March 2022 This report is made possible by the support of the American People through United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Navanti Group, LLC and Social Impact, Inc. and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA AGRIBUSINESS INVESTMENT ACTIVITY MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Nigeria Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Support Activity (MEL Support Activity) Micro-Enterprise Fundamentals (MEF) training organized for Farm on Wheels soybean farmers in Lapai LGA, Niger State in June 2021. Photo credit: Agribusiness Investment Activity. ii | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY ABSTRACT This midterm evaluation of the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity assessed the extent to which the Activity has been implemented as planned and achieved intended results. The evaluation also assessed efforts to improve the agribusiness enabling environment, increase finance and investment, and ensure sustainability. The Evaluation Team found that the Activity achieved significant results in terms of improved operational performance by farmers’ groups and associations, agribusiness firms, and financial institutions through its capacity building programs. The Activity’s efforts in policy work have been overly extensive, stretching resources and attention across efforts, resulting in lower than expected results. Though the evaluation found some cases of success in improving access to finance, overall achievements were lower than expected. For the remainder of its implementation, the ET suggests refocusing the Activity’s efforts on addressing the central constraints hindering access to credit for agribusinesses, including a focus on finance-attracting business models for targeted value chains, a more narrow approach to policy reform, development of new lending products, and de￾risking of agribusiness lending. iii | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA AGRIBUSINESS INVESTMENT ACTIVITY MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT Nigeria Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Support Activity (MEL Support Activity) Contracted under 72062021C00002 Prepared by: Aderibigbe Olomola–Team Leader Ayoade Adetoye Bukunmi Dada Mohammed Bello Submitted to: Dr Chidimma Anyanwu, Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) United States Agency for International Development/Nigeria Plot 1075 Diplomatic Drive, Central District Area Abuja, Nigeria Copied to: Ms. Jodi-Kaye Wade, COR, Feed the Future Agribusiness Investment Activity, USAID Office of Economic Growth and Environment (EGE); and Mr. Oladele Kolade, Agriculture and Environment Specialist, USAID Office of Economic Growth and Environment (EGE) Submitted by: Fiona Rowand, Acting Chief of Party, Nigeria MEL Support Activity iv | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY CONTENTS Abstract.....................................................................................................................................ii Contents................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables and Figures........................................................................................................ v Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. vi Executive Summary............................................................................................................... vii Evaluation Purpose............................................................................................................................................... vii Evaluation Questions........................................................................................................................................... vii Methodology.......................................................................................................................................................... vii Findings and Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. viii Lessons Learned and Future Directions...........................................................................................................x Introduction..............................................................................................................................1 Background..............................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Audience ..........................................................................................................................................2 Evaluation Questions.............................................................................................................................................2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................4 Overview..................................................................................................................................................................4 Evaluation Design ...................................................................................................................................................4 Data Analysis...........................................................................................................................................................6 Limitations and Challenges...................................................................................................................................6 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations .....................................................................7 Evaluation Question 1 (EQ1) ..............................................................................................................................7 Evaluation Question 1a (EQ1a) ..........................................................................................................................8 Evaluation Question 1b (EQ1b)........................................................................................................................11 Evaluation Question 1c (EQ1c) ........................................................................................................................14 Evaluation Question 2 (EQ2) ............................................................................................................................15 Evaluation Question 3 (EQ3) ............................................................................................................................19 Evaluation Question 4 (EQ4) ............................................................................................................................22 Lessons Learned and Future Directions ..............................................................................24 Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................................................................24 Future Directions.................................................................................................................................................25 Annex I: Full Listing of References and Reports Utilized...................................................27 Annex II: Full Listing of Persons