failures in each value chain.
Activity documentation: program description, quarterly and annual 
reports, M&E plan, results framework, work plans, sub-awards 
documentation, value chain assessments, and other documentation.
● Project staff
● Representatives of sub-contractors
● Government of Georgia entities (MEPA, MOESD, RDA, 
SRCS, Enterprise Georgia, NFA, others)
● Grant recipient agribusinesses and other entities
● TA and training beneficiaries
● Private sector partners
● Academic institutions (GIPA, Agriculture University, etc.)
● Other donors
● Agricultural associations, farmers groups, cooperatives, 
others
Document reviews (e.g. to 
compare achieved results 
and set benchmarks.)
Direct Observation/ Key 
Informant Interviews / 
Focus Group Discussions 
and/or Mini-Survey with 
identified data sources.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 61
4. COVID-19: In the context of COVID-19 
economic contractions, how can the activity 
adapt its approaches (e.g. selection of grant 
solicitation themes, division of USAID 
investments across sub-sectors, sequencing 
of interventions, etc.) to improve its ability to 
achieve its targets: creation of 3,680 jobs and 
increase agricultural sales by $70 million, 
including $23 million in new exports?
Activity documentation: program description, quarterly and annual 
reports, M&E plan, results framework, work plans, sub-awards 
documentation, value chain assessments, and other documentation.
● Project staff
● Representatives of sub-contractors
● Government of Georgia entities (MEPA, MOESD, RDA, 
SRCS, Enterprise Georgia, NFA, others)
● Beneficiaries, both grant and TA/training recipient 
agribusinesses and others
● Private sector partners
● Academic institutions (GIPA, Agriculture University, etc.)
● Other donors
● Agricultural associations, farmers groups, cooperatives, 
others
Document reviews (e.g. to 
compare achieved results 
and set benchmarks.)
Direct Observation/ Key 
Informant Interviews / 
Focus Group Discussions 
and/or Mini-Survey with 
identified data sources.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 62
6. DELIVERABLES
The contractor will be required to provide USAID with the following deliverables:
a. Final Work Plan and Evaluation Design: Final Work Plan and Evaluation Design document for the 
evaluation shall be completed by Contractor and presented to the COR prior to the 
commencement of fieldwork. The evaluation design will include a detailed evaluation design 
matrix (including the key questions, methods and data sources used to address each question 
and the data analysis plan for each question), draft questionnaires and other data collection 
instruments or their main features, known limitations to the evaluation design, and a 
dissemination plan. The final design requires USAID/Georgia approval. The work plan will 
include the anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements and delineate the roles and 
responsibilities of members of the evaluation team. 
b. In-brief with the mission: will be held prior to starting the fieldwork. This will be a maximum 30-
minute PowerPoint presentation of the plan, namely, how the questions asked in SOW will be 
answered. Prior to the in brief, the evaluation team may have working meeting/s with 
USAID/Georgia Evaluation Contract activity manager and USAID’s Agriculture Program COR to 
discuss the details of the design.
c. Conduct fieldwork: The in-country evaluation must expand upon the analysis in the desk review 
and in the facilitated discussion through methods proposed by the evaluation team that might 
include interviews with focus groups of sub-contractors, beneficiaries or end-users, Georgian 
government, private sector entities, field visits, and mini-survey, if proposed.
d. Recommendations workshop: After finishing the fieldwork, the evaluation team must participate 
in a co-creation session with USAID Mission, including the Evaluation Contract activity manager 
at USAID/Georgia and USAID’s Agriculture Program COR, to produce a set of 
recommendations. Prior to the recommendations workshop, the evaluation team must 
summarize and submit to USAID a matrix of preliminary evaluation 
findings/conclusion/recommendations. The co-creation meeting/session will serve to review the 
matrix and jointly formulate/refine evaluation recommendations. However, the evaluation team 
maintains complete editorial authority with regard to the evaluation recommendations section 
of the Final Evaluation Report (see deliverable (g) below).
e. Mission out-brief: The evaluation team must present an outline (in bullets, possibly in 
PowerPoint or as a handout) of the evaluation report with general findings, conclusions, and 
anticipated recommendations to USAID Mission Management and other interested USAID staff 
at the end of their fieldwork.
f. Draft reports: The Contractor must submit to USAID/Georgia a draft report within 20 working 
days of completing the out-briefing with USAID. This document must explicitly respond to the 
requirements of the SOW, answer the evaluation questions, be logically structured, and adhere 
to the standards of the USAID Evaluation Policy.
g. Final Evaluation Report: The Contractor must incorporate USAID/Georgia’s comments and 
submit the final report to USAID/Georgia within five (5) working days following receipt of the 
final batch of USAID’s comments on the draft report. The report must comply with USAID 
Evaluation report guidelines in Annex 2. The Contractor will make the final evaluation reports 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 63
publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse at http://dec.usaid.gov 
within 30 calendar days of final approval of the formatted report with USAID/Georgia consent. 
In case it is determined that the full report includes sensitive information, the Contractor must 
produce a public version for submission to DEC; the latter also requires USAID/Georgia’s 
clearance.
h. All records from the evaluation (e.g. interview transcripts and summaries, focus group 
transcripts, code books, etc.) must be provided to USAID/Georgia as requested. All quantitative 
data collected by the evaluation team must be provided in an electronic file in a machine￾readable format. The data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully 
familiar with the program or the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all 
datasets developed. In addition, the dataset must be submitted to the Development Data Library 
(DDL) as part of USAID’s Open Data Policy.
7. EVALUATION TEAM
Proposed evaluation team: The evaluation must be conducted by a team composed of experts. The 
contractor has to demonstrate that proposed team members have sufficient expertise to carry out the 
task at a high standard. The Contractor must justify and explain proposed team configuration and 
distribution of roles among team members. 
Team leader (international) must have extensive, demonstrated experience leading development 
assistance programs and/or similar evaluations or assessments focused on the agriculture sector and 
value chain development. Experience in private sector development in Georgia and/or in the Europe and 
Eurasia region will be an advantage but is not required. The team leader will be responsible for the day￾to-day management of the team, data collection and synthesis, presentations, and drafting of the 
interim/final reports. Fluency in English language is required. Excellent writing skills are required and the 
demonstrated ability to produce well written and sound evaluation deliverables is required. 
Evaluation expert must have a justifiable experience in planning and conducting evaluations using 
various data collection and analysis methodologies. Prior work experience evaluating economic growth 
activities is also required. The evaluation expert will lead the team in evaluation design, data collection 
and synthesis, and also assist in report writing. The evaluation expert’s role will also include document 
review and instrument development. Fluency in English is required. Excellent writing skills and the 
demonstrated ability to produce well written and sound evaluation deliverables are required. 
Locally-hired private sector/agricultural expert must have extensive, justifiable experience 
working in the agriculture and agribusiness sector development assistance programs. Experience of 
participating as a team member in conducting evaluations is preferable but not required. English language 
knowledge and good writing skills are required. Fluency in Georgian – both speaking and reading is 
required.
The Contractor may be asked to provide 1-2 examples of their proposed team leader’s past work. The 
Contractor must provide information about the selected evaluation team members including their CVs 
and explain how they meet the requirements set forth in the evaluation SOW. All evaluation team 
members must be familiar with USAID’s Evaluation Policy. USAID may request an interview with any of 
the proposed evaluation team member/s via conference call/google hangouts/Zoom or any other means 
available.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 64
8. EVALUATION SCHEDULE
The following levels of effort are illustrative and should serve only as an example of the staff which may 
be mobilized under this Contract. These levels may not reflect the actual level of effort contracted, and 
the Contractor will be expected to submit its own estimate of the level of effort needed to fulfill the 
objectives.
Team Member Estimated # of Days
International Technical Expert – Team Leader 50
Evaluation Expert 48
Local Private Sector Expert 48
Timing (Anticipated Month or Duration) Proposed Activities
O/A May 2021 Initial teleconference with USAID/Georgia
TBD Document review, preparation work and finalization of 
the evaluation design and work plan
TBD Submission of the draft work plan and evaluation design 
to USAID
TBD In-brief with USAID Mission to collect feedback
TBD Submission of the final work plan/evaluation design to 
USAID
TBD Fieldwork begins
TBD Weekly check-ins with USAID
TBD Recommendations workshop with the USAID Mission
TBD Out-brief with Mission, end of fieldwork
TBD Data analysis and report writing
TBD Submission of the draft evaluation report to USAID
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 65
TBD Submission of the final evaluation report to USAID
Note: As needed, there may be several rounds of 
review of the draft evaluation report by USAID prior to 
finalizing/approving the report
9. WORK LOCATION
Tbilisi, Georgia’s regions. 
In order to conduct meetings and interviews, the Contractor may need to travel to Tbilisi and to some 
of program-targeted communities located in all key agriculture regions, such as Kakheti, Shida and 
Kvemo Kartli, Samegrelo, Imereti, Guria, and Adjara Regions. Due to COVID-related travel and other 
restrictions, virtual meetings, remote data collection, and remote supervision by the Evaluation Team 
Lead may be authorized.
10. LOGISTICAL SUPPORT
USAID/Georgia and USAID’s Agriculture Program will provide the list of in-country contacts prior to 
the commencement of fieldwork but will not assist in the logistics of appointing meetings. Hence, the 
Mission will not be responsible for arranging logistics for the evaluation team. The Contractor must 
suggest how they plan to arrange translation, transportation, and logistical support to the evaluation 
team. USAID/Georgia will put the Contractor in contact with USAID’s Agriculture Program 
implementing partner. The Contractor will conduct meetings in Tbilisi. Some meetings will require travel 
to regions outside Tbilisi to meet with grant recipients and other beneficiaries, and NGO, private sector 
and government stakeholders. USAID’s Agriculture Program implementing partner may assist with 
setting those meetings. However, due to COVID-19 considerations, remote data collection and online 
KIIs may be authorized in lieu of in-person meetings.
11. OTHER REQUIREMENTS 
The evaluation team must be familiar with USAID’s Human Subject Protection Policy and USAID’s 
Evaluation Policy (http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation). The evaluation team must provide adequate training 
for its survey staff on survey methodology, USAID’s survey regulations, other relevant regulations, and 
the data collection plan.
The contractor has the responsibility to safeguard the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in 
the survey research supported by USAID. USAID has adopted the Common Federal Policy for the 
Protection of Human Subjects, Part 225 of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/200mbe.pdf). Recipient organizations must familiarize themselves 
with the USAID policy and provide “assurance” that they will follow and abide by the procedures of the 
Policy. 
All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, 
evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline, need to be agreed upon in writing by the 
USAID/Georgia. 
12. SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 66
The Contractor must ensure that the evaluation team completes the following tasks and provides the 
following deliverables within the terms defined by the contract:
• Conduct initial teleconference with USAID/Georgia to discuss the upcoming work.
• Provide a draft evaluation design and work plan (including meeting schedules and data collection 
instruments) to USAID for review and comment.
• Incoming briefing with USAID management to present the detailed evaluation design.
• Conduct the evaluation in accordance with the USAID-approved evaluation design and work 
plan. This includes weekly check-in calls with USAID/Georgia to ensure all work is proceeding 
smoothly and address any outreach challenges the evaluation team may be experiencing.
• Recommendations co-creation session with USAID Mission to formulate/refine evaluation 
recommendations.
• Outgoing briefing with USAID management to present the matrix of preliminary 
findings/conclusions/recommendations of the evaluation.
• Provide a final evaluation report to USAID in accordance with Reporting Guidelines under 
Section 9 - Deliverables. The evaluation report should follow the “Criteria to Ensure the Quality 
of the Evaluation Report” of the USAID Evaluation Policy. 
• Submit USAID-approved evaluation report to Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) 
within 30 calendar days following the acceptance of the report by the USAID Contracting 
Officer’s Representative (COR.)
• Submit quantitative dataset, if collected, in a machine-readable format to the Development Data 
Library (DDL) as per USAID’s Open Data Policy at least five work days prior to the end date of 
the evaluation contract.
13. ANNEXES
ANNEX 1. ACTIVITY DOCUMENTS FOR REVIEW 
Relevant reports and other project documentation will be provided by the Mission to the Contractor 
prior to the commencement of fieldwork. The evaluation contractor shall initiate Washington-based 
work by reading reports and familiarizing him/herself with the Program. These documents are:
● SOW for USAID’S Agriculture Program 
● Work plans
● Quarterly and annual reports
● Grants Manual
● Grant solicitations, grant applications, and grant selection documentation
● M&E plans and performance data tables
● Initial list of in-country contacts
● Value chain analysis and assessments
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 67
● Other reports and papers, as applicable.
ANNEX 2. REPORTING GUIDELINE
The illustrative format for the final evaluation report is as follows:
1. Executive Summary—summarizes key points, concisely states the purpose, background of the 
project, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, recommendations and any lessons 
learned; should be sufficiently detailed, yet brief, to serve as a stand-alone product (3-5 pp)
2. Introduction—state the purpose, audience, and outline of the evaluation (1 pp)
3. Background—provide a brief overview of the project and the study implemented (1-2 pp)
4. Methodology— the evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to 
the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated 
with the evaluation methodology. Greater detail can be included in the appendices (2-3 pp);
5. Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations—explicitly answer each evaluation question; the report 
should distinguish between findings (the facts), conclusions (interpretation of the facts), and 
recommendations (judgments related to possible future programming) (10-15 pp); however it 
should be clear what is the link between them;
6. Lessons Learned (if not covered in findings, conclusions and recommendations) (2–3 pp);
7. Annexes—annexes must include this statement of work and its modifications (if any); any 
“statements of differences” regarding significant unresolved difference in opinion by funders, 
implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team; a glossary of terms; sources of information, 
properly identified and listed; clear documentation of schedules, meetings, interviews and focus 
group discussions, and any tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as focus group scripts or 
questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides used; and signed disclosures of conflict of interest. 
The evaluation design should also be attached to the report. 
The report format should be presented in Microsoft Word and use 12-point type font throughout the 
body of the report, using page margins 1” top/bottom and left/right. The body of the report should 
ideally be within 20-25 pages, excluding the executive summary, table of contents, references and 
annexes. The final report must follow USAID branding and marking requirements. 
Per the USAID evaluation policy, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following 
criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report. 
● The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well-organized effort 
to objectively evaluate what worked in the projects, what did not and why. 
● Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the statement of work. 
● The evaluation report should include the statement of work as an annex. 
● Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail, and all tools used in conducting the 
evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex 
in the final report. 
● Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 68
● Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with attention to the limitations 
associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences 
between comparator groups, etc.). 
● Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on 
anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should be specific, concise 
and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. 
● Sources of information shall be properly identified and listed in an annex. 
● Recommendations shall be supported by a specific set of findings. 
● Recommendations shall be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for 
the action.
ANNEX 3. REPORTED RESULTS TO DATE
To date, the program facilitated $3,412,372 in new sales, created 690 jobs, trained 6,184 agricultural 
professionals and farmers, and provided technical assistance to 134 MSMEs to help them comply with 
international food safety/quality standards, improve branding/labeling practices, adopt modern 
agricultural technologies, increase productivity and access new export markets through participation in 
trade fairs. The program actively cooperated with multiple Government of Georgia (GOG) agencies in 
the areas of nursery certification, creating Georgia’s brand on the international market, electronic 
trading platforms, export promotion activities, pest monitoring, COVID-19 related support, and 
legislative framework for input supply.
Grants program: To date, the program awarded 63 in-kind and capacity building grants to Georgia’s 
MSMEs with the cumulative value of $3.6 million to establish processing enterprises, production farms, 
consolidation centers, and nurseries, and strengthen agricultural cooperatives and service provider 
organizations that offer consultancy and audit services in international food safety, organic products, and 
social responsibility standards. These cost-shared grants have leveraged $3.4 million in private sector 
funding from grantee agribusinesses to expand agricultural production and processing. An innovation 
grants initiative supported entrepreneurs to implement new solutions that can transform the agricultural 
sector. For example, it provided funding to establish the first anti-hail net production factory in Georgia, 
which helps local producers secure their orchards from unforeseen weather conditions, protecting 100 
hectares of fruit orchards and vineyards annually. Capacity building grants for women-owned MSMEs and 
women-led cooperatives in the berry, greens, mandarin, and nut value chains helped facilitate exports 
and improved access to agricultural inputs. 
Certification and quality standards: Demand for higher quality agricultural products is increasing 
domestically at a notable rate, reflecting a growing level of sophistication of both Georgian producers 
and consumers. Continued growth in Georgia’s agricultural exports to high-value export markets, away 
from Russia, further necessitates improvements in product quality. Certification is, therefore, becoming 
an important area for USAID support, even for goods for the domestic markets. The program 
supported 41 agribusinesses to implement international certifications and food safety standards, such as 
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP), International Standards Organization (ISO) 22000, 
GlobalGAP, organic production, and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic 
Program (NOP) certification. Five agribusinesses received HACCP/ISO 22000 certification and 11 are in-
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 69
process; two agribusinesses received GlobalGAP certification, and eight are in process; and six 
agribusinesses were certified Organic. These certifications ease their access into higher-tiered markets 
and enable them to sell products for a premium price. The program partnered with both the Georgian 
Institute of Public Affairs (GIPA) to develop and institutionalize a certificate program in greenhouse 
production of culinary herbs and specialty vegetables, and with the Agricultural University of Georgia to 
develop a short certificate program in berry production (strawberries, blackberries, raspberries, and 
blueberries.) These courses will fuel the development of high-value, niche sub-sectors, creating jobs and 
increasing incomes. The program worked with the Scientific-Research Center of Agriculture (SRCA) of 
the Ministry of Environment Protection and Agriculture (MEPA) to implement a voluntary nursery 
certification project by designing the certification scheme and outreach materials. The intervention helps 
Georgian nurseries align their operations with international best-practices to produce and distribute 
high-quality, healthy, and pest-free planting materials. 