Interviewed......................................................................29 Annex III: Data Collection Tools ..........................................................................................30 Annex IV: Results Framework ..............................................................................................51 Annex V: Statement of Work...............................................................................................52 Annex VI: Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest ..............................................................66 v | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Sample Size by Respondent Category ................................................................................................ viii Table 2: Intended Evaluation Uses and Users......................................................................................................2 Table 3: KII Sample Size ............................................................................................................................................5 Table 4: FGD Sample Size.........................................................................................................................................5 Table 5: Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Performance Indicators (March 2019–July 2021).12 Table 6: Relevance and Status of Nigeria Agricultural Investment Activity Policy Interventions..........15 Figure 1: Evaluation Process.....................................................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Status of the Activity’s Policy Interventions......................................................................................17 Figure 3: ET’s Prioritization of Policy Efforts in Progress...............................................................................17 Figure 4: Ways of Improving Sustainability.........................................................................................................22 vi | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY ACRONYMS AF Agribusiness Firm AFFAN B2B Association of Fish Farmers and Aquaculture of Nigeria Business-To-Business CBN Central Bank of Nigeria CNFA DCA Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture USAID’s Development Credit Authority DFC US International Development Finance Corporation EQ Evaluation Question ET Evaluation Team FCT Federal Capital Territory FGA Farmers Groups and Associations FGD Focus Group Discussion FI Financial Institutions FTF Feed the Future GON IFPRI IP Government of Nigeria International Food Policy Research Institute Implementing Partner KII Key Informant Interview MAAN Maize Association of Nigeria MAGPAMAN Maize Growers, Processors, and Marketers Association of Nigeria MDA Ministries, Departments, and Agencies MoU Memorandum of Understanding MSME Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises NIRSAL Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending SI SME Social Impact, Inc. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises SSIP TOHFAN Sector Specific Incentive Policy Tractors Owners and Hiring Facility of Nigeria USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government vii | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The $15.7 million United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Feed the Future (FTF) Agribusiness Investment Activity is a five-year (2018 - 2023) project implemented by Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) with the broad aim to strengthen the enabling environment for agribusiness finance and investment. In line with the U.S. and Nigerian governments’ commitments to growing the non-oil-based economy and increasing the depth, breadth, dynamism, and competitiveness of the Nigerian agribusiness sector, the Activity focuses on four interrelated components: 1. Improving the enabling environment for agricultural sector growth; 2. Broadening access to finance by mitigating the credit risks of agribusinesses; 3. Promoting and facilitating investment opportunities for agribusinesses to expand and scale up operations; and 4. Sustainably enhancing the performance of agribusiness micro, small and medium sized enterprises (MSMEs). The Activity is targeted at high-performing commercial actors in the rice, maize, soybean, aquaculture, and cowpea value chains with a geographic concentration on the following seven states: Benue, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Kaduna, Kebbi, and Niger. EVALUATION PURPOSE The primary purpose of this midterm performance evaluation is to determine whether the assistance provided by USAID/Nigeria through the FTF Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity is meeting the stated development objectives and provide a detailed picture of the major accomplishments and weaknesses of the Activity since its inception. The evaluation highlights key lessons and provides recommendations for adjustments during the remaining life of the Activity. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation addresses the following four evaluation questions (EQs) posed by USAID/Nigeria: 1. To what extent has the Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity been implemented as intended according to the Activity design? 2. How is the Activity working on improving the business enabling environment for agribusiness? How could these efforts be improved? 3. What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the agriculture sector? How successful have they been and how could they be improved? 4. How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? How could this be improved? METHODOLOGY The Evaluation was conducted using a mixed methods approach involving both primary and secondary data. The evaluation approach included desk review of key Activity documents, key informant interviews (KIIs), and focus group discussions (FGDs), as outlined in Table 1. viii | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY Table 1: Sample Size by Respondent Category Respondent Category # of KIIs # of FGDs USAID Staff 1 CNFA Staff 1 Financial Institutions (FIs) 2 2 Agribusiness Firms (AFs) 11 6 Federal Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) 1 State Ministries, Departments, and Agencies 11 2 Farmer Groups and Associations (FGAs) 5 4 Public Sector Organizations 3 1 Total 32 18 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EVALUATION QUESTION I: To what extent has the FTF Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity been implemented as intended according to the Activity design? The FTF Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity’s capacity building efforts have largely been implemented as planned, including interventions in all the focal states. However, some of the innovative components focused on agribusiness’ access to finance have not been implemented. The five key innovations in the design for broadening access to agribusiness finance were: (i) development of lending portfolios, (ii) establishment of risk-adjusted loan products, (iii) use of supply chain financing to triangulate risk, (iv) incorporation of formal risk-mitigation support programs and strategies and (v) use of technology to broaden access to finance. The Activity is currently following an eclectic approach to implementing interventions – relying on scattered interventions rather than a focused and innovative approach. Though adaptable, some of the interventions, such as policy analysis and drafting have lost their core focus on the anticipated results framework. In a similar vein, the activity has not demonstrated a value chain based approach to implementation, which would have taken into consideration stakeholders and their challenges at each step in the selected value chains. The current approach is unlikely to achieve the expected outcomes. EVALUATION QUESTION 1A: To what extent have the methods of delivery contributed to ensuring the Activity is on track to achieving its annual and life of project targets? The capacity building approach has led to an improvement in organizational performance of AFs and FGAs, which beneficiaries have appreciated. AFs and FGAs received training on better record keeping, financial management, and awareness about loan conditions. However, the Activity has not yet been able to extend these benefits to the longer-term goal of increasing access to finance. Particularly for those firms and associations that have not accessed loans in the past, the Activity has not been able to increase their access to loans. The institutional frameworks defining the formal partnerships in some focal states (in particular Kebbi, Kaduna, and Ebonyi) appear to be weak, leading to miscommunication, a lack of understanding of the Activity, and frustration on the part of some partners. Unless the challenges and misunderstandings can be rectified, the objectives of these partnerships are unlikely to be realized. There appears to be differing perspectives on the extent to which gender equity has been integrated into the Activity. While the IP believes that significant efforts have been made, including through a Gender and Youth Integration Framework, the ET has not been able to review the framework, and other stakeholders did not feel that gender equity considerations or the specific needs of female beneficiaries were adequately taken into account. EVALUATION QUESTION 1B: To what extent are the intended results per the Activity design being achieved? How could achievement of results be improved? ix | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY The monitoring indicators are heavily weighted towards shorter-term indicators, making it more difficult to track the extent to which the Activity is making progress towards its longer-term objectives in the results framework. The emphasis in the indicators on finance and investment makes sense in light of the central focus of these components within the overall objectives of the Activity. EVALUATION QUESTION 1C: How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment and seizing opportunities for impact? If needed, what options exist for improving adaptation within the Activity? The Activity has been responsive to the changing needs of the business environment and seizing opportunities for impact. Though AFs and FGAs have continued to experience difficulties accessing finance through the banks, the Activity has used alternative approaches (including training of MSMEs in good financial record keeping and cost-sharing to reduce the financial burden of loan applications) to ensure that beneficiaries derive some benefit from the Activity. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: How is the Activity working on improving the business enabling environment for agribusiness? How could these efforts be improved? To improve the agribusiness enabling environment, the Activity has focused its efforts on policy work, both reviews of existing policies as well as the creation of new policies. For this reason, EQ2 and its sub-questions are addressed together. In its policy work, the Activity engaged in a wide variety of policy efforts (28 in total). Given the difficult and time-consuming work required for policy action, 28 different policies is a large number. From the ET’s perspective, this is too many policy efforts, requiring the Activity to split its attentions across myriad efforts. Additionally, given the limited amount of time remaining in the Activity lifespan, and the reality that many efforts are still in their early stages, it will be difficult for the Activity to achieve significant progress on many of the remaining policy efforts. The ET found that the links between some of the policy efforts and the overall objectives of increasing agribusiness finance and investment were tenuous. Many of the policy efforts will not likely have a significant impact on agribusiness investment or finance, which is a primary constraint for AFs. In addition to the above concerns, in most states (five out of seven), the Activity has not sufficiently engaged with AFs, FGAs, or FIs in their policy work, despite these groups being a key stakeholder group. Instead, they have focused engagement more heavily on government stakeholders (such as MDAs). EVALUATION QUESTION 3: What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the agriculture sector? How successful have they been and how could they be improved? The primary challenge facing AFs and FGAs remains access to finance for investment. The Activity achieved some successes in this regard; however, these successes were limited and far fewer than expected. Many respondents complained about the ongoing challenges and their continuing inability to access loans or credit. The Activity did not adopt many of the innovative supply-side interventions anticipated in the original Activity design. In particular, the Activity has done little to effectively de-risk lending to agribusinesses for FIs. This remains a major gap in Activity implementation. Respondents shared many good ideas for improving the Activity’s impact on accessing credit, including development of new financing products, credit-risk guarantees, subsidy and cost sharing options, development of business models for each value chain, and seasonal funding programs. In addition to their ideas on how to better support AFs and FGAs and de-risk lending to agribusinesses, respondents also called for stronger engagement between the Activity and its partners. This engagement and communication would better enable the Activity to ensure it is addressing the right needs in the right ways. EVALUATION QUESTION 4: How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? How could this be improved? x | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY The Activity has yet to outline an exit plan or strategy, which likely hampers prospects for sustainability. Based on respondent feedback, the Activity’s achievements in increasing capacity are likely to continue after the end of the Activity. However, AF’s and FGA’s challenges in accessing credit are likely to continue as well. Organizations that have previously accessed credit will likely continue to have access; however, those that have not been successful in the past are likely to be discouraged and will continue to have difficulties accessing credit in the future. The