Market Diversification: In partnership with Enterprise Georgia, the program supported local 
agribusinesses to participate in international trade fairs, such as Biofach 2020 (Germany) and Gulfood 
2020 (UAE). As a result of such fairs, beneficiaries establish linkages with international buyers and 
receive orders. In partnership with GOG agencies, the program launched a new branding project to help 
effectively position Georgia as a point of origin at different trade fairs and events. New brand visuals 
help agribusinesses penetrate high-value export markets. The program also upgraded the online platform
www.tradewithgeorgia.com, which is an online catalog that allows Georgian entrepreneurs to upload 
and display information regarding their companies and products. The upgraded platform allows 
agribusinesses to apply for GOG funding to participate in international trade fairs. The program 
supported the development of www.crop2shop.ge portal that provides agricultural exporters with 
comprehensive information on 21 agriculture products for 19 export markets. Each product is linked 
with at least five markets using specific criteria such as proximity to a market and trade benefits enjoyed 
by Georgia in a specific market. The program supported GOG agencies to develop a new e-Portal,
www.programs.gov.ge, that unites all GOG-subsidized services and business support programs under 
one, user-friendly interface. Interested entities are now able to electronically complete forms and apply 
for GOG funding for their business expansion. 
Public Private Partnerships: The program cooperates with Trécé Inc. (U.S. private sector firm that 
manufactures pest control systems), and the National Food Agency (NFA) of MEPA through research 
and field trials that serve to address threats posed to crop production by agricultural pests (Drosophila 
suzukii, Popillia japonica, and Tuta absoluta). The program partnered with McDonald’s Georgia, linking 
the company to three local lettuce growers. Simultaneously, the program supported lettuce growers to 
obtain international certification to meet McDonald’s food safety and quality standards. The effort to 
integrate local producers into McDonald’s supply chain will promote import substitution and ensure 
consistent customer base for local producers. The program partnered with the Georgian Retailers 
Association (GRA) to increase the access of local producers and processors to new high-end local 
markets through improved storage, distribution, and marketing facilities and techniques. At the initial 
stage of implementation, the partnership allows selected producers to supply their products to 25 retail 
stores identified and selected by the GRA. The effort generates additional revenues for both retailers 
and local producers while also changing consumer perceptions in favor of local production. In 
partnership with the local leading ICT firm, the program developed and launched a mobile application 
that allows primary producers to conduct crop accounting and inventorying during the harvest and 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 70
storage periods. The mobile application is expected to make the harvest more efficient, reduce the 
workload of keeping track of pickers and harvested fresh produce, and easily generate statistical data 
related to payments, yields of various varieties, and quality control.
COVID Impact: The global pandemic had a dramatic and lasting impact on agricultural trade and supply 
chains. The economic recession impacted the program implementation as well. The program received a 
much lower than anticipated number of in-kind grant applications in response to its solicitations released 
after the outbreak of COVID-19. This problem is expected to continue as farmers and agricultural 
entrepreneurs are likely to experience severe effects of economic recession in the upcoming year. In the 
pandemic environment, meeting cost-share requirements, which is a prerequisite to receiving a USAID 
grant, may represent a daunting challenge for grantee agribusinesses. The program might need to review 
the terms of grant financing to adjust to the new operating environment. 
COVID-19 programming: In response to the pandemic, the program switched to online consultancies, 
using Zoom platform, and launched its AgriTalk Facebook live show. In FY 2020, 36 episodes of the 
AgriTalk Facebook live show pioneered by the program reached 170,000 people. The effort played an 
important role in disseminating information about modern technologies, certification, new varieties, and 
market analysis, to a wide audience, particularly during COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. As a direct 
response to COVID-19, the program launched online training sessions in occupational safety during 
emergency situations, focusing on the requirements and basics of occupational safety during the 
pandemic. A total of 118 people, representing 84 companies, participated in these sessions. These 
trainings helped beneficiaries to continue operations in full compliance with GOG’s new health and 
safety regulations. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 71
ANNEX II: EVALUATION WORK 
PLAN 
1. INTRODUCTION
Upon successful completion of the mid-term performance evaluation of the Youth Entrepreneurial Skills 
for Advancing Employability and Income Generation Program in Georgia, or YES-Georgia, USAID/Georgia 
requested the LEAP III team to conduct mid-term evaluations of two additional Programs, USAID’s 
Agriculture Program implemented by Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) and USAID’s 
Economic Security Program implemented by DAI. The purpose of the performance evaluations is to: 1) 
determine the effectiveness of specific Programmatic approaches in achieving intended life-of-Program 
results; 2) to provide recommendations on corrective actions and new directions for the remaining years 
of Program implementation; and 3) inform the design of future programs.
This Evaluation Work Plan describes the approach that the LEAP III team will take to this evaluation, along 
with protocols for electronic surveys and semi-structured interviews (Annexes A-E), proposed timeline 
(Section 6), Getting to Answers Matrix (Section 4), and List of Resource Documents (Annex G), to 
implement the mid-term performance evaluation.
The Evaluation Team (ET) is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and related risks and will adjust 
its data collection protocols according to prevailing circumstances. The ET exit briefings and workshops 
may be done in person, depending upon the situation in consultation with USAID/Georgia regarding 
country and local safety protocols.
2. BACKGROUND 
2.1 AGRICULTURE PROGRAM
Agriculture is one of three sectors, along with tourism and light manufacturing, identified as a key driver 
for Georgia’s economic growth and employment. While agriculture is not a large contributor to Georgia’s 
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it provides a safety net to 50 percent of Georgia’s population. Georgia’s 
Euro-Atlantic aspirations include becoming a major trade partner with the West; however, Georgia still 
depends on Russia as a destination market for their agricultural products.
USAID/Georgia has a robust agricultural portfolio that facilitates firm-level investments in entrepreneurial 
and market-driven enterprises and associations, by supporting the private sector to meet the sector’s 
needs, and by enhancing the capacity of relevant government stakeholders to catalyze agricultural 
development. The Programming focuses on improving the competitiveness, diversity, value, and market 
access for identified value chains, and using those value chains as providers of high-value employment.
USAID’s Agriculture Program aims to accelerate the growth of agricultural sub-sectors that demonstrate 
strong potential to create jobs, increase incomes and revenues of micro, small, and medium enterprises 
(MSMEs), and diversify export markets away from malign countries.
These horticulture sub-sectors include berries (including kiwi fruit), culinary herbs, stone fruits, perishable 
vegetables, pome fruits (apples), table grapes, mandarins, and nut crops (pistachios, almonds, walnuts).
The development hypothesis for the Program is that increased competitiveness of these key sub-sectors 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 72
and value chains will advance inclusive high-value employment opportunities for Georgians and help 
diversify export markets away from Russia. The Program is implemented through two integrated, mutually 
reinforcing components. Under Component One, the Program provides cost-share grants to MSMEs, 
cooperatives, service/information/extension providers, and associations, while Component Two focuses 
on demand-driven technical assistance, including technical and/or business trainings, and a wide spectrum 
of customized consultancies aimed at building the capacity of targeted value chain actors. 
2.2 ECONOMIC SECURITY PROGRAM
Despite Georgia being a global leader in trade and business environment reforms, economic growth has 
not resulted in employment opportunities or higher wages. An aggressive reform agenda and healthy 
growth rate have not translated into economic dynamism or opportunities for Georgian citizens. There 
are multiple causes why Georgia’s economic growth has not created high-value employment opportunities 
for its citizens, limiting the benefits of Georgia’s Western orientation. One such cause is that Georgian 
firms still lack access to resources necessary to increase competitiveness and create greater employment 
opportunities in key sectors, including access to high-value, diverse markets; investment resources; and a 
workforce that has the skills demanded by the private sector. The recent COVID-19 crisis triggered a 
major economic recession in Georgia, resulting in the loss of jobs, local currency devaluation and has 
thrown into stark relief the need for an economy that delivers real gains to its citizens. 
The purpose of USAID’s Economic Security Program is to accelerate broad-based growth of sectors 
outside of agriculture that show strong potential to create jobs, increase MSME revenues, and support 
diversification to more productive economic activities in tourism, creative industries, light manufacturing 
(including furniture, packaging, personal protective equipment, and construction materials), information 
and communications technology (ICT), solid waste management, recycled materials, and shared intellectual 
services sectors. The underlying development hypothesis of the Program is that IF Georgia’s firms have 
access to the resources they need (capital, access to high-value markets, skilled workforce, modern 
technologies, etc.) to improve productivity, sales, and product and service quality, and IF cooperation is 
strengthened in targeted sectors and value chains, THEN targeted sectors/value chains will become more 
competitive and will provide greater high-value employment opportunities to its citizens and drive closer 
integration with the West.
The contract is organized by four components designed to achieve the stated results:
Component 1: Strengthen cooperation in targeted sectors: The Program provides technical assistance and 
cost-share grants to strengthen linkages and cooperation throughout value chains in targeted sectors and 
improve support services intended to enhance growth and productivity across targeted value chains in 
target sectors. In doing so, the Program takes a collaborative approach to development, working with a 
plethora of stakeholders including firms, associations, Government of Georgia (GOG) agencies, 
development partners, regional government and municipalities, and other stakeholders,
Component 2: Support Enterprises to improve productivity, sales, quality, and develop new products and 
services: Through identification and exploration of value chains that provide the best opportunity for 
Georgia to initiate investment that leads to high-value jobs, the Program facilitates entrance into new 
markets. It also increases and expands product offerings, promotes stronger linkages between enterprises 
and the organizations that support them, and enhances the overall value chain ecosystem to ensure 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 73
sustainability. This is accomplished through a series of interventions that include technical assistance, cost￾share grants, and export enhancement, among others.
Component 3: Industry-led workforce development: Alignment of Georgia’s workforce with the needs of 
industry is critical to the country’s movement toward the development of a prosperous society. As such, 
the Program works with the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sport (MoESCS), educational 
institutions, training providers, and the private sector to prepare Georgians for new and expanded 
employment opportunities through identified sectors and value chains. The Program’s approach is led by 
industry, meaning that it focuses on improving knowledge and skills that align with emerging investment 
and job opportunities. This requires significant re-thinking of educational and vocational models, as well 
as specific interventions that will link skills development directly with employment. 
Component 4: Building public-private partnerships: Through its Partnership Development Fund (PDF) with 
the total value of $3 million, the Program co-creates and co-funds Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), 
Global Development Alliance (GDA) mechanisms, and other investment opportunities that support the 
growth of identified sectors/value chains and that provide high-value employment for Georgians.
Approaches under PDF are collaborative, innovative, and flexible to identify and take advantage of 
emerging opportunities.
3. EVALUATION PURPOSE, AUDIENCE, AND QUESTIONS
3.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of the performance evaluations is to: 1) determine the effectiveness of specific Programmatic 
approaches in achieving intended life-of-Program results; 2) to provide recommendations on corrective 
actions and new directions for the remaining years of Program implementation; and 3) inform the design 
of future programs.
The performance evaluation will:
● Assess the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the Programs;
● Analyze the status of the activities in relation to the set objectives, activities’ successes and 
weaknesses;
● Assess the implementing organization’s performance in achieving Program objectives, including a 
special focus on uptake of principles and approaches in line with USAID’s Private Sector 
Engagement (PSE) policy and Digital Strategy, utilization of partnerships and market systems 
development (MSD) approaches, as well as it’s processes, implementation team performance, 
relations with stakeholders, performance feedback loops, reporting, timely management decisions, 
etc.;
● Identify any external factors which might have impacted activity performance and/or created new 
opportunities, such as political, economic, sector dynamics, as well as COVID-19;
● Provide recommendations on adjustments and/or corrective actions and new directions for the 
remaining years of Program implementation;
● Inform USAID/Georgia on future Programming needs and approaches, in particular the design of 
future follow-on projects.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 74
3.2 AUDIENCE
The primary audience of both evaluations will be USAID/Georgia’s Economic Growth team and the prime 
implementing partners (IPs) – CNFA for the Agriculture Program and DAI for the Economic Security 
Program. USAID/Georgia may also share the results of this evaluation with local stakeholders such as the 
Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development, Rural Development Agency, partner non￾governmental organizations (NGOs), and other donors working in this area. Additionally, the results of 
the Agriculture Program evaluation may be shared with the Ministry of Environmental Protection and 
Agriculture. 
3.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS
AGRICULTURE PROGRAM
The evaluation will address the following evaluation questions (EQs):
EQ1. Diversification of export markets: To what extent have the export capacity building 
interventions with firms, and export promotion interventions with the government, been 
necessary and sufficient to diversify agricultural exports of target products to United States 
Government (USG) preferred markets (i.e. outside of Russia)? What have been the most 
pressing challenges in each priority value chain hindering the diversification of export 
markets? How sustainable are the USG-supported market linkages?
● What are the main challenges to expanding export diversification for MSMEs away from Russia 
in targeted value chains? (Probe: capacity building, export promotion, technologies, finding 
skilled labor, business enabling environment [BEE], market information, quality and safety 
standards, etc).
● What are the top business opportunities from the perspective of target MSMEs? (Probe: does it 
involve export diversification).
● What are the most important factors that influence decisions to diversify export markets?
● How important are prevailing cultures, attitudes, and/or perceptions in driving export decisions? 
How successful has the USAID Agricultural Program been in shifting these factors (probe: what 
are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the Russian market)?
● What support has been provided by the USAID Agricultural Program to MSMEs in entering 
international markets, particularly in Western Europe? How effective has this support been? 
(Probe: have target MSMEs entered Western Markets, what are the determining factors for this, 
what challenges or opportunities are faced).
● What additional support is needed to facilitate expanded access to non-Russian export Markets?
● How effective are similar activities funded by other donors or the GOG in capacity building and 
export promotion?
● Is USAID's Agriculture Program's support to GOG to develop a "Georgian brand" for 
international markets and promote agriculture exports through trade shows, digital platforms 
linking MSMEs to potential export markets, etc., yielding positive results?
● Are linkages to non-Russian export markets sustainable? (probe: explore sustainability factors)
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 75
● Can services supporting sustained exports to non-Russian export markets be cost-shared or 
offered as paid services? (Probe: any currently available services from the private sector)
EQ2. Value-chain approach: To what extent has the activity’s support to sector associations, 
cooperatives and government institutions catalyzed priority value chain development? How 
important a role have these stakeholders played in increasing value chain competitiveness? 
To what extent have these stakeholders received sufficient and relevant support? 
● Who are the most important stakeholders that need to be involved in value chain development 
and increasing competitiveness of MSMEs in priority value chains?
● What services do these stakeholders provide to MSMEs and other sector stakeholders (e.g. 
individuals, GoG institutions, NGOs, education institutions, etc.)? (Probe: Are these services of 
acceptable quality? Are there gaps? How can these services be improved or expanded?)
● Which associations, cooperatives and/or other stakeholders have been most effective in 
catalyzing value chain development and increasing value chain competitiveness and why? (Probe: 
How have USAID Programs and partnerships supported them in these efforts and was the 
support received sufficient and relevant?).
● How can associations, cooperatives, other private sector organizations inform and support the 
GOG as it improves the business enabling environment and encourages market systems 
strengthening?
● Does USAID support to GOG agencies help address value chain gaps? (Probe: certifications (i.e. 
nursery, phytosanitary, HAACP, ISO, etc.)
● Which activities by USAID, if any, encouraged greater female participation and youth in these 
targeted sectors?
● To what extent did USAID Programs support businesses in utilizing digital tools, including those 
that facilitate access to information, services and markets, either administered by the state or 
regional authorities, or by private sector organizations? (Probe: access to finance, certification, 
customs, public procurements, etc.). 
● How does the Agriculture Program encourage grant applications from new partners under 
USAID’s New Partnerships Initiative (NPI)? What types of additional technical, managerial and 
operational support does DAI provide to new partners receiving grants?
● What PSE opportunities have been facilitated by the Agricultural Program and how have these 
partnerships supported priority value chain development (Probe: the role of PSE in value chain 
development across different Program activities, the types and number of engagements that have 
taken place, and the outcomes associated with engagements)?
EQ3. Grant component: To what extent has the grant component strengthened each 
priority value chain? To what extent did the grants address gaps or market failures in target 
value chains?
● What were the key market gaps in each target value chain at the inception of the Agricultural 
Program? (Probe: consolidation facilities, quality inputs, cold storage, distribution infrastructure, 
certification, packing and labeling, logistics, etc.)
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 76
● To what degree did grants transform the priority value chain by addressing these gaps? (Probe: 
access to finance, increased sales, hiring talent, product differentiation, research and development 
(R&D), knowing customer demand, equipment, new varieties, expansion of production facilities, 
supply chain infrastructure).
● From the perspective of target MSMEs and market actors/stakeholders they work with, what 
types of grants and in which areas of business operations would grant support be most impactful?
EQ4. COVID-19: In the context of COVID-19 economic contractions, how can the activity 
adapt its approaches (e.g. selection of grant solicitation themes, division of USAID 
investments across sub-sectors, sequencing of interventions, etc.) to improve its ability to 
achieve its targets: creation of 3,680 jobs and increase agricultural sales by $70 million, 
including $23 million in new exports?
● What have been the biggest challenges and opportunities in the agriculture sector due to COVID￾19?
● How has the Agricultural Program responded to these challenges and opportunities? (Probe: 
using distance communication tools, introducing post-COVID recovery measures or Programs, 
organizing capacity building in COVID related topics, supporting with hygiene tools and stocks, 
etc.)________
● What are best practices in how MSMEs and the market actors/stakeholders they work with have 
successfully adapted amid COVID-19 (Probe: issues related to labor, new regulations, shifting to 
online sales)
● What further opportunities are there for the Agricultural Program to target?
ECONOMIC SECURITY PROGRAM
The evaluation will address the following specific questions:
EQ1. Private sector engagement: To what extent has the PDF targeted and established 
high-impact (defined as wide-reaching and/or replicable) partnerships with the private 
sector that have strengthened and catalyzed the development of priority value chains? To 
what extent are these partnerships sustainable (defined as the establishment of market 
linkages that will not depend on USAID assistance after the activity ends)?
● Does the PDF engage with high-impact private sector partners to achieve its goal of supporting 
the growth of identified sectors/value chains and provide high-value employment for Georgians 
(Probe: what are the challenges and approaches used by the project to attract the right mix of 
partners to achieve Program objectives and what indicators is the project using to track current 
impact and the potential for sustained impact beyond the life of partnerships?)
● Are the types of PDF partnerships sufficient to achieve its goal of supporting the growth of 
identified sectors/value chains and provide high-value employment for Georgians (Probe: size, 
scalability, innovation)
● What factors are influencing the decisions of the private sector to co-fund with the PDF? (Probe: 
is the Economic Security Program’s value proposition to the private sector working, do private 
sector firms contribute enough resources)
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 77
● What results has the PDF had to date (Probe: How does this differ from expectations?)
● What other PSE approaches (in line with the PSE policy) and private sector collaboration 
mechanisms are active in the priority value chains (Probe: how do stakeholders perceive the PDF 
versus these mechanisms and the value proposition of USAID beyond a source of funding).
EQ2. Value chain approach: To what extent has support to sector associations and 
government institutions catalyzed priority value chain development? How important a role 
have these stakeholders played in increasing value chain competitiveness? To what extent 
have these stakeholders received sufficient and relevant support? 
● Who are the most important stakeholders that need to be involved in increasing competitiveness 
of MSMEs in priority value chains?
● Which associations and/or other stakeholders have been most effective in catalyzing value chain 
development and increasing value chain competitiveness and why? (Probe: How have USAID 
Programs supported them in these efforts and was the support received sufficient and relevant?).
● What services do these stakeholders provide to MSMEs and other sector stakeholders (e.g. 
individuals, GoG institutions, NGOs, education institutions, etc.)? (Probe: Are these services of 
acceptable quality? Are there gaps? How does the fee structure look like? How can these services 
be improved or expanded?)
● Has USAID’s support to GOG entities, including Enterprise Georgia, Georgia’s Innovation and 
Technology Agency (GITA), and the Georgian National Tourism Administration (GNTA), been 
effective?
● Which associations have been most effective in increasing value chain competitiveness and why? 
(Probe: access to finance, support services, export enhancement, etc.).
● To what degree are gender and youth considerations integrated into USAID Economic Security 
Program activities (Probe: which activities, if any, encouraged greater female and youth 
participation in these targeted value chains?) 
EQ3. Grant component: To what extent has the grant component strengthened each 
priority value chain? To what extent did the grants address gaps or market failures in each 
value chain?
● What are the main gaps in the targeted value chains? (Probe: capacity building, export promotion, 
lack of technologies, unskilled workforce, lack of distribution channels).
● To what degree did grants transform the priority value chain by addressing these gaps? (Probe: 
access to finance, increased sales, hiring talent, product differentiation, R&D, knowing customer 
demand, equipment, expansion of production facilities, supply chain infrastructure).
● From the perspective of target MSMEs and market actors/stakeholders they work with, what 
types of grants and in what operational areas would grant support be most impactful?
● What PSE opportunities have been facilitated by the Economic Security grants (Probe: types of 
engagement, number of engagements, outcome of engagements)
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 78
● How does the Economic Security Program encourage grant applications from new partners under 
USAID’s New Partnerships Initiative (NPI)? What types of additional technical, managerial and 
operational support does DAI provide to new partners receiving grants?
EQ4. Coordination on policy: To what extent has the Economic Security Program 
coordinated effectively with other USAID activities (managed by both the USAID Economic 
Growth and Democracy, Rights and Governance Offices) to address the policy barriers 
facing its priority sectors and value chains? To what extent has the absence of a large policy 
component within USAID’s Economic Security Program helped or hindered its ability to 
address policy gaps.
● What public-private dialogue activities do the Economic Security Program either host, or 
participate in collaboration with other USAID activities facilitate to ensure that the private sector’s 
voice is heard during the formulation of key regulations/policies (Probe: does the private sector 
believe their contribution is meaningful)
● Despite not having a large policy component, is the Economic Security Program able to address 
policy issues raised through this public-private dialogue? (Probe: how many policy issues has the 
Program addressed and/or initiated)
● To what degree has the Economic Security Program been successful in referring policy issues to 
other USAID Programs, including the Economic Governance Program? (Probe: how many policy 
issues have been referred)
● Has the absence of this policy component constrained the effectiveness of the Program to address 
policy issues central to achieving its objectives?
EQ5. COVID-19: In the context of COVID-19 economic contractions, how can the activity 
adapt its approaches (e.g. selection of grant solicitation themes, division of USAID 
investments across sub-sectors, sequencing of interventions, etc.) to improve its ability to 
achieve its targets: creation of 4,800 jobs and achieving $60 million in new sales?
● What are the biggest challenges and opportunities, if any, that MSMEs face amid the current 
COVID-19 pandemic? (Probe: issues related to labor, new regulations, shifting to online sales)
● What have been the biggest challenges and opportunities in the tourism sector due to COVID￾19? (Probe: how has the Economic Security Program responded to these challenges and 
opportunities)
● What have been the biggest challenges and opportunities in the ICT due to COVID-19? (Probe: 
how has the Economic Security Program responded to these challenges and opportunities)
● What further opportunities are there for the Economic Security Program to target?
4. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 
For these evaluations, primary and secondary data collection will be conducted using a mixed-methods 
approach. Whenever possible, existing quantitative data will be utilized. Survey-based instruments will be 
developed to collect quantitative data to fill existing knowledge gaps. Qualitative data will be collected 
primarily through remotely conducted key informant interviews (KIIs) with USAID staff, including the 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 79
Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), Activity Managers, mission staff points of contact, the IP, 
project partners and beneficiaries, and other actors and stakeholders relevant to the Program and to 
informing evaluation findings, insights, and recommendations. 
LEAP III has formed two ETs that will ensure strong collaboration and knowledge sharing across both 
evaluations. Both ETs will follow the same team structure with an international evaluation lead, a local 
senior evaluation specialist and a local subject matter expert. Further details on the team members can 
be found below. A central activity management team which includes the LEAP III core staff will be 
responsible for client management, quality control, operations, and coordination across teams. Activity 
Manager, David Quinn will be responsible for quality assurance. Ms. Pin Thanesnant will serve as the 
Operations Lead and will support the management of the activity. She will also support the development 
of the Evaluation Work Plan, assist in data collection as needed, ensure all work is streamlined, and provide 
inputs for the draft and final reports. LEAP III Associate, Ms. Liesl Kim, will provide administrative, 
logistical, and operations support.
Economic Security Evaluation Team
Team Lead: Brenda Pearson
Senior Evaluation Specialist: Maia Giorbelidze
Private Sector Expert: Rati Gabrichidze
Sector/Value Chain Advisor: Lasha 
Kavtaradze
Facilitator: Rusudan Gogibedashvili
Agriculture Evaluation Team
Team Lead: Nikolaus Eichman
Senior Evaluation Specialist: Mikheil 
Pakatsoshvili
Agriculture Expert: Grigol Modebadze
Facilitator: Ani Chokhonelidze
4.1 USE OF BEST PRACTICES 
The evaluation will use methods that generate quality data and credible evidence that correspond to the 
questions being asked, taking into consideration time, budget, and other practical considerations. The 
evaluation will use sound social science methods and include the following basic features:
1. Establish a team with the appropriate methodological and subject matter expertise to conduct 
an excellent mid-term performance evaluation;
2. Ensure transparency and dissemination of the evaluation design and final report, including 
briefings and presentations to the Missions and the posting of the final report through USAID￾funded information dissemination websites;
3. Use data collection and analytic methods that ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that if a 
different, well-qualified evaluator were to undertake the same evaluation, he or she would arrive 
at the same or similar findings and conclusions;
4. Communicate and present separately the credible findings, conclusions and recommendations 
so the progression is clear and easy to follow in relation to each of the evaluation questions 
included in the Evaluation scope of work; and
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 80
5. Remain vigilant and flexible to the changing environment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic 
that impacts travel to and within Georgia. The ET will consult with USAID as it determines how 
to safeguard the health and safety of its team members.
4.2 EVALUATION DESIGN 
These two mid-term performance evaluations will be cross-sectional, descriptive, and analytical 
evaluations employing mixed methods of data collection, combining qualitative information collected from 
interviews, quantitative results of electronic surveys, and the collection of quantitative data from project 
monitoring and the verification of reported results to assess the success, challenges, and sustainability of 
both the Agriculture and Economic Security Programs. The data collection methodology includes the 
following: a) document review; b) performance indicator assessments19; c) electronic surveys; d) KIIs and 
group interviews; and e) strategic consultations with IPs and the private sector to inform 
recommendations related to Program uptake of PSE and MSD principles and approaches.
The data collection and analysis efforts are framed to assess activity implementation and how it affects 
activity outputs and results to date (September 2018 - September 2021 for CNFA and April 2019-
September 2021 for DAI). The EQs are intended to highlight best practices and to identify challenges to 
the implementation of activities’ objectives. 
Based on consultations with USAID and the ET’s desk review, the ET will select appropriate key informants 
for interviews and determine the optimal use of group interviews if feasible. The ET will develop interview 
protocols for KIIs with USAID/Georgia staff and IP staff as well as in-country group and individual 
interviews with local partners and beneficiaries involved in the activities.
The data collection plan includes a comprehensive Getting to Answers Matrix in Tables 1 and 2 (see below) 
that map the EQs and sub-questions to data sources and data methods. Data sources include the 
USAID/Georgia database, original documents such as activity reports, monitoring, evaluation, and learning 
(MEL) plans, and activity-generated resources. Data analysis methods will include refining the descriptive 
statistics and content analysis. 
In addition to the evaluation questions and proposed sub questions, the ET will probe cross-cutting issues 
that are important to USAID/Georgia, such as the impact of COVID-19 on job creation and sales/exports, 
PSE, business enabling environment, and inclusive economic growth interventions supporting women, 
youth, and vulnerable populations. A summary of how the agriculture and economic security Programs 
address cross-cutting issues will be included in the narratives of both final evaluation reports.
IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON JOB CREATION AND SALES/EXPORTS IN SELECTED 
SECTORS
Both performance evaluations contain a similar EQ related to the impact of COVID-19 on achieving 
targets in job creation and revenue in new sales and/or exports. The ET will analyze the impact of the 
COVID-19 pandemic on targeted sectors including agriculture, e-commerce, tourism, light manufacturing, 
ICT, waste management and recycling. The ET will conduct a benchmark assessment to examine the 
19 The ET will review performance indicators found in project documentation (e.g., contract agreement, work plans, 
annual reports) and incorporate as appropriate to address the evaluation questions.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 81
dynamics of each sector and their contributions to GDP and employment for the period of 2015-2019.
This assessment will measure the losses and gains of the targeted sectors at the beginning of the pandemic 
(second quarter of 2020) and measure the effects on employment.20
Next, the ET will identify whether any of these sectors have received one-off government support and 
estimate how this support may have helped the sector to minimize economic losses or maximize gains 
and maintain or increase employment. The ET’s senior macroeconomic advisor will use the Leontief Input￾Output Model and estimated multipliers for each sector to evaluate the development of the sectors in the 
medium to long-term. Our research approach will utilize the economic modeling, findings and forecasts 
recently presented in a similar study by the Asia Development Bank.
PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT AND MARKET, SYSTEMS AND PARTNERSHIPS
The ET will engage the USAID PSE Hub and USAID’s Market, Systems and Partnerships Program for PSE 
and MSD best practices that can guide and inform strategic consultations and resulting recommendations.
The ET will also probe during KIIs to identify practical approaches to shift PSE from transactional to 
transformational engagement with the private sector and explore MSD approaches that can facilitate 
efficient and effective PSE in the targeted sectors.
BUSINESS ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
During desk review and qualitative data collection, the ET will consider broadly the norms, customs, laws, 
regulations, policies, international trade agreements and public infrastructure that facilitate or hinder 
specific products and services along the targeted value chains included in the two evaluations. The focus 
will be on the constraints and opportunities facing MSMEs. 
GENDER, YOUTH AND VULNERABLE GROUPS
During the desk review stage, project documents and early communications with USAID/Georgia revealed 
that both projects’ activities should be implemented with consideration of gender equality, youth, and 
vulnerable groups. Inclusive development is important for USAID/Georgia as a cross-cutting issue for all 
projects and recognizes the importance of reflecting and understanding how socially vulnerable groups 
are engaged in entrepreneurship and private business development activities. The ET will probe during 
KIIs to identify both positive and negative unintended consequences of Program activities for women and 
youth within the local contexts and norms concerning employment and income generation in which they 
operate. This will be done in combination with other criteria such as age, income, urban/rural divide, etc.
The ET will also consider to what extent inclusive development approaches are part of technical assistance 
provided by the Agriculture and Economic Security Programs.
20 GDP and employment data by sector is available on the Geostat website and additional employment data can be obtained 
from the GOG Revenue Service. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 82
TABLE 3: GETTING TO ANSWERS MATRIX – AGRICULTURE PROGRAM EVALUATION
EVALUATION 
QUESTIONS
TYPE OF ANSWER/ EVIDENCE 
NEEDED
(CHECK ONE OR MORE, AS 
APPROPRIATE)
METHODS FOR DATA 
COLLECTION,
E.G., RECORDS, KIIS, SURVEYS21
SAMPLING OR 
SELECTION 
APPROACH
DATA 
ANALYSIS 
METHODS: 
FREQUENCY 
DISTRIBUTION 
TREND, 
CONTENT 
ANALYSIS
YES/NO SOURCES SPECIFIC 
METHODS
EQ1. To what 
extent have the 
export capacity 
building 
interventions with 
firms, and export 
promotion 
interventions with 
the government, 
been necessary and 
sufficient to 
diversify agricultural 
exports of target 
products to USG 
preferred markets 
Yes Description Key Performance 
Indicators
Interviews KIIs
Survey
Quantitative: 
Performance 
Indicators
Qualitative:
Interviews
Quantitative:
Online Survey
Survey of grantees 
and participants of 
capacity building 
interventions
KIIs with IPs, COR, 
Activity Manager
KIIs with the 
Ministry of 
Economy and 
Sustainable 
Development 
(MoESD), 
Enterprise Georgia, 
Ministry of 
Environmental 
Trend analysis
Content analysis
Data disaggregated 
by sex and age
Comparative 
analysis with 
baseline data
Yes Comparison22
Yes Explanation23
21 Data from evaluations are a deliverable and methods should indicate how data would be captured, i.e., for focus groups USAID requires a transcript.
22 Comparison – to baselines, plans/targets, or to other standards or norms
23 Explanation – for questions that ask “why” or about the attribution of an effect to a specific intervention (causality)
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 83
(i.e. outside of 
Russia)? What have 
been the most 
pressing challenges 
in each priority 
value chain 
hindering the 
diversification of 
export markets? 
How sustainable are 
the USG-supported 
market linkages?
Protection and 
Agriculture of 
Georgia
(MEPA), Regional 
Development 
Association (RDA), 
National Food 
Agency (NFA), 
laboratories, SRCA
KIIs with private 
sector actors, 
including sector 
associations and 
cooperatives
KIIs with other 
USAID projects
KIIs with other 
donors
EQ2. To what 
extent has the 
activity’s support to 
sector associations, 
cooperatives and 
government 
institutions 
Yes Description Data collection
Interviews with key 
stakeholders
Survey
Quantitative:
Data collection
Qualitative:
Interviews
Quantitative:
Phone survey
KIIs with MoESD, 
Enterprise Georgia, 
MEPA, RDA
KIIs with IPs, COR, 
Activity Manager
KIIs with private 
sector actors, 
Trend analysis
Content analysis
Yes Comparison
Yes Explanation
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 84
catalyzed priority 
value chain 
development? How 
important a role 
have these 
stakeholders played 
in increasing value 
chain 
competitiveness? 
To what extent 
have these 
stakeholders 
received sufficient 
and relevant 
support?
including sector 
associations and 
cooperatives
KIIs with the 
MoESD, Enterprise 
Georgia, MEPA, 
RDA, NFA, 
laboratories, SRCA
Phone survey of 
farmers in priority 
value chains
KIIs with grantees
KIIs with other 
USAID projects
KIIs with other 
donors
EQ3. To what 
extent has the grant 
component 
strengthened each 
priority value chain? 
To what extent did 
the grants address 
gaps or market 
failures in target 
value chains?
Yes Description Performance 
indicators
Data collection
Interviews
Survey
Market survey
Quantitative:
Performance 
Indicators
Data collection
Qualitative:
Interviews
Quantitative:
Survey
KIIs with IPs, COR, 
Activity Manager
KIIs with private 
sector actors, 
including sector 
associations and 
cooperatives
KIIs with the 
MoESD, Enterprise 
Georgia, MEPA, 
RDA, NFA
KIIs with grant 
applicants and 
grantees
Trend analysis
Content analysis
Data disaggregated 
by sex and age
Yes Comparison
Yes Explanation
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 85
EQ4. COVID-19: In 
the context of 
COVID-19 
economic 
contractions, how 
can the activity 
adapt its 
approaches (e.g. 
selection of grant 
solicitation themes, 
division of USAID 
investments across 
sub-sectors, 
sequencing of 
interventions, etc.) 
to improve its 
ability to achieve its 
targets: creation of 
3,680 jobs and 
increase agricultural 
sales by $70 million, 
including $23 
million in new 
exports?