likelihood for sustainability will improve if the Activity articulates an appropriate exit strategy. Improvement can also be achieved if the Activity ensures (i) an inclusive approach to the design and implementation of interventions, (ii) increased awareness about grants and other cost sharing opportunities, (iii) more effective communication with stakeholders to prevent loss of institutional memory and (iv) digitalization of loan transactions and access to market in the target value chains. LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The findings and conclusions from the four EQs contribute to an overall picture of the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. The following sections discuss broad lessons learned from the Activity as well as high-level recommendations regarding future directions for the Activity. LESSONS LEARNED DESIGNING IMPLEMENTATION INTERVENTIONS The scope of technical assistance needs additional clarity and innovation. The original Activity design anticipated several innovative approaches for addressing difficulties in accessing finance for agribusinesses, as listed under EQ1 above. The lack of implementation of these innovative approaches remains a significant gap in Activity implementation. Despite a few success cases, long-term success in increasing access to finance has not been achieved. The heavy Activity focus on policy reform and capacity building have not been sufficient to meaningfully impact AF and FGA access to loans or credit. Improvements are possible by refocusing the Activity on the anticipated results framework and activities that are most likely to have a direct impact on access to finance for AFs and FGAs. USAID should ensure that new approaches focus on innovative approaches to mitigate lending risks. Effective business models to boost access to finance by MSMEs are needed. Capacity building and B2B approaches are the cornerstone of the current Activity. These approaches are not inherently bad, but they are not innovative. These traditional approaches rely on traditional business models such as vertical integration, horizontal integration, contract farming, out-growers’ schemes, etc. which have been practiced at different times in different places in Nigeria over the years. There is no reason to believe that the Activity’s use of these traditional business models will be any more effective at increasing access to finance than similar, past efforts. Moving away from traditional business models to those that are technology-driven, finance-attracting, and inclusive of key actors in each of the target value chains (specific details of which are provided under EQ3 recommendations and future directions) holds more promise for achieving results. Allocation of resources needs to align with expected outcomes. As noted in the findings and conclusions, a disproportionate amount of attention and resources are being spent on efforts that are not directly linked to increasing access to finance. This, despite access to finance being a central pillar and objective for the activity. Activity time, attention, and resources, should be balanced proportionately across the expected outcomes, as outlined in the results framework. Activity interventions should be focused on filling the most critical gaps for achieving anticipated results, in particular increasing access to finance. Before engaging in a particular intervention, the Activity should have a clear expectation for how the intervention will result in expected changes in the results framework. xi | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY KEEPING THE ACTIVITY ON TRACK TO ACHIEVING TARGETS Policy review and analysis should not replace innovative business models for agribusiness transformation. The Activity spent substantial time on policy activities, some of which were only tangentially linked to the Activity objectives. In particular, some of the value chain policies (such as the soybean and aquaculture value chain policies) were pursued without first articulating suitable business models that could be piloted or scaled up with support from the policies. Without new business models that could benefit from the policy, it is not clear how the policy would ultimately lead to improved outcomes. SUCCESS AND SUSTAINABILITY Awareness creation and relationship building will sustain interest in the Activity’s interventions. The findings and conclusions discuss several examples of poor relationships between the Activity staff and key stakeholders. In some cases, key stakeholders, particularly within the government, were not even aware of the Activity or its work. Additionally, the lack of inclusive design in the Activity’s policy work inhibited outcomes. As outlined in EQ4, stakeholder engagement is key to ensuring long-term sustainability of Activity outcomes. A more inclusive approach and more effective communication with key stakeholders holds significant potential for improving Activity implementation and sustainability. FUTURE DIRECTIONS Building on the EQ-specific recommendations and broad lessons learned discussed above, the ET has the following broad recommendations for the future of the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. 1. Articulate innovative business models for each of the five value chains in the Activity. Going forward, USAID should ensure that the Activity elaborate on innovative business models that include technology-driven value chain financing models that bring MSMEs, lead firms, and FIs together to address well-known but least-addressed bottlenecks (including improper identification of potential borrowers, poor means of ascertaining creditworthiness of potential borrowers, credit risks, weak collateral system) in the lending system. In each of the focal states, the Activity should apply these technology driven value chain financing models to each of the targeted value chains. These will apply to digital loan transactions including identification of potential beneficiaries, loan monitoring, repayment and access to input and output markets. 2. Refocus the intervention approach. The Activity should refocus the intervention away from eclectic interventions to interventions driven by appropriate business models for AFs, MSMEs, and FGAs. Revised interventions should be designed based on an inclusive design approach that integrates the perspectives of key stakeholders, including farmers, service providers, processors, traders, FIs, etc. 3. Reduce the scope of policy work. As outlined in EQ2, the Activity is overly involved in policy work, some of which is only tangentially related to the long-term objectives of the Activity. To ensure a more focused used of time and resources, the Activity should narrow its focus on the policy efforts that are most likely to have a direct impact on agribusiness finance and investment. Policies without a direct link to the results framework should be dropped. 4. Map the Activity’s key stakeholders in each of the five targeted value chains. To enable a more inclusive approach to activity design and implementation, the Activity should conduct an exhaustive mapping of key stakeholders and beneficiaries, including government actors, FIs, FGAs, AFs, and other key actors. A better understanding of who the stakeholders are will enable better design to more directly affect the key barriers to accessing finance for agribusinesses. 5. Develop innovative agribusiness loan products. CNFA originally planned to develop innovative lending products tailored to meet the needs of agribusinesses while de-risking lending for the FIs. The Activity should return to this plan and collaboratively develop new lending products in collaboration with both FIs and FGAs/AFs. Activity support could come in the form of technical xii | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY assistance to FIs to design innovative ways of using value chain linkages and transactions to mitigate risks and facilitate investment across the focal states. 6. Activate innovative risk-reduction mechanisms to promote agribusiness finance and investment. De-risking lending remains a critical barrier to expanding agribusiness finance. Without addressing this critical barrier, little progress can be achieved. Thus, the Activity should emphasize efforts to reduce and mitigate lending risks through future interventions. To this end, the Activity should provide technical assistance to FIs to develop appropriate financing models relating to each of the target value chains including: (i) value chain financing and de-risking models that will bring together FIs, AFs, and MSMEs that operate at different stages of the value chains and (ii) risk-adjusted agribusiness loan products as indicated in the design of the Activity. 7. Ensure that achievements move beyond output indicators. As the Activity enters into its final years, the Activity should focus its attentions not just on meeting immediate, output-level performance indicators, but expand their focus to longer-term outcome indicators as well. The Activity should use its results framework as a guide for focusing future interventions. 1 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY INTRODUCTION The five-year $15.7 million United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Feed the Future (FTF) Agribusiness Investment Activity is being implemented by Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) as the prime implementing partner. It aims broadly at strengthening the enabling environment for agribusiness finance and investment. Since its inception, the Activity has forged partnerships with key stakeholders to link thousands of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) and producer organizations with high-performing commercial actors in the rice, maize, soybean, aquaculture and cowpea value chains. It is being implemented in the following seven states: Benue, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Kaduna, Kebbi, and Niger. The linkage is expected to result in improved production and processing practices, and significantly increase finance and investment flows which will ultimately lead to improved food and nutrition security in Nigeria. The Activity started in December 2018 and is expected to end by December 2023. BACKGROUND To achieve its goals, the Activity focuses on four interrelated components: i. Improving the enabling environment for agricultural sector growth; ii. Broadening access to finance by mitigating the credit risks of agribusinesses; iii. Promoting and facilitating investment opportunities for agribusinesses to expand and scale up operations; and iv. Sustainably enhancing the performance of agribusiness (MSMEs). The overall results framework for the FTF Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity is outlined in Annex IV. It shows the pathways by which the project is expected to achieve its goal of promoting more inclusive private-sector-led agricultural growth (FTF’s First Level Objective) and poverty reduction (the goal of the Country Development Cooperation Strategy). The FTF Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity is pursuing its goals via the following activities: 1) Agribusiness Enabling Environment a. Engagement of public and private sector stakeholders on priority policy reforms b. Training for key policy champions and coalitions for change on advocacy and lobbying c. Training for relevant Government of Nigeria (GON) Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) on enhanced stakeholder engagement methodology 2) Access to Finance a. Training to build Financial Institutions (FI) capacity on value chain financing. b. Technical assistance to financial institutions on specific agribusiness finance opportunities, products, or processes to help expand their funding to agribusinesses c. Lead firm-driven financial transactions identified, supported, and consummated d. Onboard one new agribusiness-friendly financier 3) Investment Facilitation a. Equity investment focused training to investment firms b. Agribusiness-investment deal-making events between the Activity’s agribusiness partners and existing or potential investors c. Agribusinesses evaluated, supported, and made 4) Agribusiness Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprise (MSME) Performance a. A training plan developed to build the capacities of MSMEs. b. New MSMEs and farmer groups were identified, assessed towards meeting various capacity and finance needs. c. Business accelerator program focused on access to finance for youth and women d. New Lead Firms identified, assessed, and provided with technical support to grow and manage input lending to out-growers 2 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY e. Small and Medium Sized- Enterprises (SMEs) and farmer groups assessed to determine organizational performance gaps PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE The primary purpose of this midterm performance evaluation is to determine whether the assistance provided by USAID/Nigeria through the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity is meeting the stated development objectives and to understand the lessons learned from this Activity in Nigeria. The intention is to provide an independent examination of the overall progress and accomplishments of the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. The evaluation provides a detailed picture of the major accomplishments and weaknesses of the Activity and how its successes can be sustained. The evaluation elucidates lessons learned in activity design and management and include specific recommendations to USAID/Nigeria about how the Activity interventions can be sustained and scaled up to enhance the intended uses and the benefits for the various users identified in Table . Table 2: Intended Evaluation Uses and Users # Intended Use Target Audience USAID/ Nigeria FTF Feedback/ Other US Government (USG) Implementing Partners GON/Other Dev. Partners Research/ Investment Communities 1 Inform Policy ✔ ✔ ✔ 2 Inform Project design ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 3 Improve project monitoring ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 4 Improve operational policy and planning ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 5 Improve resource management ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 6 Enhance professional growth ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 7 Add scientific Knowledge ✔ EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation addresses the following critical questions posed by USAID/Nigeria. 