Yes Description Performance 
indicators
KIIs Interviews
Quantitative:
Performance 
Indicators,
Online-Survey,
Official statistics 
from GeoStat / 
Revenue Service
Qualitative:
Interviews
KIIs with IPs, COR, 
Activity Manager
KIIs with private 
sector actors, 
including sector 
associations and 
cooperatives
KIIs, with GOG and 
other relevant 
stakeholders
KIIs with the 
MoESD, Enterprise 
Georgia, MEPA, 
RDA, NFA
KIIs with grantees
Content Analysis
Trend Analysis
Comparative 
analysis with pre￾COVID-19 baseline 
data
Yes Comparison
Yes Explanation
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 86
TABLE 4: GETTING TO ANSWERS MATRIX – ECONOMIC SECURITY PROGRAM EVALUATION
EVALUATION 
QUESTIONS
TYPE OF ANSWER/ EVIDENCE 
NEEDED
(CHECK ONE OR MORE, AS 
APPROPRIATE)
METHODS FOR DATA 
COLLECTION,
E.G., RECORDS, KIIS, SURVEYS
SAMPLING OR 
SELECTION 
APPROACH
DATA 
ANALYSIS 
METHODS: 
FREQUENCY 
DISTRIBUTION 
TREND, 
CONTENT 
ANALYSIS
YES/NO SOURCES SPECIFIC 
METHODS
EQ 1: Private 
sector engagement:
To what extent has 
the PDF targeted 
and established 
high-impact (defined 
as wide-reaching 
and/or replicable) 
partnerships with 
the private sector 
that have 
strengthened and 
catalyzed the 
development of 
priority value 
chains? To what 
extent are these 
partnerships 
sustainable (defined 
Yes Description Key Performance 
Indicators
Interviews KIIs
Survey
Quantitative: 
Performance 
Indicators
Qualitative:
Interviews
KIIs with USAID, 
DAI, Solimar 
International, 
PMCG
KIIs with Ministry of 
Economy and 
Sustainable 
Development
KIIs with Ministry of 
Finance
Interviews with all 
partnerships
KIIs with Enterprise 
Georgia
KIIs with GITA
KIIs with GNTA
Trend analysis
Direct 
attribute/linkages
Content analysis
Comparative 
analysis with 
baseline data
Yes Comparison
Yes Explanation
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 87
as the establishment 
of market linkages 
that will not depend 
on USAID 
assistance after the 
activity ends)?
Online survey of 
business 
associations
Online survey of 
MSMEs (including 
Biz-link 
beneficiaries)
Administrative data 
from National 
Statistics Office of 
Georgia
Revenue Service
EQ 2: Value chain 
approach: To what 
extent has support 
to sector 
associations and 
government 
institutions 
catalyzed priority 
value chain 
development? How 
important a role 
have these 
stakeholders played 
in increasing value 
chain 
competitiveness? 
To what extent 
have these 
stakeholders
received sufficient 
Yes Description Data collection
Interviews with key 
stakeholders
Survey
Quantitative: Data 
collection
Survey
Qualitative:
Interviews
KIIs with USAID, 
DAI, Solimar 
International, 
PMCG
KIIs with Ministry of 
Economy and 
Sustainable 
Development
KIIs with Ministry of 
Finance
Interviews with all 
partnerships
KIIs with Enterprise 
Georgia
KIIs with GITA
KIIs with GNTA
Cross tabulations
Trend analysis
Content analysis
Descriptive 
statistical analysis
Direct 
attribution/linkages
Data disaggregated 
by gender, age
No Comparison
Yes Explanation
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 88
and relevant 
support?
KIIs with sampled 
business 
associations
KIIs with 
beneficiaries of 
business 
associations
Online survey of 
business 
associations
Online survey of 
MSMEs (including 
Biz-link 
beneficiaries)
Online survey of 
#Go4It Interns
EQ 3: Grant 
component: To 
what extent has the 
grant component 
strengthened each 
priority value chain? 
To what extent did 
the grants address 
gaps or market 
failures in each 
value chain?
Yes Description Data collection
Interviews with key 
stakeholders
Online survey
Quantitative:
Data collection
Survey
Qualitative:
Interviews
KIIs with USAID
KIIs with DAI staff 
(Chief of Party 
(COP), Deputy 
Chief of Party 
(DCOP), Grants 
Director, 
Monitoring and 
Evaluation Manager)
Online survey of 
Grantees
Interviews with 
sampled grantees
Online survey of 
MSMEs (including 
Cross tabulations
Descriptive 
statistical analysis
Trend analysis
Content analysis
Direct 
attribute/linkages
Gap analysis
Data disaggregated 
by sex
Yes Comparison
Yes Explanation
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 89
Biz-link 
beneficiaries)
EQ4. Coordination 
on policy: To what 
extent has the 
Economic Security 
Program 
coordinated 
effectively with 
other USAID 
activities (managed 
by both the USAID 
Economic Growth 
and Democracy, 
Rights and 
Governance 
Offices) to address 
the policy barriers 
facing its priority 
sectors and value 
chains? To what 
extent has the 
absence of a large 
policy component 
within USAID’s 
Economic Security 
Program helped or 
hindered its ability 
to address policy 
gaps?
Yes Description Data collection
Interviews with key 
stakeholders
Online survey
Qualitative:
Interviews
KIIs with USAID, 
DAI, PMCG
KIIs with other 
USAID funded 
Programs
KIIs with other 
international-aid 
provider agencies
KIIs with Parliament
Online survey of 
business 
associations
Online survey of 
grantees
KIIs with sampled 
grantees and 
business 
associations
Content analysis
Gap analysis
Direct 
attribution/linkages
Gap analysis
Yes Comparison
Yes Explanation
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 90
EQ5. COVID-19: In 
the context of 
COVID-19 
economic 
contractions, how 
can the activity 
adapt its 
approaches (e.g. 
selection of grant 
solicitation themes, 
division of USAID 
investments across 
sub-sectors, 
sequencing of 
interventions, etc.) 
to improve its 
ability to achieve its 
targets: creation of 
4,800 jobs and 
achieving $60 
million in new sales?
Data collection
Interviews with key 
stakeholders
Online survey
Quantitative:
Data collection
Qualitative:
Interviews
KIIs with DAI COP, 
DCOP, Grants 
Director
KIIs with Solimar 
International, 
PMCG
KIIs with USAID 
COR/Agreement 
Officer’s 
Representative 
(AOR)
KIIs with GNTA
KIIs with GITA
Online survey of 
MSMEs (including 
Biz-link 
beneficiaries)
Online survey of 
business association
Online survey of 
#Go4It Interns
Content analysis
Systematic 
Document Review
Comparative 
analysis with pre￾COVID-19 baseline 
data
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 91
4.3 DOCUMENT REVIEW
The ET will conduct a focused document review of relevant resources as well as activity documents. Key 
variables of the review will include the purpose, goals and objectives, interventions, results, and 
sustainability of each activity, as well as best practices in PSE and MSD approaches that could be applied 
by these and future programs in Georgia. The ET will enter this information into Excel files to serve as 
display tables for analysis. The ET will review USAID and IP documents in an iterative process of data 
analysis and writing, including the following resources.
4.4 PRIMARY DATA: SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS
To accommodate the COVID-19 situation as well as harvest season, the team will first disseminate online 
surveys early in the data collection process. The analysis and initial findings from the surveys can be used 
to inform KIIs and focus group discussions (FGDs). This two-step approach will allow for probing deeper 
for insights during the KIIs and group interviews.
The primary data collection will be conducted in the Georgian language for all respondents (unless a 
respondent requests the interview to be conducted in English). The electronic survey and KIIs with USAID 
staff and other donor partners will be conducted in English. The survey instruments are presented in 
English in Annexes A and B but will be translated into Georgian prior to dissemination.
ELECTRONIC SURVEYS 
The ET will develop and conduct seven online surveys, which may be found in Annexes A and B, as a pre￾screening and data collection instrument before conducting the KIIs. Based upon the desk review, 
discussions with USAID staff and preliminary consultations with the two IPs, the electronic surveys will 
target the following stakeholders: 
1. Agricultural Program grantees;
2. Agricultural Program recipients of technical assistance;
3. Agricultural Program and Economic Security grant applicants who did not receive grants;
4. Economic Security Program affiliated Business Associations;
5. Economic Security Program affiliated MSMEs;
6. Economic Security Program grantees; and
7. Economic Security Program interns.
These surveys will be structured and utilize a combination of dichotomous questions, i.e. Yes/No/Don’t 
Know, Likert scale (using a 5-point rating scale), and open-ended responses. The online surveys will be 
hosted using the online platform, Survey Monkey. Respondents will be requested to complete the survey 
within one week of receipt, and reminder emails will be sent to those who do not complete the survey.
After piloting the electronic surveys, adjustments may be necessary, and the team will determine whether 
incomplete surveys will be accepted. Based on previous experience, the ET anticipates an estimated 20-
25 percent response rate. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 92
The sample size for each of the seven surveys will be approximately 10 percent of key stakeholders, which 
is derived by power calculations using a power factor of 1.0 for determining the probability of significance, 
using the formula below: 
Where α is the selected level of significance and Z 1-α /2 is the value from the standard normal distribution 
holding 1- α/2 below it. For example, if α=0.05, then 1- α/2 = 0.975 and Z=1.960. 1- β is the selected 
power, and Z 1-β is the value from the standard normal distribution holding 1- β below it. ES - Effect Size.
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
The ET will use a purposive sampling for selecting key informants who will be chosen specifically for their 
relationship to the project. These will include IP staff, USAID staff, including the COR, Program staff and/or 
other USAID Economic Growth staff that have been involved in the projects and Program Office staff that 
have been involved in design and monitoring and evaluation. Other KIIs may include private sector partners 
and stakeholders, associations, other donor partners, NGOs, and GOG officials. The ET will conduct 
qualitative, in-depth individual interviews with key informants. In rare instances, in-person interviews may 
be possible. However, it is expected that most interviews will be conducted via video conferencing using 
the Google Meet platform (for all USAID staff), Zoom, Skype, and WhatsApp platforms.
Both ETs will follow the same structure during data collection, including streamlined stakeholder outreach 
to ensure no duplication in outreach and frequent technical dialogue between both ETs. All travel and 
interview schedules will be centralized and managed by the local coordinators to ensure all team members 
have access and can plan each day accordingly. Throughout data collection, the teams will have frequent 
check-in meetings to discuss preliminary findings and lessons learned from each day, as well as plan for 
the days ahead (i.e., addressing schedule changes, coordinating meetings, organizing updated stakeholder 
lists, etc.) The teams will conduct three weeks of KIIs and FGDs in Tbilisi and other parts of Georgia as 
needed to better understand Program impact at the level of the operating environments of target 
beneficiaries. If the ET believes it is feasible to conduct in-person interviews, USAID will have a chance to 
approve proposed travel itineraries of the teams before deployment. 
SITE VISITS/DIRECT OBSERVATION
The ET will consult with DAI and CNFA staff to assess opportunities to conduct either virtual or in￾person site visits and direct observations in accordance with prevailing circumstances to obtain additional 
insights in assessing the quality of services or training provided, way of event organization, beneficiaries’ 
skills, and communications channels. If the ET elects to conduct direct observations, the ET will follow the 
USAID protocol guide for conducting site visits and develop a site summary report based on this guidance 
(Annex F: Site Visit Summary). For example, the ET will plan to observe a business clinic workshop for 
BizLink beneficiaries of the Economic Security Program and has coordinated with the DAI team for access 
to this event. Other direct observation opportunities will be explored during the data collection period 
for this evaluation.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 93
All proposed KIIs and FGDs, as well as the surveys and direct observations, are organized around key 
evaluation questions and supported with detailed questionnaires. Each questionnaire will be developed for 
each specific group of interviewees and includes both common questions as well as questions unique to 
each group (clearly marked), which will allow the team to obtain the full range of opinions regarding 
specific projects but also to ensure that data is comparable across all the respondent groups. The ET will 
take detailed field notes in support of any direct observations consistent with USAID’s ADS (Chapters 
201, 320, and 578 as well as relevant mandatory references) and USAID’s Evaluation Policy (January 2016).
(See Annex C-E for more information regarding the data collection protocols).
TABLE 5: STAKEHOLDER CATEGORIES
STAKEHOLDER 
CATEGORY
JOINT AG + 
ECON 
SECURITY 
ETS
AG 
PROGRAM 
ET
ECONOMIC 
SECURITY 
PROGRAM 
ET
COMMENT
USAID X Both ETs will conduct joint 
interviews with senior leadership 
of USAID. ETs will facilitate a 
separate Program-specific 
discussions with AOR/COR of 
respective Program
Implementing 
Partners
X X ETs will conduct KIIs with 
Implementing Partners of 
respective Programs. 
Other USAID￾supported Programs
X Both ETs will conduct joint 
interviews with other USAID￾supported Programs
Other donor￾funded Programs
X X 
(Food and 
Agriculture 
Organization 
(FAO), United 
Nations 
Development 
Programme)
X Both ETs will conduct joint 
interviews with other donor￾funded Programs with whom both 
Programs cooperated with. In 
addition, a separate Program￾specific discussions will be 
facilitated by respective ET as 
needed
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 94
Government of 
Georgia
X
(Enterprise 
Georgia, GITA, 
RDA, which 
oversees 
Information 
Consultation 
Centers)
X 
(MEPA,RDA, 
NFA, 
laboratories, 
SRCA)
X 
(MoESD, 
Ministry of 
Finance, 
Parliament of 
Georgia)
Both ETs will conduct joint 
interviews with the representatives 
of the Government of Georgia. In 
addition, a separate Program￾specific discussions will be 
facilitated with by respective ET as 
needed
Beneficiaries 
(grantees, business 
associations, 
interns)
X X ETs will conduct KIIs and online 
surveys of beneficiaries of 
respective Programs. 
PPP and GDAs X ETs will conduct KIIs with PPPs 
and GDAs established within 
Economic Security Program
Private Sector 
Actors
X X ETs will conduct KIIs and online 
surveys of private sector actors to 
collect the responses on 
Evaluation Questions for each 
Program.
Private Sector 
Partners 
(producers, buyers, 
service providers)
X X ETs will conduct KIIs with private 
sector partners of Agricultural 
Program
Financial Institutions X X ETs will conduct KIIs with Financial 
Institutions to measure 
accessibility to finances within 
Economic Security Program
STRATEGIC CONSULTATIONS
The ET will conduct strategic consultations with IPs and the private sector to better understand 
constraints and opportunities related to Program objectives. Strategic consultations will also inform an 
assessment of Program uptake of principles and approaches in line with USAID’s PSE policy and Digital 
Strategy, utilization of partnerships and market systems development approaches and assist in identifying 
related and actionable recommendations for the remaining years of Program implementation and future 
USAID/Georgia Programming.
4.5 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 95
The mid-term performance evaluations include comprehensive Getting to Answers matrices (see Table 1 
and Table 2) that map the EQs to data sources and data analysis methods. Once the ET’s data plan is 
developed fully, the ET will use a document review instrument to guide data collection along with interview 
guides and protocols for conducting the video conferencing interviews. The ET will then collect data from 
the document review and interviews, then analyze it using descriptive statistics or content analysis to 
develop the findings to answer the EQs. 
The ET will also use descriptive statistics to produce a quantitative overview of both activities, including 
characteristics such as the number of participants, regions, and in-country partners. The ET will use 
standard qualitative analysis to review the data summaries and data display tables described above.
Secondary priority will be given to less common themes and patterns that illustrate key characteristics 
relevant to the EQs. The ET will conduct semi-structured interviews with USAID staff, IPs, their partners 
and stakeholders and selected beneficiaries to gather their perspectives and additional information about 
the activities. The team proposes to use a manual review process to extract key data such as keywords, 
quotes, or substantive information about activities from the transcripts. 
A core technical approach will be triangulation: the systematic, evidence-based, careful synthesis of 
disparate findings (from a broad variety of data sources) to discern consistent themes, trends, and patterns.
Because the ET will be synthesizing data from multiple sources, it is imperative that the ET employs a 
broad variety of analytical technical techniques throughout the mid-term performance evaluation. These 
techniques will be customized to fit both the available data sources and address the EQs provided in this 
plan.
4.6 POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS 
Selection bias: As some key informants may decline to be interviewed, there is a possibility of selection 
bias. Those respondents who chose to be interviewed might differ from those who did not in terms of 
their attitudes and perceptions, affiliation with government/non-government structures, and socio￾demographic characteristics and experience. The ET will mitigate by developing a purposive sampling of 
key informants. 
Limited Fieldwork: Due to the COVID-19 situation, both evaluations will be primarily conducted 
remotely. There is a disadvantage that ET members cannot be in-country to speak with stakeholders in￾person and experience the activities on the ground. The ET will work to mitigate all data collection issues 
by planning in advance and working with local team members to help coordinate in-country. The ET will 
take into consideration lessons learned during recent evaluations using remote data collection methods.
Instrumental Bias: Guarding against instrumental bias is a consideration because many beneficiaries and 
in-country partners were exposed to or participated in more than one intervention and their responses 
may be influenced by participation in multiple interventions. The ET will note if key stakeholders 
participated in multiple activities.
Difficulty assessing progress in addressing gaps: The evaluation will be conducted while the reform 
implementation and capacity building interventions are ongoing, and the influences on the relevant value 
chain may take years to deliver intended results. The ET will assess progress to date and highlight potential 
gaps that should be addressed in end line evaluations.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 96
Availability of respondents for key informant interviews: Due to complications related to COVID￾19, some respondents may not be available due to precautions, government restrictions or limited internet 
connectivity. Scheduling interviews with farmers during harvesting season may pose challenges in sampling 
size and scheduling, therefore the ET will adjust sampling size as needed. 
Complexity of questions during phone interviews: Due to challenges posed by COVID-19, the ET 
will rely more extensively on video and telephone interviews. This may cause the evaluators to simplify 
and shorten the duration of KIIs, thus resulting in somewhat limited data availability. The ET will adjust its 
interview techniques to accommodate respondents’ abilities to elaborate. 
4.7 COLLABORATION, LEARNING AND ADAPTING
The ET will work closely with USAID/Georgia to present its preliminary findings and recommendations 
with USAID mission staff and IPs. The ET proposes that two exit briefings and one recommendations and 
validation workshop be held after the data analysis has been completed and prior to report writing. 
Exit Briefings: Upon the conclusion of fieldwork, the teams will deliver exit briefings to report on initial 
findings and observations. The ET proposes conducting two separate exit briefings with relevant mission 
staff. The Exit Briefings will include general findings, conclusions, and anticipated recommendations on 
Programs, as well as high-level comparisons of cross-cutting lessons. These cross-cutting lessons will be 
derived from a comparative analysis of the findings from both evaluations. 
Recommendations and Validation Workshop: The Chief of Party and two Team Leaders will 
facilitate a 90-minute validation workshop with selected staff from USAID/Georgia to include CORs, 
representatives from the economic growth and Program office and senior leadership. The purpose of this 
validation workshop is to improve the evaluation learning and utilization through group discussion and 
shared understanding of the findings, recommendations, and key learning points. The format of the 
workshop will be determined two weeks in advance of the date, which will allow preparations for either 
an in-person or virtual discussion. Any feedback will be taken into consideration for the evaluation report. 