1. To what extent has the Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity been implemented as intended according to the Activity design? a. To what extent have the methods of delivery contributed to ensuring the Activity is on track to achieving its annual and life of project targets? b. To what extent are the intended results per the Activity design being achieved? How could the achievement of results be improved? c. How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment and seizing opportunities for impact? If needed, what options exist for improving adaptation within the Activity? 2. How is the Activity working on improving the business enabling environment for agribusiness? How could these efforts be improved? 3 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY a. What is the status of policy reforms pursued by the Activity? How are these policy reform efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? b. What other efforts to improve the business enabling environment for agribusiness are underway and what is their status? How are these efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? 3. What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the agriculture sector? How successful have they been and how could they be improved? 4. How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? How could this be improved? 4 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW The Evaluation Team (ET) utilized a mixed-methods approach that included both quantitative and qualitative research methods. It also combined primary and secondary data to undertake a thorough and effective midterm performance evaluation. Primary data collection took place from November 29–December 14, 2021. EVALUATION DESIGN The evaluation was carried out in three stages (Figure 1): Figure 1: Evaluation Process DOCUMENT REVIEW The ET conducted a desk review of available documents (See Annex 1) which furnished the team with detailed information on the Activity objectives/targets, the implementation scope, as well as the project expected outcomes. The team members commenced the review process simultaneously from October 19–23, 2021 and the team was able to review the midterm evaluation document, alongside the technical proposal submitted by CNFA. The two documents offered background information on the project aims and what USAID seeks to understand during the midterm evaluation. To assess the progress made by the project, the team had a detailed review of the yearly approved work plan from Year 1–3 alongside the quarterly reports and the annual report of each year respectively. Other documents reviewed that guided the team on the design and process of the midterm evaluation include the monitoring and evaluation plan for Year 1–3 and the list of stakeholders. Summarily, the desk review provided the team with some detailed information on the project objectives, the implementation scope, the achievements as well as the gaps. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS The ET collected data from the Activity partners and beneficiaries from across the seven focal states as well as Abuja and Lagos. The team conducted key informant interviews (KIIs) with the following key respondent groups: 1. USAID/Nigeria Staff 2. Implementing Partner (CNFA) Staff 3. Financial Institutions 4. Agribusiness Firms (AFs) 1 Desk Review and Workplan Reviewed Activity documents and developed data collection protocols 2 KIIs/FGDS Conducted interviews with the key stakeholders via in￾person interviews and over virtual platforms. 3 Data Analysis Analysis and Report Writing 5 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 5. Federal Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) 6. State Ministries, Departments, and Agencies 7. Farmer Groups & Associations (FGAs) 8. Public Sector Organizations The ET collected data from each of the stakeholder groups using protocols/tools designed for each stakeholders group, which allows for all questions to be customized to fit the knowledge and perspectives of each stakeholder group. The final tools and protocols are provided in Annex III. Table 2 summarizes the number of KIIs conducted across the different stakeholder groups. Table 3: KII Sample Size Stakeholder Group KIIs Financial Institutions 2 Agribusiness Firms 11 State MDAs 11 Farmer Groups and Associations 5 Public Sector Organizations 3 Total 32 FOCUS GROUP DISCSSIONS For stakeholder groups with a large number of representatives, like FGAs, FIs and AFs, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted to ensure a good representation of the group opinion and views. Similarly, the ET held FGD sessions with CNFA and USAID Nigeria staff. The ET collected qualitative data using appropriate interview guides based on each category of respondents (Annex III). Table 3 outlines the number of FGDs conducted as a part of this evaluation. Table 4: FGD Sample Size Stakeholder Group FGDs USAID Staff 1 CNFA Staff 1 Financial Institutions 2 Agribusiness Firms 6 Federal MDAs 1 State MDAs 2 Farmer Groups and Associations 4 Public Sector Organizations 1 Total 18 6 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION DATA ANALYSIS The ET used a mixed-methods approach for the evaluation. The ET summarized interview and group discussion notes in line with the research questions (which served as the framework for the analysis). The ET coded and analyzed data generated from the KIIs in stages using Dedoose, a qualitative statistical software. - First, the interview guide questions were mapped to evaluation questions with the intent of aggregating and synthesizing results to answer the research questions. - Second, the ET generated and coded themes from the responses to the interview questions. - Third, the ET synthesized and matched the codes to the themes, with aggregation of similar themes thereafter. - Finally, networks that capture the themes, evaluation questions and key components of the analysis were synthesized for visual representation of the results. The quantitative analysis involved descriptive analysis of some of the project indicators to assess implementation performance and the extent to which project objectives have been achieved. Some of the data obtained were subjected to descriptive analysis using suitable descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, percentages, variance, etc.) focusing on performance indicators as variables. LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES The ET encountered several challenges during fieldwork: Challenges Identifying Respondents. In some cases, the ET faced challenges in identifying and contacting respondents. For example, for some respondents, the ET was provided with incorrect phone numbers or email addresses. In other cases, the ET was told to speak with respondents who were very high-level (such as Chief Executive Officers, Commissioners, etc.). But these respondents were often very difficult to access and obtain a response from. To mitigate these challenges, the ET worked collaboratively to locate missing or incorrect contact information and to identify accessible respondents for the KIIs and FGDs. Informants with Limited or Non-existent Activity Knowledge. In several cases, respondents recommended to the ET for KIIs or FGDs did not have substantial knowledge of the activity. In some cases, they were completely uninvolved in the activity. In other cases, some respondents would confuse the activities of the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity with those of other FTF activities. Where possible, the ET collected what information it could, triangulated findings across data sources, and used its prior knowledge of FTF activities to sort through the information received. 