5. DELIVERABLES
Under these evaluations, the LEAP III team will submit the following deliverables: 
TABLE 6: DELIVERABLES TIMELINE
DELIVERABLE DUE DATE
Evaluation Work Plan: This document outlines the 
methodology, limitations, timeline, and travel logistics 
for USAID/Georgia’s review and approval.
Mission in-brief: Discuss evaluation design and 
questions
With USAID office directors and senior leadership.
August 23, 2021
September 15, 2021
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 97
Remote Data Collection: The evaluation team will 
utilize electronic surveys and online meeting methods 
to conduct KIIs and FGDs.
Weeks of August 30 - September 27, 2021
Exit Briefings and Recommendations and 
Validation Workshop: The evaluation team will 
conduct separate presentations for USAID/Georgia on 
its preliminary findings on an agreed upon date in mid￾October 2021. The team will also facilitate a validation 
workshop. These dates will depend on the schedules 
of USAID/Georgia and will be determined later.
Exact date TBD ~week of October 11-15, 2021
Draft Evaluation Report: The draft evaluation 
report will adhere to USAID Evaluation Policy 
guidelines. Within 21 working days after data 
collection, the LEAP III team will provide to 
USAID/Georgia a draft of the report.
November 1, 2021
Final Evaluation Report: Upon the receipt of the 
Mission’s comments on the draft report, the LEAP III 
team will finalize the report for submission.
Within 10 days of receiving comments on the final 
report.
6. TIMELINE 
Task J 
u 
n 
2 
8 
J 
u 
l 
5 
J 
u 
l 
1 
2 
J 
u 
l 
1 
9 
J 
u 
l 
2 
6 
A 
u 
g 
2 
A 
u 
g 
9 
A
u 
g 
1 
6 
A 
u 
g 
2 
3 
S 
e 
p 
6 
S 
e 
p 
1 
3 
S 
e 
p 
2 
0 
S 
e 
p 
2 
7 
O 
c 
t 
4 
O 
c 
t 
1 
1 
O 
c 
t 
1 
8 
O 
c 
t 
2 
5 
N 
o 
v 
1 
N 
o 
v 
8 
N
o 
v 
1 
5 
N
o 
v 
2 
2 
N
o 
v 
2 
9 
1. 
Develop 
ment of 
AAR 
(USAID 
Approval) 
2. Desk 
Review 
/Evaluati 
on 
Design/ 
Work 
Plan 
2.1. 
Initial 
Docume 
nt And 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 98 
Task J 
u 
n 
2 
8 
J 
u 
l 
5 
J 
u 
l 
1 
2 
J 
u 
l 
1 
9 
J 
u 
l 
2 
6 
A 
u 
g 
2 
A 
u 
g 
9 
A 
u 
g 
1 
6 
A 
u 
g 
2 
3 
S 
e 
p 
6 
S 
e 
p 
1 
3 
S 
e 
p 
2 
0 
S 
e 
p 
2 
7 
O 
c 
t 
4 
O 
c 
t 
1 
1 
O 
c 
t 
1 
8 
O 
c 
t 
2 
5 
N 
o 
v 
1 
N 
o 
v 
8 
N 
o 
v 
1 
5 
N 
o 
v 
2 
2 
N 
o 
v 
2 
9 
Desk 
Review 
2.2. 
Evaluatio
n Work 
Plan 
Develop 
ment 
(USAID 
Approval)
3. 
Mission 
In-Brief 
4. 
Remote 
Data 
Collectio 
n 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 99 
Task J 
u 
n 
2 
8 
J 
u 
l 
5 
J 
u 
l 
1 
2 
J 
u 
l 
1 
9 
J 
u 
l 
2 
6 
A 
u 
g 
2 
A 
u 
g 
9 
A 
u 
g 
1 
6 
A 
u 
g 
2 
3 
S 
e 
p 
6 
S 
e 
p 
1 
3 
S 
e 
p 
2 
0 
S 
e 
p 
2 
7 
O 
c 
t 
4 
O 
c 
t 
1 
1 
O 
c 
t 
1 
8 
O 
c 
t 
2 
5 
N 
o 
v 
1 
N 
o 
v 
8 
N 
o 
v 
1 
5 
N 
o 
v 
2 
2 
N 
o 
v 
2 
9 
5.Exit 
Briefings 
and 
Recomm 
endation 
s and 
Validatio 
n 
Worksh 
op 
6. Draft 
Evaluatio
n Report
(USAID 
approval) 
7. Final 
Evaluatio 
n Report 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 100 
Task J 
u 
n 
2 
8 
J 
u 
l 
5 
J 
u 
l 
1 
2 
J 
u 
l 
1 
9 
J 
u 
l 
2 
6 
A 
u 
g 
2 
A 
u 
g 
9 
A 
u 
g 
1 
6 
A 
u 
g 
2 
3 
S 
e 
p 
6 
S 
e 
p 
1 
3 
S 
e 
p 
2 
0 
S 
e 
p 
2 
7 
O 
c 
t 
4 
O 
c 
t 
1 
1 
O 
c 
t 
1 
8 
O 
c 
t 
2 
5 
N 
o 
v 
1 
N 
o 
v 
8 
N 
o 
v 
1 
5 
N 
o 
v 
2 
2 
N 
o 
v 
2 
9 
(USAID 
approval) 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 101 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II.A. ONLINE SURVEY 
QUESTIONNAIRES - AGRICULTURE 
PROGRAM 
ANNEX II.A.1. ELECTRONIC SURVEY OF GRANTEES 
Thank you for participating in the electronic survey. The survey questions are divided into sections. 
Please fill in the survey based on your own experiences and direct involvement engaging with the USAID 
Agriculture Program. All responses to the questions are confidential and will not be attributed to any 
individual or firm. The survey results will be used for research purposes only. The survey should take 
approximately 15 minutes to complete. Please answer as completely as you can. If you have any 
questions, please contact Mikheil Pakatsoshvili
1. Sex
a. Female
b. Male
c. Prefer not to state
2. Youth: Yes or No (18 - 29 years)
3. Region:
4. What is your primary production? (Note to ET: we will need to update this question
pending completion of the new VC study)
a. nuts
b. berries,
c. culinary herbs,
d. stone fruits,
e. perishable vegetables,
f. pome fruits (apples),
g. table grapes,
h. mandarins
i. other (please specify)
5. What are some of the challenges in your sector (select all relevant responses)?
a. lack of access to inputs/raw materials
b. lack of access to technologies
c. lack of access to finance
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 102 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
d. trouble finding qualified staff / skilled labor 
e. underdeveloped infrastructure 
f. access to sales markets 
g. difficulty in marketing/sales of products in: checkbox: Georgia, abroad, both 
h. lack of market information 
i. complications related to the spread of pests and diseases 
j. unfavorable business environment (regulations/political/legal/bureaucracy) 
i. if checked: please specify what are the challenges that you face 
(open-ended question) 
k. Russian embargo on agricultural products in 2006 
l. Other, please specify 
6. How useful was the grant from the USAID Agriculture Program to address the 
challenges? 
a. Very useful 
b. Useful 
c. Neutral 
d. Not useful 
e. Not at all useful 
7. Where did you sell your products prior to engaging with the USAID Agriculture 
Program? Checkbox – Domestically, EU countries, Russia, other neighboring countries 
(Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey), US, other (please specify) 
8. If Russia and/or neighboring countries – what are the advantages of selling there? 
Checkbox – easy to deal with customs, low quality requirements, demand for Georgian 
products, other (please specify) 
9. If the EU and/or US – what are the challenges? Checkbox – access to relevant 
laboratory services to obtain SPS certificate, certification of products, complex 
transportation/storage requirements, low visibility of Georgian products and low sales, other 
(please specify) 
a. If certification of products is checked: Which certificate is required for exports? 
i. Organic certificate 
ii. Geographic Indication 
iii. ISO 22 000 
iv. GlobalGap 
v. GRASP certification 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 103 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
vi. HACCP 
vii. Other (please specify) 
10. To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statement? I had already planned 
to diversify my export markets prior to engaging with the USAID Agriculture Program. 
a. Strongly agree 
b. Agree 
c. Neutral 
d. Disagree 
e. Strongly disagree 
f. I don’t know
11. Where did you plan to diversify your market? Checkbox – Domestically, EU countries, 
Russia, other neighboring countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey), US, other (please specify) 
If selected 10 d or e, 
12. Why didn’t you plan to diversify your markets? Checkbox – my production is small, it is 
hard to obtain necessary export documents, I do not have business contacts abroad, I do not 
know how to arrange transportation, other (please specify) 
13. Do you currently sell your products to new markets that you have entered since 2019? 
a. If yes 
i. Which countries? Checkbox – EU countries, Russia, other 
neighboring countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey), US, other (please specify) 
ii. What was the role of the USAID Agriculture Program? 
Checkbox – financial support to buy new equipment/machinery, support in 
obtaining necessary export documents, in establishing business contacts abroad, 
in arranging transportation, in obtaining needed certification, in branding, in 
accessing finance other (please specify) 
1. For each checked answer: How useful was the support provided 
by the Program? 
a. Very useful 
b. Useful 
c. Neutral 
d. Not useful 
e. Not at all useful 
f. I don’t know
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 104 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iii. What is the volume of your domestic sales / exports / How 
much has your domestic sales / exports increased after engaging with the 
USAID Agriculture Program? 
1. Volume – dropdown (tons) 
2. Monetary value – dropdown (thousand USD) 
b. If they did not increase, why? Checkbox – Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the 
buyers did not renew contracts, my certificates were revoked, my net income from 
exports was low, other (please specify) 
14. How would you assess the application process for support from the USAID Agriculture 
Program? 
a. Very easy 
b. Easy 
c. Neutral 
d. Complicated 
e. Very complicated 
f. I don’t know
15. Did you receive bank financing for the cash contribution for the USAID Agriculture 
Program? 
a. Yes 
b. No 
16. Do you buy products from farmers / other entrepreneurs? 
a. If yes 
i. What products do you buy? Checkbox of priority VC products, 
inputs 
ii. Approximately from how many? Dropdown. 
iii. What is the estimated value of products you buy in USD? 
b. No 
17. How have employment figures changed in your company after engaging with the USAID 
Agriculture Program? 
a. Increased – please provide figures for both permanent and part-time 
i. Dropdown for permanent jobs 
ii. Dropdown for part-time jobs 
iii. Dropdown for seasonal job 
b. Decreased – please provide figures for both permanent and part-time 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 105 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i. Dropdown for permanent jobs 
ii. Dropdown for part-time jobs 
iii. Dropdown for seasonal jobs 
c. Did not change 
18. How has your income changed after engaging with the USAID Agriculture Program? 
a. Increased (please provide estimates) 
i. Up to 20%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
ii. 20-50%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
iii. 50-100%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
iv. Over 100%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
b. Decreased (please provide estimates) 
i. By around -20%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
ii. -20-50%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
iii. -50-100%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
c. Did not change 
19. How have your relations with other value chain actors changed since engaging in the 
USAID Program? 
a. Significantly improved 
b. Improved 
c. Has not changed 
d. Worsened 
e. Significantly worsened 
f. I don’t know
20. If significantly improved or improved, with which actors? 
a. Other producers 
b. suppliers 
c. input providers 
d. buyers 
e. other (please specify) 
21. Do you receive services from other VC actors and/or sector stakeholders? Yes, no 
If yes, to which actors? 
a. Other producers 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 106 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b. suppliers 
c. input providers 
d. buyers 
e. Government of Georgia / its institutions 
f. Non-governmental organizations 
g. education institutions 
h. others (please specify) 
22. What services do you receive from these stakeholders? 
a. accessing inputs/raw materials 
b. accessing technologies 
c. access to finance 
d. finding qualified staff / skilled labor 
e. developing infrastructure 
f. accessing sales markets 
g. marketing/sales of products 
h. receiving market information 
i. fighting pests and diseases 
j. advocating for favorable business environment 
23. How satisfied are you with the quality of services? 
a. Very satisfied 
b. Satisfied 
c. Neutral 
d. Unsatisfied 
e. Very unsatisfied 
f. I don’t know
24. What was the impact of COVID-19 on you/your company? 
a. Very negative 
b. Negative 
c. Neutral 
d. Positive 
e. Very positive 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 107 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
f. Did not have any impact
g. I don’t know
25. Aside from support you received from the USAID Agriculture Program, did you receive
support from any other organization / gov entity?
a. If yes – which organizations / entities? Checkbox – USAID Economic Security
Program, USAID ZRDA Activity, USAID/Farmer to Farmer (F2F), FAO ENPARD
Project, ADA GRETA Project, Enterprise Georgia, Rural Development Agency projects,
other (please specify) what type of support? Checkbox – financial support to buy new
equipment/machinery, in obtaining necessary export documents, in establishing business
contacts abroad, in arranging transportation, in obtaining quality certificate, in branding,
other (please specify)
b. No
26. How do you see the performance of your business during the next several years?
a. Significantly improving
b. Improving
c. Same
d. Worsening
e. Significantly worsening
27. How would you describe the overall relations with the USAID Agriculture Program?
a. Very positive
b. Positive
c. Neutral
d. Negative
e. Extremely negative
f. I don’t know
g. Refuse to answer
ANNEX II.A.2. ELECTRONIC SURVEY OF TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS 
Thank you for participating in the electronic survey. All responses to the questions are confidential and 
will not be attributed to any individual or firm. The survey results will be used for research purposes 
only. The survey questions are divided into sections. Please fill in the survey based on your own 
experiences and direct involvement in the project. The survey should take approximately 15 minutes to 
complete. Please answer as completely as you can. If you have any questions, please contact Mikheil 
Pakatsoshvili, 
1. Sex
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 108 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Female 
2. Male 
3. Prefer not to state 
2. Youth: Yes or No (18 - 29 years) 
3. Region: 
4. What is your primary production? (Note to ET: we will need to update this question pending 
completion of the new VC study) 
1. nuts 
2. berries, 
3. culinary herbs, 
4. stone fruits, 
5. perishable vegetables, 
6. pome fruits (apples), 
7. table grapes, 
8. mandarins 
9. other (please specify) 
5. What are some of the challenges in your sector (select all relevant responses) 
1. lack of access to inputs/raw materials 
2. lack of access to technologies 
3. lack of access to finance 
4. trouble finding qualified staff / skilled labor 
5. underdeveloped infrastructure 
6. access to sales markets 
7. difficulty in marketing/sales of products in Georgia and abroad 
8. lack of market information 
9. complications related to the spread of pests and diseases 
10. unfavorable business environment: checkbox: regulatory/legal/bureaucracy 
1. if checked: please specify what are the challenges that you face (open-ended 
question) 
11. Russian embargo on agricultural products in 2006 
12. Other, please specify 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 109 
 
 
 
 
 
6. Where did you sell your products prior to engaging with the USAID Agriculture Program? 
Checkbox – Domestically, EU countries, Russia, other CIS countries, US, neighboring countries 
(Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey), other (please specify) 
7. If Russia and/or CIS – what are the advantages of selling there? Checkbox – easy to deal with 
customs, low quality requirements, demand for Georgian products, other (please specify) 
8. If the EU and/or US – what are the challenges? Checkbox – access to relevant laboratory 
services to obtain SPS certificate, certification of products, complex transportation/storage 
requirements, low visibility of Georgian products and low sales, other (please specify) 
1. If certification of products is checked: Which certificate is required for exports? 
1. Organic certificate 
2. Geographic Indication 
3. ISO 22 000 
4. GlobalGap 
5. GRASP certification 
6. HACCP 
7. Other (please specify) 
9. To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following statement? I planned to diversify my 
export markets prior to engaging with the USAID Agriculture Program. 
1. Strongly agree 
2. Agree 
3. Neutral 
4. Disagree 
5. Strongly disagree 
6. I don’t know
10. Where did you plan to diversify your market? Checkbox – Domestically, EU countries, Russia, 
other neighboring countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey), US, other (please specify) 
If selected 10 d or e, 
11. Why didn’t you plan to diversify your markets? Checkbox – my production is small, it is hard to 
obtain necessary export documents, I do not have business contacts abroad, I do not know how 
to arrange transportation, other (please specify) 
12. Do you currently sell your products to new markets that you have entered since 2019? 
1. If yes 
1. Which countries? Checkbox – EU countries, Russia, other neighboring 
countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey), US, other (please specify) 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 110 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. What was the role of the USAID Agriculture Program? Checkbox – financial 
support to buy new equipment/machinery, support in obtaining necessary 
export documents, in establishing business contacts abroad, in arranging 
transportation, in obtaining needed certification, in branding, in accessing finance 
other (please specify) 
1. For each checked answer: How useful was the support provided by the 
Program? 
1. Very useful 
2. Useful 
3. Neutral 
4. Not useful 
5. Not at all useful 
6. I don’t know
3. What is the volume of your domestic sales / exports / How much has your 
domestic sales / exports increased after engaging with the USAID Agriculture 
Program? 
1. Volume – dropdown (tons) 
2. Monetary value – dropdown (thousand USD) 
2. If they did not increase, why? Checkbox – Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the buyers 
did not renew contracts, my certificates were revoked, my net income from exports 
was low, other (please specify) 
13. Which technical assistance did you receive from the USAID Agriculture Program? (Note to ET: 
We will update this list with feedback from CNFA ahead of sending out the survey) 
1. Individual consultancies (please specify which consultancies) 
2. Group trainings (please specify which trainings) 
3. Cost-share ISO 22 000 certification consultancy 
4. Gap Analysis 
5. In obtaining GlobalGAP certification 
6. GRASP certification 
7. HACCP certification 
8. Organic certification 
9. Participated in study tour / fair abroad (please specify which study tour / fair) 
10. Support in branding 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 111 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the support you received from the USAID 
Agriculture Program (each training / consultancy will be assessed separately)? 
1. Very satisfied 
2. Satisfied 
3. Neutral 
4. Unsatisfied 
5. Very unsatisfied 
6. I don’t know
If selected 14 a, b, c, d, j 
15. How would you assess the qualification of the consultants/trainers? 
1. Very qualified 
2. Qualified 
3. Neutral 
4. Unqualified 
5. Very unqualified 
6. I don’t’ know
If selected 11 i 
16. How satisfied are you with the study tour/ fair? 
1. Very satisfied 
2. Satisfied 
3. Neutral 
4. Unsatisfied 
5. Very unsatisfied 
6. I don’t know
If selected 14 e, f, g, h 
17. Have you already obtained the certificate? 
1. Yes 
2. No 
18. How useful will the certificate be for boosting exports abroad? 
1. Very useful 
2. Useful 
3. Neutral 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 112 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Not useful 
5. Not at all useful 
6. I don’t know
If selected 19 a, b 
19. For exporting to which countries / blocs will the certification be useful? 
1. EU 
2. US 
3. Russia 
4. CIS countries 
5. Neighboring countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey) 
6. Other (please specify) 
20. Do you buy products from farmers / other entrepreneurs? 
1. If yes 
1. What products do you buy? Checkbox of priority VC products, inputs 
2. Approximately from how many? Dropdown. 
3. What is the estimated value of products you buy in USD? 
2. No 
21. How has employment figures changed in your company after engaging with the USAID 
Agriculture Program? 
1. Increased – please provide figures for both permanent and part-time 
1. Dropdown for permanent jobs 
2. Dropdown for part-time jobs 
3. Dropdown for seasonal job 
2. Decreased – please provide figures for both permanent and part-time 
1. Dropdown for permanent jobs 
2. Dropdown for part-time jobs 
3. Dropdown for seasonal jobs 
3. Did not change 
22. How has your income changed after engaging with the USAID Agriculture Program? 
1. Increased (please provide estimates) 
1. Up to 20%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
2. 20-50%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 113 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 50-100%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
4. Over 100%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
2. Decreased (please provide estimates) 
1. By around -20%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
2. -20-50%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
3. -50-100%. please provide the estimated value in USD 
4. Did not change 
23. How have your relations with other value chain actors changed since engaging in the USAID 
Program? 
1. Significantly improved 
2. Improved 
3. Has not changed 
4. Worsened 
5. Significantly worsened 
6. I don’t know
24. If significantly improved or improved, with which actors? 
1. Other producers 
2. suppliers 
3. input providers 
4. buyers 
25. other (please specify) 
26. Do you receive services from other VC actors and/or sector stakeholders? Yes, no 
If yes, to which actors? 
1. Other producers 
2. suppliers 
3. input providers 
4. buyers 
5. Government of Georgia / its institutions 
6. Non-governmental organizations 
7. education institutions 
8. others (please specify) 
27. What services do you receive from these stakeholders? 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 114 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. accessing inputs/raw materials 
2. accessing technologies 
3. access to finance 
4. finding qualified staff / skilled labor 
5. developing infrastructure 
6. accessing sales markets 
7. marketing/sales of products 
8. receiving market information 
9. fighting pests and diseases 
10. advocating for favorable business environment 
28. How satisfied are you with the quality of services? 
1. Very satisfied 
2. Satisfied 
3. Neutral 
4. Unsatisfied 
5. Very unsatisfied 
6. I don’t know
29. What was the impact of COVID-19 on you/your company? 
1. Very negative 
2. Negative 
3. Neutral 
4. Positive 
5. Very positive 
6. Did not have any impact 
7. I don’t know
30. Aside from support you received from the USAID Agriculture Program, did you receive support 
from any other organization / gov entity? 
1. If yes – which organizations / entities? Checkbox – USAID Economic Security Program, 
USAID ZRDA Activity, USAID/Farmer to Farmer (F2F), FAO ENPARD Project, ADA 
GRETA Project, Enterprise Georgia, Rural Development Agency projects, other (please 
specify) what type of support? Checkbox – financial support to buy new 
equipment/machinery, in obtaining necessary export documents, in establishing business 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 115 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
contacts abroad, in arranging transportation, in obtaining quality certificate, in branding, 
other (please specify) 
2. No 
31. How do you see the performance of your business during the next several years? 
1. Significantly improving 
2. Improving 
3. Same 
4. Worsening 
5. Significantly worsening 
32. How would you describe the overall relations with the USAID Agriculture Program? 
1. Very positive 
2. Positive 
3. Neutral 
4. Negative 
5. Extremely negative 
6. I don’t know
7. Refuse to answer 
ANNEX II.A.3. PHONE SURVEY OF REJECTED APPLICANTS 
Hello, __________. My name is __________and I am working with Integra to conduct evaluation of 
USAID’s Agriculture and Economic Security Programs. All responses to the questions are confidential
and will not be attributed to any individual or firm. The survey results will be used for research 
purposes only. The purpose of this evaluation is to help USAID/Georgia gain a better understanding of 
how the Activity has worked, what results have been achieved to date, and how it might be improved 
going forward. 
Consent to the Interview 
1. Where did you learn about the USAID Agriculture Program? 
2. Why did you decide to apply to the USAID Agriculture Program? 
3. How would you describe the grant/TA application process? 
4. Have you ever participated in any training, capacity building or other support activity from the 
Agriculture Program that assisted you in developing your business idea and grant proposal? 
5. How did the Program notify you about the rejection and how clear was the reasoning? 
6. Did you reapply for a later round of Agriculture Program grants? If so, was your application 
successful? 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 116 
7. Did you apply for support from other initiatives to address your challenges? If yes, was your 
application successful? 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 117 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II.B. KEY INFORMANT 
INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS FOR JOINT 
MEETINGS 
INTERVIEW TRACKING DATA 
This section will complete this section prior to conducting the KII. 
Date of Interview 
Location of Interview 
Name of Data Collector 
Name of Respondent 
Role or Position/Title of Respondent 
Male/Female 
Respondent Affiliation 
SCRIPT FOR START OF THE INTERVIEW 
Hello, __________. My name is __________and I am working with Integra to conduct evaluation of 
USAID’s Agriculture and Economic Security Programs. The purpose of this evaluation is to help 
USAID/Georgia gain a better understanding of how the Activity has worked, what results have been 
achieved to date, and how it might be improved going forward. 
Consent to the Interview and Recording the Interview 
Your participation is voluntary. No one will know your responses to the questions. Let me know if you 
want to pause or stop the interview at any time. 
Would you be willing to allow the interview to be recorded? Y/N 
Sex 
a. Female 
b. Male 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 118 
 
c. Prefer not to state 
Youth: Yes or No (18 - 29 years) 
Region: 
You have the right to participate in the interview without being recorded, 
Do you have any questions? 
Thank you. 
ANNEX II.B.1. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS FOR USAID SENIOR 
LEADERSHIP 
TABLE 7: USAID DISCUSSION GUIDE 
1. What are some of the binding constraints hindering the private sector’s access to markets, resources, and 
their ability to engage with the GOG through public-private dialogue? Do the constraints differ based on value 
chains? 
Probe: How is the Economic Security Program addressing these constraints? 
2. How did COVID-19 influence the market dynamics in this regard? How have challenges and opportunities 
related to economic growth shifted amid COVID? 
3. What are some of the binding constraints hindering agriculture development in Georgia? Do the constraints 
differ based on value chains? 
Probe: How is the USAID funded Agriculture Program addressing these constraints? 
4. How did COVID-19 influence the market dynamics in this regard? How have challenges and opportunities 
related to growth in the Ag Sector shifted amid COVID? 
5. From your point of view, what prevents vulnerable groups (women, rural poor, youth) from having access to 
high-value employment and/or income generating opportunities? 
(Probe: education, time available, connectivity or transportation limitations, lack of networks) 
6. Could you provide examples of best practices in how USAID is implementing the PSE Policy and Digital 
Strategy in Georgia? What types of programs are currently implemented by USAID targeting economic 
development and how do these programs work together synergistically? What are some best practices in PSE 
and MSD being implemented by USAID programs in Georgia and how does or could USAID support its 
programs in increasing utilization of PSE and MSD related approaches? 
7. In what ways did the pandemic weaken/strengthen effective utilization of PSE approaches, including 
partnerships? 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 119 
TABLE 8: DONOR FUNDED PROGRAMS DISCUSSION GUIDE
8. What have been the most significant achievements related to the Economic Security Program?
Probe: Ask for achievements per component: strengthen cooperation in targeted sectors, support enterprises 
to improve productivity, sales, quality, and to develop new products and services, industry-led workforce 
development, building public-private partnerships 
9. What have been the most significant achievements related to the Agriculture Program?
10. Are there other groups or people we should talk to about these projects?
ANNEX II.B.2. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS FOR OTHER USAID 
AND DONOR-FUNDED PROGRAMS 
TABLE 8: DONOR-FUNDED PROGRAMS DISCUSSION GUIDE -
1. What are some of the challenges hindering the private sector’s access to markets, resources, their ability to
engage with the GOG through public-private dialogue and related development of targeted value chains? What
are the general barriers related to the business enabling environment in this regard?
Probe: Are these challenges common for all vulnerable groups? Gender/youth. If not, what are the specificities 
per group? Do the challenges differ based on the value chain? 
2. In your opinion, what sectors hold the most potential for economic growth and what are the main
opportunities and challenges for each in accelerating economic growth in Georgia?
Probe: The agriculture sector in general and horticulture specifically, which are the main export markets of 
horticulture products and what are the challenges associated with exporting horticulture products? 
3. How did COVID affect the Georgian economy? How do these effects differ based on sectors?
Probe: Ask specifically regarding the agriculture sector and possible effects such as limited access to finance, 
decreased sales, exchange rate fluctuations, decreased demand, etc. 
4. From your point of view, what prevents vulnerable groups (women, rural poor, youth) from having access to
high-value employment and/or income generating opportunities?
Probe: Differences based on sectors including agriculture, education, time available, connectivity or 
transportation limitations, lack of networks 
5. Can you please tell us briefly about your program, target groups and interventions?
Probe: How they use PSE and MSD approaches and partnerships specifically to achieve their development 
objectives. 
6. Have you partnered/cooperated with the Economic Security and Agriculture Programs? If yes, what were the
areas of cooperation?
Probe: Ask separately about each program and the areas of cooperation respectively. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 120 
7. What worked well in this collaboration? Why? What factors influenced the success in cooperation? What did 
not work well? Why? 
Probe: Ask separately about each program and the areas of cooperation respectively. Name specific examples 
when the synergy resulted in a better outcome. 
8. What should the Agriculture and Economic Security Programs do differently to make this collaboration more 
impactful? 
Probe: Ask separately about each program and the areas of cooperation respectively. 
9. How would you assess the sustainability of results achieved by the Economic Security and Agriculture 
Programs? What needs to be done to ensure long-lasting impact on Georgia’s economy?
Probe: Ask separately for each program. Does the sustainability level of USAID-funded programs differ from 
sustainability of other similar interventions? Why? What factors contribute to their sustainability? How do you 
measure it? 
10. Is there any coordination mechanism in place to ensure cohesion and avoid duplications between USAID 
funded and other donor supported programs? From your point of view, what needs to be done to enhance 
cooperation in this regard? 
Probe: with regards to PSE approaches including partnerships with the private sector, policy elaboration, market 
systems development, etc. 
11. What needs to be done to empower the private sectors and enhance market systems in Georgia? Who are 
the stakeholders and who should be engaged in this process? 
12. Are there other groups or people we should talk to about these projects? 
ANNEX II.B.3. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS FOR GOVERNMENT 
OF GEORGIA 
TABLE 9: GOVERNMENT OF GEORGIA DISCUSSION GUIDE 
1. What are some of the challenges hindering private sector’s access to markets, resources, and ability to engage
the GOG in public-private dialogue and related development of targeted value chains? What are the related 
barriers in the business enabling environment in this regard? 
Probe: Are these challenges common for all vulnerable groups? Gender/youth. If not, what are the specificities 
per group? Do the challenges differ based on value chains? 
2. In your opinion, what sectors hold the most potential for economic growth and what are the main 
opportunities and challenges for each in accelerating economic growth in Georgia? 
Probe: The agriculture sector in general and horticulture specifically, which are the main export markets of 
horticulture products and what are the challenges associated with exporting horticulture products? 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 121 
 
3. Which countries are considered as the main trade partners for Georgia’s agricultural products? How has this
changed over the last three years and which countries are considered as having significant potential for 
exporting Georgian agricultural products? 
Probe: What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the Russian market? (e.g. Trade barriers, quotas, 
requirements to enter market, Certification, trade partners, branding and marketing, transportation and 
logistics). Possible reasons – absence of political embargoes, organized wholesale and retail, quality and safety 
standards, secured payments 
4. How did COVID affect the Georgian economy? How do these effects differ based on sectors? 
Probe: ask specifically regarding the agriculture sector and possible effects such as outcomes: limited access to 
finance, decreased sales, exchange rate fluctuations, decreased demand, etc. 
5. What was the response of the government to these changes in the market? 
6. From your point of view, what prevents vulnerable groups (women, rural poor, youth) from having access to 
high-value employment and/or income generating opportunities? 
Probe: Differences based on sectors including agriculture, education, time available, connectivity or 
transportation limitations, lack of networks 
7. What are the programs/mechanisms employed at your agency to support private sector and agriculture 
development? 
8. To what extent has the support been utilized by the private sector and agriculture actors? What were the 
most significant factors that led to results? 
9. How does the government do outreach and communication to make sure that all vulnerable groups are 
included in these programs? Please name specific examples 
10. What are the coordination mechanisms between the GOG and private sector actors to discuss the business 
enabling environment and market systems strengthening? 
Probe: What worked well in this collaboration? Why? What factors influenced the success in cooperation? 
What did not work well? Why? ask separately about each program and the areas of cooperation respectively 
11. What mechanisms/models can be employed to enhance establishment of public-private partnerships? What 
are the opportunities and barriers in this regard? Which specific models of partnerships with the private sectors 
are you aware of? What type of public benefits can be expected from these types of partnerships? 
12. Which partnerships with the private sectors has your agency been engaged in? What was the value addition 
of these partnerships? Are you aware of partnerships that were supported by the Economic Security Program? 
What are the advantages and disadvantages of these partnerships? How would you assess the effectiveness of 
this collaboration in specific sectors? 
Probe: GNTA, Gita, Enterprise Georgia – more specifically 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 122 
13. Did you have any interaction with USAID-supported Economic Security and Agriculture Programs? If yes, 
could you please elaborate on the effectiveness of this partnership? Could you please name specific results of 
this collaboration? What challenges did you have to tackle? 
Probe: ask separately for each program 
14. From your point of view, what needs to be done to enhance cooperation in this regard? 
15. How would you assess the sustainability of results achieved by the Economic Security and Agriculture 
Programs? What needs to be done to ensure long-lasting impact on Georgia’s economy?
Probe: ask separately for each program. Does the sustainability level of USAID-funded programs differ from 
sustainability of government-supported programs? Why? What factors contribute to their sustainability? How do
you measure it? 
16. What needs to be done to empower the private sectors and enhance market systems in Georgia? Who are 
the stakeholders and who should be engaged in this process? 
17. Are there other groups or people we should talk to about these projects? 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 123 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II.C. KEY INFORMANT 
INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS -
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM 
INTERVIEW TRACKING DATA 
This section will complete this section prior to conducting the KII. 
Date of Interview 
Location of Interview 
Name of Data Collector 
Name of Respondent 
Role or Position/Title of Respondent 
Male/Female 
Respondent Affiliation 
SCRIPT FOR START OF THE INTERVIEW 
Hello, __________. My name is __________and I am working with Integra to conduct an evaluation 
of USAID’s Agriculture Program. The purpose of this evaluation is to help you and USAID/Georgia gain 
a better understanding of how the Activity has worked, what results have been achieved to date, and 
how it might be improved going forward. 
Consent to the Interview and Recording the Interview 
Your participation is voluntary. No one will know your responses to the questions. Let me know if you 
want to pause or stop the interview at any time. 
Would you be willing to allow the interview to be recorded? Y/N 
Sex 
a. Female 
b. Male 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 124 
 
 
c. Prefer not to state 
Youth: Yes or No (18 - 29 years) 
Region: 
You have the right to participate in the interview without being recorded, 
Do you have any questions? 
Thank you. 
ANNEX II.C.1. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS FOR USAID 
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM AOR/COR 
TABLE 10: USAID AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM AOR/COR DISCUSSION GUIDE 
1. What are some of the binding constraints hindering the agriculture sector in general and development of 
targeted value chains? What was the effect of COVID-19? 
Probe: Access to export markets, certification, knowledge and skills, increased prices for inputs. 
2. How is the Program addressing these constraints? 
Probe: Use of PSE and MSD approaches. 
3. How would you describe the cost-efficiency of this activity? 
Probe: Were some components more efficient than others? 
4. To what extent have the activities achieved the contract’s specified results? What were the most significant
factors that led to results? 
Probe: Project design, management approach, relationship with stakeholders, human resources availability, and 
sub-national versus national stakeholder engagement. 
5. What have been the most significant achievements related to this project? 
Probe: Ask for achievement per component: strengthen cooperation in targeted sectors, support enterprises to
improve productivity, sales, quality, and to develop new products and services, industry-led workforce 
development, building public-private partnerships 
6. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of the Agriculture Program with regards to catalyzing priority value 
chain developments? 
Probe: Grants, TA 
7. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of the Program with regards to export diversification? 
8. To what extent do you believe the program was able to adapt its operations during the pandemic? Could you 
name specific examples of adaptation/reprogramming? 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 125 
 
 
 
9. Did the MEL plan contribute to adaptive management in terms of adjusting the Program’s technical
approaches and interventions? 
ANNEX II.C.2. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS FOR CNFA TEAM 
TABLE 11: CNFA TEAM DISCUSSION GUIDE 
1. What is your role on the program? 
2. Can you please tell us about the program’s activities and target beneficiaries?
3. In your opinion, what are the main challenges of the agriculture sector in general and horticulture specifically? 
4. In your opinion, what are the main opportunities? 
5. Can you walk us through how the program activities address each challenge and alleviate the constraints to 
realizing the opportunities? 