7 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION QUESTION 1 (EQ1) To what extent has the Activity been implemented as intended according to the Activity design? EQ1 FINDINGS Based on interviews conducted, the Activity’s capacity building efforts are largely occurring as planned. However, the Activity documents placed significant emphasis on mitigating lending risks as a means of promoting access to agribusiness finance and innovation. The design documents focused on developing specific lending products that would meet the needs of lead firms within the targeted value chains. According to Activity documents, the Activity intended to use adaptive learning and iterative improvements to create customized training modules and capacity building tools to help a broad cross section of FIs, agribusinesses, and MSMEs increase lending in the agribusiness sector. The five key innovations in the design for broadening access to agribusiness finance were: (i) development of lending portfolios, (ii) establishment of risk-adjusted loan products, (iii) use of supply chain financing to triangulate risk, (iv) incorporation of formal risk-mitigation support programs and strategies, (v) use of technology to broaden access to finance. Based on interviews with key stakeholders, however, these innovations are often missing. Implementing Partner (IP) respondents, for example, indicated they felt it was necessary to work within existing structures and approaches rather than bring in new ideas. In addition, respondents highlighted concerns with the way the Activity has been implemented and its achievements to date. As one agribusiness respondent in the North noted, “I only … get messages from the activity staff on potential financial opportunities rather than direct support. Although I appreciate the information, but it has not led to any form of financial support.” Thus, there appears to have been considerable deviations between what the Activity designed and what was implemented. The ET noted after reviewing the Activity documents and speaking with interview respondents that implementation took a more eclectic approach than expected. There was a different approach in each state and with each partner and group of beneficiaries. While an eclectic approach could lend itself to an adaptable form of implementation that could address the specific context and needs in each location, it also can lead to inconsistency. Interviewees noted these inconsistencies in approach and how the individual interventions are connected with the intended theory of change as a notable challenge in Activity implementation. For example, the Activity has promoted a number of business to business transactions (which generally do not include FI participation). Though helpful to those two businesses, it is not a cohesive approach to the value chain and results in inconsistent interventions across the value chain that are not always clearly linked to the intended results framework. According to CNFA’s Technical Proposal, the ET expected to find a value chain approach to implementation; one that focuses on improving all the links in the value chain. However, an eclectic approach such as the one implemented in this Activity does not lend itself well to this kind of focused and systematic approach to value chains. More broadly, the ET noted that this eclectic approach led to some activities (see additional details under EQ2) that are not squarely focused on the expected results framework (see Annex IV). This can make it difficult for the Activity to remain focused on a clear pathway to expected outcomes. EQ1 CONCLUSIONS The FTF Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity’s capacity building efforts have largely been implemented as planned, including interventions in all the focal states. However, some of the innovative components focused on agribusiness’ access to finance have not been implemented. The Activity is currently following an eclectic approach to implementing interventions. Though adaptable, some of the interventions have lost their core focus on the anticipated results framework. 8 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY In a similar vein, the Activity has not demonstrated a value chain based approach to implementation. The current approach is unlikely to achieve expected outcomes. EQ1 RECOMMENDATIONS The ET did not have any EQ1-specific recommendations. EVALUATION QUESTION 1A (EQ1A) To what extent have the methods of delivery contributed to ensuring the Activity is on track to achieving its annual and life of project targets? EQ1A FINDINGS The FTF Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity comprises four main components: 1. Improve the Agribusiness Enabling Environment 2. Broaden Access to Agribusiness Finance 3. Promote and Facilitate Agribusiness Investment 4. Enhance Agribusiness MSME Performance The Activity pursues these components through several different types of interventions, including capacity building, networking and collaboration among AFs, reviewing business strategies, and forming cooperatives. In addition, it creates linkages between AFs with FIs, between MSMEs and raw materials and service providers, and FGAs and input firms employing B2B approaches. The following paragraphs describe the successes and challenges of different Activity interventions. Interventions Focused on Firms and Associations The capacity building approach adopted by the Activity appears to work well in improving the operational performance of AFs and FGAs. According to respondents, the Activity has supported notable improvements in organizational performance. The improvements include better bookkeeping, ease of access to raw materials, improved yields, increased production, and higher sales. For example, an agribusiness firm in Kaduna reported that the Activity enabled them to establish standard practices in their financial management. Other respondents called attention to the GAP training for smallholder farmers, saying that it has enabled farmers to improve their productivity. These positive results were widespread across the focal states. The AFs reported that the Activity’s work to ensure that firms adhere to standard organizational practices is commendable. The longer-term objective of the Activity’s capacity building efforts is to facilitate access to finance. The Activity has been successful in some instances. According