Probe: Utilization of PSE and MSD approaches 
6. What markets hold the most potential for realizing the program objective of supporting accelerated growth 
of the target ag sub-sectors? 
Probe: Growth in terms of supporting increased sales and employment as well as the sustainability of 
employment and increased sales for either domestic or export markets or both. 
7. In your opinion, which are the main export markets of horticulture products and what are the challenges 
associated with exporting? 
Probe: How the project is addressing these challenges through its activities and partnerships. 
8. What needs to be done to improve the Business Enabling Environment (BEE) for agriculture in Georgia? 
Probe: How the project activities are improving the BEE and how they believe the same will improve the 
sustainability of enterprise level interventions. 
9. Aside from support to enterprises and improving the BEE, what needs to be done to improve agriculture 
market systems in Georgia? 
Probe: How the project activities are utilizing market systems approaches and how they believe the same will
improve the sustainability of enterprise level interventions. 
10. What needs to be done to increase inclusion and empowerment of women beneficiaries? And youth 
beneficiaries? 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 126 
 
 
Probe: How the project activities are increasing inclusion and empowerment and how these increases will be 
sustained beyond the life of the project 
11. What challenges/opportunities has COVID-19 created for the Georgian agriculture sector and its export 
potential? 
12. Please explain the process of how the program targets beneficiaries and tracks results? 
Probe: How does the project engage women and youth, how are the women’s empowerment and youth 
engagement aligned with the relevant USAID policies, any other indicators of success they are either tracking or
noticing aside from the given output indicators. 
13. In your opinion, what type of challenges does your project face related to implementing its agriculture sector 
activities? 
14. In your opinion, which activities have been the most successful in achieving program objectives and why? 
15. How does your program collaborate with other USAID, GOG and/or donor programs to achieve mutual 
objectives? 
16. If given the opportunity, what activities would you add to your program to better achieve results? 
ANNEX II.C.3. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH DIRECT 
BENEFICIARIES 
TABLE 12: DIRECT BENEFICIARIES DISCUSSION GUIDE 
1. What are your activities in agriculture? Please tell us about your primary activities, as well as secondary. What 
are your main challenges? 
Probe: Consolidation facilities, quality inputs, cold storage, distribution infrastructure 
2. Where did you sell your products prior to engaging with the USAID Agriculture program? 
3. How has your sales in the domestic market changed over the last three years and what factors have 
contributed to the market dynamics in Georgia? 
4. In your opinion, in which foreign markets are attractive to sell products and why? 
Probe: absence of political embargoes, organized wholesale and retail, quality and safety standards, secured 
payments 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 127 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 128
5. What is the best opportunity for you to sell the products? How has this changed over the last 3 years? How 
has the COVID-19 changed the markets you target?
Probe: Domestic and international markets
6. If you export your products abroad, when did you start exporting and how did it evolve over the years?
Probe: Diversification of markets, increase in volumes and income.
7. What were your challenges related to exports before engaging with the Agriculture Project and what are they 
now?
8. How many people do you employ and how has this changed over the last 3 years?
Probe: Effects of COVID-19
9. What effect did COVID-19 have on you / your sector?
Probe: Increased prices for inputs/raw material, disruption in logistics
10. Where did you hear about the Agriculture Program? What was your incentive to be engaged in this 
program? Can you please describe the process of engagement in this program?
Probe: How were you selected? Was it transparent? What were the selection criteria?
11. What support did you receive from the USAID Agriculture program and how useful was it? In your opinion, 
what operational areas had the largest impact?
Probe: COVID-19 response - using distance communication tools, introducing post-COVID recovery measures 
or programs, organizing capacity building in COVID related topics, supporting hygiene tools and stocks. 
Usefulness in relation to increasing sales and if it includes establishing business contacts, will they be able to 
maintain them after the project? Are these services that they would be willing to pay for in the future (e.g. 
participation on the trade shows, marketing and branding of products, introduction of safety and quality 
standards)?
12. What changes have you seen in the value chain because of the USAID Agriculture Program interventions?
Probe: access to finance, increased sales, hiring talent, product differentiation, R&D, knowing customer demand, 
equipment, new varieties, expansion of production facilities, supply chain infrastructure, relationships with other 
value chain actors, etc.
13. If you were to restart the engagement with the program, what would you do differently?
Probe: What operational areas would grant/TA be most impactful?
14. Have you received support from other state agencies, donor projects, NGOs or any other organizations? If 
yes, from whom, what, and how useful was it?
15. What additional support will you require in the future?
16. Who can/should provide you with the necessary support?
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 129
17. Did engagement in the USAID Agriculture Program change your position in the family / community? If yes, 
how did it change?
18. What is needed for other enterprises in your VC to increase their production, local sales and exports?
19. What are the coordination mechanisms between the GOG and private sector actors to discuss the business 
enabling environment and market systems strengthening?
ANNEX II.C.4. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH PRIVATE 
SECTOR PARTNERS
TABLE 13: PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS DISCUSSION GUIDE
1. What is your role in the organization / company?
2. What are the main challenges in the agriculture sector and horticulture specifically?
Probe: Women, youth and vulnerable groups, domestic and export markets,
3. What are the opportunities?
Probe: constraints in taking advantage of those opportunities.
4. What additional challenges / opportunities has COVID-19 created for the agriculture sector?
Probe: increased prices for inputs/raw material, disruption in logistics
5. Can you briefly tell us about your organization / company and under what capacity was it involved in the 
USAID Agriculture program?
6. What were the main achievements of cooperation between your organization and the USAID Agriculture 
program?
7. In your opinion, how did the USAID Agriculture program support your organization/company in addressing 
the challenges or capitalize on the opportunities?
Probe: PSE and MSD approaches
8. Are there other donor or GOG interventions that support value chain development, market systems 
development and export of agricultural products from Georgia?
9. How do they support enterprises, value chain development, market systems development and exports and 
how effective are they?
Probe: PSE and MSD approaches
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 130
10. What changes have you seen in the value chain because of the USAID Agriculture Program interventions?
Probe: access to finance, increased sales, hiring talent, product differentiation, R&D, knowing customer demand, 
equipment, new varieties, expansion of production facilities, supply chain infrastructure, relationships among VC 
actors, etc.
11. How can the USAID Agriculture program improve to better address challenges and overcome constraints to 
support VC actors in taking advantage of market opportunities in the ag sector?
Probe: to overcome COVID-19-related challenges - using distance communication tools, introducing post￾COVID recovery measures or programs, organizing capacity building in COVID related topics, supporting with 
hygiene tools and stocks., PSE and MSD approaches and the sustainability of impact
12. What are the coordination mechanisms between the GOG and private sector actors to discuss the business 
enabling environment and market systems strengthening?
13. Are there other groups or people we should talk to about these questions?
ANNEX II.C.5. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH OTHER 
PRIVATE SECTOR STAKEHOLDERS
TABLE 14: PRIVATE SECTOR STAKEHOLDERS DISCUSSION GUIDE
1. What is your role in the organization / company?
2. What are the main challenges in the agriculture sector and horticulture specifically?
Probe: Women, youth and vulnerable groups, domestic and export markets,
3. What are the opportunities?
Probe: Constraints in taking advantage of those opportunities.
4. What additional challenges / opportunities has COVID-19 created for the agriculture sector?
Probe: Increased prices for inputs/raw material, disruption in logistics
5. In your opinion, how does the USAID Agriculture program support the agricultural sector in addressing the 
challenges or capitalize on the opportunities?
Probe; PSE and MSD approaches
6. Are there other donor or GOG interventions that support value chain development, market systems 
development and export of agricultural products from Georgia?
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 131
7. How do they support enterprises, value chain development, market systems development and exports and 
how effective are they?
Probe: PSE and MSD approaches
8. Can you briefly tell us about your organization / company and under what capacity was it involved in the 
USAID Agriculture program (if at all)?
9. What were the main achievements between your organization and/or other organizations that you know had 
cooperation with the USAID Agriculture program?
10. What changes have you seen in the value chain because of the USAID Agriculture Program interventions?
Probe: Access to finance, increased sales, hiring talent, product differentiation, R&D, knowing customer demand, 
equipment, new varieties, expansion of production facilities, supply chain infrastructure, improvements in 
relationships between VC actors, etc.
11. How can the USAID Agriculture program improve to better address challenges and overcome constraints to 
support VC actors in taking advantage of market opportunities in the ag sector?
Probe: To overcome COVID-19-related challenges - COVID-19 response - using distance communication tools, 
introducing post-COVID recovery measures or programs, organizing capacity building in COVID related topics, 
supporting with hygiene tools and stocks, PSE and MSD approaches and the sustainability of impact
12. What are the coordination mechanisms between the GOG and private sector actors to discuss the business 
enabling environment and market systems strengthening?
13. Are there other groups or people we should talk to about these questions?
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 132
ANNEX II.D. SITE VISIT SUMMARY 
REPORT
SITE VISIT SUMMARY REPORT
This template follows guidance from USAID/PPL Program Cycle How-to-Note: Planning and Conduct Site Visits
TABLE 15: SITE VISIT SUMMARY REPORT
Date of site visit
Location of the event
Name of Observer(s)
Name of site, learning event, workshop, exposition, 
etc.
Sponsor(s) of the event
Format of the event: workshop, remote online, one￾stop services, public sector institution, public or 
private sector firm
Approximate number of participants
Characteristics of participants: SMEs, government, 
women, youth, mixed, etc.
Type of USAID affiliation: implementing partner, 
grantee, mixed, etc.
BRIEF EXPLANATION OF FINDINGS:
Positive:
Negative:
Observations about USAID partner collaboration:
Did the event/material support meet the expectations of the USAID implementing partner:
Feedback observed or heard directly from participants/beneficiaries:
Evidence of USAID marketing and branding of promotional and learning materials:
Follow-up recommendations:
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 133
ANNEX III: DOCUMENTS 
REVIEWED
Biological Farming Association Elkana. The USAID Agriculture Program Horticultural Biomarket Actors, 
Challenges, and Opportunities. Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2019.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Capacity Assessment of Agricultural Cooperatives. Tbilisi, 
Georgia: USAID, 2019.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Capacity Assessment Report for Four Selected Associations. 
Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2021.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Findings and Recommendations for the Dried Fruit Sector: 
Georgia. Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2020.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2018.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2021.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Organization Capacity Assessment of Agricultural and Cross￾Cutting Business Associations. Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2019.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Preliminary Work Plan. Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2018.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year One Annual Progress Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2019.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year One First Quarterly Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2019.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year One Second Quarterly Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2019.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year One Third Quarterly Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2019.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year One Work Plan. Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2018.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year Three First Quarterly Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2021.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year Three Second Quarterly Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2021.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year Three Third Quarterly Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2015.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year Three Third Quarterly Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2021.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 134
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year Three Work Plan. Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2021.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year Two Annual Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2020.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year Two First Quarterly Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2020.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year Two Second Quarterly Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2020.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year Two Third Quarterly Report. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2020.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Project Year Two Work Plan. Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2020.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Sector Findings and Recommendations for Dried Fruit Sector: 
Georgia. Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2020.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Sector Grants Manual. Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2018.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Sector Selection and Value Chain Analysis. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2019.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Updated Sector Selection and Value Chain Analysis. Tbilisi, 
Georgia: USAID, 2021.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Technical Assistance to Georgian Herbs Growers Final Report. 
Tbilisi, Georgia: USAID, 2020.
CNFA. The USAID Agriculture Program Technical Specifications for Freezing Equipment. Tbilisi, Georgia: 
USAID, 2019.
USAID, Economic Growth Policy, Washington, DC, 2020
The USAID Youth in Development Policy, Realizing the Demographic Opportunity. Washington, DC, 
October, 2012. 
The USAID Private Sector Engagement Policy, Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2019. 
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/ usaid_psepolicy_final.pdf.
The USAID Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy, Washington, DC, 2020
FAO. 2018. Gender, agriculture and rural development in Georgia – Country Gender Assessment Series. 
Rome, pp. 80.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 135
ANNEX IV: KEY INFORMANTS, 
FOCUS GROUP, AND SURVEY 
RESPONDENTS 
# DATE INTERVIEWEE
FULL NAME
GENDER POSITION
NAME,
ORGANIZATION
SECTOR # OF
RESPONDENTS
1 12.08.2021 Kristin Beyard Female Director of Economic 
Growth, Resonance
Other USAID
supported 
Programs
1
2 18.08.2021 Bronwyn Irwin Female COP, DAI- MSP 
Project
2
Daniella Maor Female Senior Private Sector 
Engagement Advisor, 
DAI- MSP Project
Other USAID
supported 
Programs
3
Anna Gorlach Female Market Systems 
Development 
Learning Advisor, 
DAI- MSP Project
Other USAID
supported 
Programs
4
3 31.08.2021 Rati Shavgulidze Male MEL Manager, CNFA Implementing 
Partner
5
4 02.09.2021 Ketevan Chogovadze Female Program 
Development 
Specialist, USAID 
Georgia
USAID 6
5 17.09.2021 Irine Salukvadze Female Organizational 
Capacity 
Development 
Manager, CNFA
Implementing 
Partner
7
6 21.09.2021 Ilia Kvitaishvili Male Grants Component 
Lead, CNFA
Implementing 
Partner
8
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 136
7 22.09.2021 David Shervashidze Male TA Component Lead, 
CNFA
Implementing 
Partner
9
8 23.09.2021 Shorena 
Dzotsenidze
Female Gender Specialist, 
CNFA
Implementing 
Partner
10
9 27.09.2021 Tatia Samkharadze Female Head of VET 
Department, Ministry 
of Education
Government 11
10 27.09.2021 Shalva Pipia Male DCOP, CNFA Implementing 
Partner
12
11 29.09.2021 David Bedoshvili Male Director, Caucascert 
LLC
Beneficiary 13
12 30.09.2021 Nino Veltauri Female Director, 
Employment Agency
Government 14
13 30.09.2021 Ani Kvaratskhelia Female Chairperson, Export 
Development 
Association
Beneficiary 15
14 30.09.2021 Shota Gongladze Male Business Segments 
Management Tribe, 
TBC Bank
Private Sector 
Partner
16
15 30.09.2021 Leri Tabatadze Male Co-owner, Almond 
and Walnut Growers 
Association
Beneficiary 17
16 01.10.2021 Nikoloz Meskhi Male Head of the Plant 
Protection 
Department, NFA
Government 18
17 01.10.2021 Eliso Gviniashvili Female Board of Director,
Georgian Berry 
Growers Association
Beneficiary 19
18 01.10.2021 Khatuna Akhalaia Female Director, Eco-Life 
Consulting Ltd
Unsuccessful 
Grant 
Applicant
20
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 137
19 01.10.2021 Malvina Jibladze Female Director, 
Cooperative Okros 
Kooperativi
Unsuccessful 
Grant 
Applicant
21
20 01.10.2021 Aleksi Metreveli Male SP Aleksi Metreveli Unsuccessful 
Grant 
Applicant
22
21 04.10.2021 Paata Tsulaia Male Director, 
Biomeurneoba Pona 
LTD
Unsuccessful 
Grant 
Applicant
23
22 04.10.2021 Magdana Kurashvili Female Director, Takveri 
LTD
Unsuccessful 
Grant 
Applicant
24
23 04.10.2021 Maya Eristavi Female Component Lead, 
USAID Economic 
Governance Program
Other USAID
supported 
Programs
25
Natalia Beruashvili Female Chief of Party, USAID 
Economic 
Governance Program
Other USAID
supported 
Programs
26
Tamar Buadze Female Component Lead, 
USAID Economic 
Governance Program
Other USAID
supported 
Programs
27
Giorgi Giorgobiani Male Component Lead, 
USAID Economic 
Governance Program
Other USAID
supported 
Programs
28
24 04.10.2021 Maia Bregadze Female SP Maia Bregadze Unsuccessful 
Grant 
Applicant
29
25 04.10.2021 Javier Sanz Alvarez Male Programme 
Coordinator, FAO
Other Donor 30
Matthieu Rouviere Male Consultant in 
Agribusiness & Value 
Chains, FAO
Other Donor 31
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 138
Jumber Maruashvili Male National Grant
Management Expert 
and Policy Advisor, 
FAO
Other Donor 32
26 05.10.2021 Valerian 
Amiranashvili
Male Director, 
Experimental Stations 
of Agricultural 
University of Georgia 
Ltd
Unsuccessful 
Grant 
Applicant
33
27 05.10.2021 Ana Barvenashvili Female Director, Agro Land 
LTD
Unsuccessful 
Grant 
Applicant
34
28 05.10.2021 Saba Sarishvili Male Deputy Chief of 
Party, IESC
Other USAID
supported 
Programs
35
29 05.10.2021 Ani Khomeriki Female Business 
Development and 
Project Manager, 
McDonald’s
Private Sector 
Partner
36
30 05.10.2021 William Baringer Male Strategy and 
Programming 
Development 
Associate, USAID 
Georgia
USAID 37
31 06.10.2021 Ani Kvaratskhelia Female Chairperson, Export 
Development 
Association
Beneficiary 38
32 06.10.2021 Konstantine 
Kobakhidze
Male Agriculture Project 
Management 
Specialist, USAID 
Georgia
USAID 39
33 07.10.2021 Eliso Gviniashvili Female Board of Director,
Georgian Berry 
Growers Association
Beneficiary 40
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 139
34 07.10.2021 Beverly Hoover Female Private Sector 
Engagement 
Coordinator, USAID 
Georgia
USAID 41
35 08.10.2021 Lela Akiashvili Female Team lead of gender 
and social inclusion, 
UNDP
Other Donor 42
36 08.10.2021 David Dzebisashvili Male Program 
Manager/Gender 
Focal Point, USAID 
Georgia
USAID 43
37 11.10.2021 Tornike Zirakishvili Male Deputy Head, 
Enterprise Georgia
Government 44
38 11.10.2021 Miranda Manjgaladze Female Chairperson, 
Georgian Retail 
Association
Private Sector 
Partner
45
39 12.10.2021 Gegi Pkhakadze Male Owner, Bioras Beneficiary 46
40 13.10.2021 Siobhan Pangerl Female Foreign Service 
Officer, USAID 
Georgia
USAID 47
41 15.10.2021 David Tsiklauri Male Senior Private Sector 
Development 
Advisor, USAID 
Georgia
USAID 48
42 15.10.2021 Marika Olson Female Economic Growth 
Office Director, 
USAID Georgia
USAID 49
43 18.10.2021 Salome 
Mekvabishvili
Female Head of the Strategic 
Development 
Department, Ministry 
of Economy and
Sustainable 
Development of 
Georgia (MoESD)
Government 50
44 18.10.2021 Tamar Jinjikhadze Female Head of the 
Certification 
Department, SRCA 
Government 51 
45 19.10.2021 Ilia Tamarashvili Male Director, Rural 
Development Agency 
Government 52 
46 20:10.2021 Zurab Merebashvili Male SP Zurab Merebashvili Beneficiary 53 
47 20:10.2021 Lado Dzneladze Male Director, Okriba LTD Beneficiary 54 
48 20.10.2021 Jimsher Diasamidze Male Head of Agricultural 
Department, MoA of 
Adjara AR 
Government 55 
49 21.10.2021 Leila Devdariani Female SP Leila Devdariani Beneficiary 56 
50 21.10.2021 Baia Salukvadze Female Director, Georgian 
Products Renaissance 
Beneficiary 57 
51 21.10.2021 Davit Pertia Male Marketing and 
Business 
Development 
Consultant, Re-Fresh 
Beneficiary 58 
52 21.10.2021 Zaira Jibladze Female Head of Cooperative, 
Agrogroup 
Beneficiary 59 
53 22.10.2021 Nikoloz Getiashvili Male SP Nikoloz Getiashvili Beneficiary 60 
54 22.10.2021 Zaza Kharchilava Male Director, Agricultural 
Cooperative Jogho 
Beneficiary 61 
55 22.10.2021 Severian 
Ghvinepadze 
Male Principal Manager, 
Advice for Small 
Businesses Georgia & 
Azerbaijan, EBRD 
Other Donor 62 
Irakli Toloraia Male Associate, EBRD Other Donor 63 
56 22.10.2021 Tea Kutateladze Female Director, Georgian 
Berry LTD 
Beneficiary 64 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 140 
57 25.10.2021 Ketevan Tomeishvili Female SP Ketevan 
Tomeishvili 
Beneficiary 65 
58 25.10.2021 Mindia Lomaia Male SP Zhuzhuna Lomaia Beneficiary 66 
59 25.10.2021 Jumber Lominadze Male Director, Shavra LTD Beneficiary 67 
60 26.10.2021 Ia Sikharulidze Female Director, EuroFarm Beneficiary 68 
61 26.10.2021 Gocha Gvinepadze Male Director, Achinebuli 
LTD 
Beneficiary 69 
62 26.10.2021 Bidzina Pkhovelishvili Male Director, Nugbari 
LTD 
Beneficiary 70 
63 27.10.2021 Iuri Kopadze Male Director, Agricultural 
Cooperative Dinastia 
Beneficiary 71 
64 27.10.2021 Ekaterine Tchkoidze Female Director, Memoberry 
LTD 
Beneficiary 72 
65 27.10.2021 Sopho Jikia Female Director, Georgian 
Dried Fruits 
Associations 
Beneficiary 73 
66 28.10.2021 Giorgi Melua Male SP Giorgi Melua Beneficiary 74 
67 28.10.2021 Guja Choniashvili Male Cooperative Member, 
Agricultural 
Cooperative Fruit 
Growers Association 
Beneficiary 75 
68 28.10.2021 Darejan 
Berdzenishvili 
Female Director/Owner, Skiji Beneficiary 76 
69 29.10.2021 Valeri Gorgisheli Male Founder, Georgian 
Nursery Association 
Beneficiary 77 
70 29.10.2021 Louisa 
Namicheishvili 
Female COP, CNFA Implementing 
Partner 
78 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 141 
71 29.10.2021 Magda Davitashvili Female Dean, Iakob 
Gogebashvili Telavi 
State University 
University 79 
72 01.11.2021 Olga Nakashidze Female SME Value Added 
Services Manager, 
Bank of Georgia 
Private Sector 
Partner 
80 
Rusudan Baratashvili Female Head of SME Value 
Added Service 
Development 
Department, Bank of 
Georgia 
Private Sector 
Partner 
81 
Thea Khoshtaria Female Project Manager, 
Bank of Georgia 
Private Sector 
Partner 
82 
Beka Gonashvili Male Livestock Sector, 
Bank of Georgia 
Private Sector 
Partner 
83 
Aleksandre 
Melkadze 
Male Head of Agro 
Business Banking, 
Bank of Georgia 
Private Sector 
Partner 
84 
73 02.11.2021 Lasha Shalamberidze Male Head of the 
Department, 
RDA/Regional 
Relationships 
Department 
Government 85 
74 04.11.2021 Katy Chumburidze Female Chief of Party, ZRDA Other USAID 
supported 
Programs 
86 
75 10.11.2021 Dominik Papenheim Male Team Leader 
Economic 
Development and 
Market 
Opportunities, Budget 
Support 
Coordination, EU to 
Georgia 
Other Donor 87 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 142 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 143
Georges Dehoux Male Programme Officer 
Agriculture, Fisheries 
and Food Safety, EU 
to Georgia
Other Donor 88
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 144
ANNEX V: STATISTICAL ANNEX
EQ 1
In general, the challenges in the agriculture sector are persistent, especially in the areas related to export 
and sales markets, access to finance and technologies. Therefore, the support of the Program in export 
capacity building interventions with firms, and export promotion interventions with the government was 
necessary.
FIGURE 19: CHALLENGES IN THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Majority of the survey and KII respondents found the support provided by the Program as useful. Some 
of the frustration among the survey respondents was related to inability of the Program to address 
challenges beyond its scope (e.g. enabling business environment, fighting pests and diseases).
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 145
FIGURE 20: USEFULNESS OF THE PROGRAM SUPPORT
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Majority of the survey respondents planned to diversify exports prior to joining the Program.
FIGURE 21: PLANS OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS TO DIVERSIFY EXPORTS BEFORE 
JOINING THE PROGRAM
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
The EU, US and Gulf countries were seen as attractive destinations by the survey respondents before the 
start of the Program.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 146
FIGURE 22: MARKETS TO WHICH THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS PLANNED TO SELL BEFORE 
JOINING THE PROGRAM
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Program interventions (grants and TA) have played an important role for diversifying exports. As a result 
of Program support, the respondents now sell to new markets and most frequently export to more than 
one. However, this has not been sufficient as Russia remains as a major export market.
Figure V-5: Sales of the Grantees and TA Recipients Before and After Joining the Program
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 147
The Georgian market also holds significant potential, as the vast majority of respondents sell domestically.
Several factors influence the decision of exporters when selecting a country for export. The survey 
respondents named several advantages of the Russian and CIS markets.
FIGURE 23: ADVANTAGES OF SELLING TO RUSSIA AND/OR CIS COUNTRIES
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
At the same time, the survey respondents face several challenges when exporting to the high-end markets.
FIGURE 24: CHALLENGES WHEN EXPORTING TO HIGH-END MARKETS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 148
During KIIs the respondents also mentioned absence of cargo flights to the EU, complicated packaging 
demands (size and materials) compared to Russia as additional factors influencing their decision about 
exports. 
Particular areas of intervention of the Program addressed the challenges and were highly rated by the 
surveyed grantees.
FIGURE 25: INTERVENTIONS OF THE PROGRAM THAT GRANTEES FOUND THE MOST 
USEFUL
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Due to persistent challenges in the sector, there are several sources of funding available to farmers. As a 
result, most respondents receive support from multiple stakeholders. This fact makes the attributability 
of impact to the Program difficult.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 149
FIGURE 26: NUMBER OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS, WHO RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM 
OTHER SOURCES
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Among stakeholders, including various development initiatives funded through the State budget or by the 
USAID and other donors and that have provided support to the Program beneficiaries, the governmental 
agencies (Rural Development Agency, Enterprise Georgia) were cited the most frequently. In addition, 
the survey respondents have also benefited from other USAID-funded Programs.
FIGURE 27: STAKEHOLDERS THAT PROVIDED SUPPORT TO GRANTEES AND TA 
RECIPIENTS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 150
Number of the survey respondents could not maintain market linkages with high-end markets. While 
restrictions related to COVID-19 were cited frequently, there were several instances when the buyers 
did not renew contracts or income from exports was low and entrepreneurs decided to discontinue it.
FIGURE 28: REASONS WHY GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS COULD / DID NOT MAINTAIN 
MARKET LINKAGES TO HIGH-END EXPORT MARKETS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
EQ 2
Majority of survey respondents receive services from different value chain actors and stakeholders.
FIGURE 29: SHARE OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS RECEIVING SERVICES FROM 
DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 151
These include a variety of stakeholders, the most popular being GoG and its institutions, while educational 
institutions were cited the least.
FIGURE 30: STAKEHOLDERS FROM WHOM GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS RECEIVE 
SERVICES
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Even though the Program supported educational institutions in implementing internship, training and 
curriculum development Programs, these were mentioned the least by the surveyed respondents.
The survey respondents received various support from the stakeholders. Similar number of respondents 
are satisfied or feel neutral towards the received support, while a relatively small number is dissatisfied.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 152
FIGURE 31: OVERALL SATISFACTION OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS WITH THE 
RECEIVED SERVICES FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Five services, with which the respondents were the least satisfied included the following:
FIGURE 32: SERVICES RECEIVED FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WITH WHICH THE SURVEY 
RESPONDENTS WERE THE LEAST SATISFIED
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
The fact that support in advocating for BEE was rated the lowest can be attributed to the fact that the 
vast majority of the interviewed grantees and TA recipients are not aware of any coordination mechanisms 
with the GoG and mostly rely on personal contacts when they require support of the governmental 
institutions.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 153
Sustainability of some Program interventions and their support to associations in particular is unclear. 
Associations that received grants from the Program introduced services required by their members, e.g. 
hired agronomists and other support staff. However, the KIIs revealed that the annual membership fees 
at the time of the evaluation were not sufficient to cover these costs, while other services were being 
developed (e.g. packaging, processing, selling) for other value VC to diversify the revenue streams.
Through the Program support the number of businesses registered in the Trade with Georgia catalog 
administered by the Enterprise Georgia has more than doubled. However, as relevant tools are not 
available yet, it is hard to quantify whether and how this fact has translated into results.
Notwithstanding the challenges, relationships between different VC actors have improved.
FIGURE 33: TRANSFORMATION OF RELATIONSHIPS OF GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS 
WITH OTHER VC ACTORS AFTER JOINING THE PROGRAM
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Relationships improved both horizontally and vertically (with input providers, suppliers and buyers) and 
horizontally (with other producers).
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 154
FIGURE 34: VALUE CHAIN ACTORS WITH WHOM GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS 
IMPROVED THEIR RELATIONS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
The support of the Program and improved capacities of both grantees and TA recipients trickles down to 
farmers / producers as both survey respondents buy products from them.
FIGURE 35: RESPONDENTS WHO BUY PRODUCTS FROM OTHER FARMERS / PRODUCERS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Grantees buy products from more farmers compared to TA recipients. 
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 155
FIGURE 36: NUMBER OF FARMERS / PRODUCERS FROM WHOM THE PROGRAM 
BENEFICIARIES BUY PRODUCTS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
This can be attributed to the fact that through the Program investment their production and / or 
processing capacities improved and they require more inputs / raw materials.
The Program provided several types of support to the TA recipients.
FIGURE 37: TOP THREE TYPES OF SUPPORT PROVIDED MOST FREQUENTLY TO THE TA 
RECIPIENTS
Source: Survey of TA recipients
Other support, including certification, was provided to a lower number of beneficiaries. However, 
certification of nurseries was seen as an important support by the KII respondents.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 156
In addition, the support provided by the Program to grantees in the area of in utilizing digital tools, 
including those that facilitate access to information, services and markets were seen as useful.
FIGURE 38: USEFULNESS OF PROGRAM’S SUPPORT IN UTILIZING DIGITAL TOOLS
Source: Survey of grantees
At the same time the state still faces lack of human resources both in terms of quality and quantity and 
some of the tasks related to the certification (e.g. confirming stability and uniformity of local selective 
varieties) cannot be performed yet. At the same time, there are no coordination mechanisms between 
the private sector and institutions of the GoG. This was confirmed during KIIs by the representatives of 
both sectors. Therefore, the unfavorable business environment was identified as one of the challenges in 
the agriculture sector.
EQ 3
The Program commissioned the analysis of selected VCs during the first year of implementation. It 
revealed a large number of common and specific challenges in each VC. The common challenges shared 
along the VCs are related to input supply, production, post-harvest handling, and trade and marketing. 
The latter include dependency on food imports, inadequate market information, retail margins and 
requirements raising consumer price and requirements for producers, insufficient local product labeling 
and instability of local currency.
Some of the VC-specific challenges are summarized in the below table:
TABLE 16: CHALLENGES IN VCS IDENTIFIED IN THE SECTOR SELECTION AND VALUE 
CHAIN ANALYSIS REPORT
VC CHALLENGES
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 157
Berries Lack of systematic approach and research on the fruit 
varieties in Georgian condition.
Limited knowledge of production technologies 
(fertigation, irrigation, plant protection) at all sizes of 
production.
Culinary herbs Lack of special varieties and high-quality products 
demanded on the EU market.
Compliance with quality, food safety and traceability 
requirements is challenging.
Lack of technical advice on crop selection, varieties, 
technologies, inputs, integrated pest management, and 
organic production.
Perishable vegetables Varieties grown in Georgia are not the top ones grown 
in Europe.
Limited professional production of seedlings (pepper 
and tomato).
Limited knowledge about the most appropriate 
technologies.
High initial investment and maintenance costs.
Stone fruits Virus diseases spreading within and out of the plantation 
by pollen or by aphids.
Lack of the qualified workers required for pruning, 
pesticide application and other activities.
Apples Limited high-quality fruits due to insufficient knowledge 
of
relevant practices and limited production experience.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 158
Lack of aggregators with modern cold storage facilities 
and
equipment for sorting and packing.
Table grapes Lack of commercial table grape production.
Lack of post-harvest treatment.
Mandarins Planting materials for the new recommended cultivars 
are produced in limited quantities.
Low productivity and fruit quality.
The existing storage facilities are insufficient
Challenges are similar across the target VC. Access to technologies was named among top challenges in 
seven VCs, while export promotion and marketing-related challenges were named in six. Underdeveloped 
infrastructure and access to finance were mentioned frequently. In the nuts sub-sector all challenges were 
identified as equally important and cited by all the respondents involved in the VC.
FIGURE 39: THE MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED CHALLENGES PER EACH VC
Source: Survey of grantees
While the Program support was seen as useful in general by the grantees, the three areas that were found 
the most useful by the grantees included lack of access to finance and technologies and underdeveloped 
infrastructure.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 159
FIGURE 40: THREE MOST USEFUL AREAS OF PROJECT INTERVENTION IDENTIFIED BY THE 
GRANTEES
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
The direct support of the Program had the positive impact on access to finance on the enterprise level, 
but it did not have a wider effect as access to capital of financial institutions remains challenging.
In-kind grants were found as the most useful by the majority of survey respondents.
FIGURE 41: USEFULNESS OF GRANTS BY THEIR TYPES
Source: Survey of grantees
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 160
The effects on exports and domestic sales have been positive. Over half of the surveyed grantees stated 
that their income increased after joining the Program.
FIGURE 42: INCOME CHANGE OF GRANTEES FROM EXPORTS
Source: Survey of grantees
Domestic sales also increased for the majority of the grantees.
FIGURE 43: INCOME CHANGE OF GRANTEES FROM DOMESTIC SALES
Source: Survey of grantees
Both grantees and TA recipients reported significant income from exports and attributed it mostly to the 
Program.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 161
FIGURE 44: VALUE OF EXPORTS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTION TO THE PROGRAM
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
The figures are in line with the Program monitoring data as by the end of FY 3 increase in sales in export 
markets was estimated at USD 6,136,765.
In addition to increased sales, both surveyed grantees and TA recipients reported increased volumes of 
exports. Similar to sales, most of it was attributed to the Program.
FIGURE 45: VOLUME OF EXPORTS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTION TO THE PROGRAM
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Another effect of the Program is an increased number of created jobs by both the grantees and TA 
recipients after joining the Program.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 162
FIGURE 46: NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED BY THE GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
EQ 4
COVID-19 had a negative effect on the majority of grantees and TA recipients.
FIGURE 47: EFFECTS OF COVID-19 ON THE GRANTEES AND TA RECIPIENTS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
This was confirmed during the KIIs. Challenges mentioned by the respondents included disruption in input 
supplies, transportation during lockdown in 2019, as well as infections among their staff that negatively 
affected their productions.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 163
Notwithstanding the challenges posed by the pandemic, the vast majority of the survey respondents 
believe that during the next several years the performance of their businesses will improve.
FIGURE 48: OUTLOOK ON THE PERFORMANCE OF BUSINESSES IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Cross-cutting issues
Female respondents of the survey constituted 26 percent as majority were men. While their number was 
higher among the TA recipients, only 17 percent of grantees were women.
At the same time, there is a significant potential of creating jobs for women. According to the KII 
respondents, they are seen as more trustworthy and responsible employees and some private sector 
actors see the value of hiring more female staff members.
Out of the surveyed women the largest number is involved in small-scale processing (mostly fruit juices) 
and / or drying of fruits. These tasks were traditionally performed by women and remain one of the major 
entry points for them.
USAID.GOV USAID/GEORGIA’S AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION | 164
FIGURE 49: INVOLVEMENT OF WOMEN IN AGRICULTURAL VCS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients
Often women are involved in growing more than one product. Berry and stone fruit growing are the two 
areas with relatively high involvement of women.
The share of surveyed youth was lower than women as they represented only 14 percent of respondents. 
On the other hand, they are more evenly distributed across the higher number of VC compared to 
women.
FIGURE 50: INVOLVEMENT OF YOUTH IN AGRICULTURAL VCS
Source: Surveys of grantees and TA recipients