to one FGA in Delta State, the Activity assisted them with a strategic plan required for their loan application with Sterling Bank. In 2020, the Activity assisted the association in setting up a 30-day credit facility with a feed distributor. The first credit facility of 5 million Naira was approved and disbursed in two phases. Despite some cases of success in accessing finance, many firms and associations report that they have not yet been able to access loans. As one association member indicated, “The Activity has been effective in contributing to improvement of FGAs through capacity building, especially on restructuring of our association. This has enabled us to be aware of our individual roles when seeking loans.” However, they went on to describe some of the challenges they still face in accessing financing, “The Activity did not tackle the main challenges of the association such as; high feed price, lack of access to funding, and lack of water… The facilitation claimed by the Activity is not effective judging by the lack of improvement in major challenges facing our association. The loan application with Sterling Bank which was being facilitated by the activity also failed following ineligibility of some of our association members.” Based on interviews with AFs, none of the new firms without prior loan application experience had been able to secure a loan. Respondents indicated that the Activity had not yet taken the next steps 9 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY to effectively move from capacity building to helping them access loans. According to one of the FGAs in Niger State, “CNFA trained about 450 of our farmers on our Anchor Borrowers Scheme and most of the farmers did step down training afterwards. …Currently, CNFA has not initiated any financial linkages on access to loan. However, some of the members of the group have secured loan from Anchor Borrowers Program with no support from CNFA.” During the interviews, the ET asked the respondents to rate the Activity’s effectiveness in facilitating loans. Respondents gave an average rating of 30 percent. One respondent believed that, “better results would have been achieved if the Activity has provided us with effective linkage with FIs and investors to obtain needed loans for our business.” Interviews also revealed that beneficiaries had an unmet expectation that capacity building efforts would be combined with linkages to FIs. According to one FGA in Niger state, “The activity has not provided any significant support to FGAs since the last 2 years after the training was conducted and yet the group has kept on relating several challenges to the Activity staff in this regard, but there is no positive response.” Interventions Focused on Financial Institutions In addition to working with AFs and FGAs, the Activity also provided supply side capacity building with FIs. The Activity provided training programs that helped FIs to understand the nature of agribusiness financing. Some respondents felt this was asignificant achievement. One FI respondent indicated that, “What we set out to achieve was very clear in terms of training for our staff and customers, and over the years we can boldly say the activity has been extremely efficient with regard to this. We've had a lot of trainings over the years for both the customers and staff. This training is specifically on best practices. Also, because of COVID-19, we moved from physical to virtual but with this, we have not been able to achieve a lot. The Activity has introduced us to customers. But this can be better; not in terms of the quantity but the quality.” FIs highlighted several key achievements through the Activity: (i) deal exchanges, (ii) deal rooms, and (iii) capacity building. Despite the positive impacts, however, respondents noted that some of the anticipated interventions have not come to fruition. For instance, the Activity was supposed to help FIs develop innovative lending products (see EQ1). However, according to respondents, this is not happening. One FI respondent said, “The activity has been able to improve [capacity] to a significant stage but product development, grant and credit guarantee has been extremely laid back.” Another FI respondent indicated that, “We do not have a product that is directly in line with the Activity but we are currently working with the Activity to develop one with regard to the cluster farmers and this should be ready by early next year [2022]. There has been no financial product developed on account of the Activity’s engagement.” Another FI respondent explained that although the Activity has not helped them create any new financing products, they’re working on some themselves. The respondent said, “We have not developed any agribusiness finance products for MSMEs since our engagement with the Activity; but we have our own innovation which is the Agri-fintech program in maize, sorghum and soybean. However, the Activity introduced us to DFC (US International Development Finance Corporation) program where we can access fund for innovation. This innovation covers both commercial business and smallholder farmers. We can have access to 10 million dollars, and we have started the process as an organization. This DFC rate is far better than the rate of interest we will charge without DFC. The introduction of DFC will lead to a drop in the interest rate. The arrangement has a guarantee-based part and a grant part. It might be difficult to say much about the timeline of the DFC but, in-house, we projected 2022.” This example demonstrates another beneficial intervention introduced through the Activity: linking FIs with the DFC to expand financing opportunities. Respondents appreciated these efforts to build linkages and felt that these links held significant promise for generating impact. Partnerships In interviews with key government stakeholders in several states, some respondents were entirely unaware of the Activity or the work it is doing in their state. In other cases, they were aware, but only generally, and were unable to speak about the Activity in any detail. These key stakeholders were not strongly integrated into the Activity’s work. 10 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY In some cases, the Activity has entered in formal partnerships as a means of engagement with partner entities. In these cases, the Activity signed Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) to document the partnerships. These formal partnerships began with an FGA partnership in Abuja in 2019 and have since expanded into Ebonyi, Niger, and Benue states. The MoUs allow mutual and continuous engagement of both parties. The Activity provided training on good agricultural practices and financial literacy. In Benue State, the Activity facilitated linkages with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) on the Anchor Borrowers’ program. Despite the formal partnerships and MoUs, none of the FGAs interviewed have received any financial support or supply of agricultural inputs, which they had expected. According to one FGA respondent, “Lack of access to loan is our problem. That is what we want from you people. Our farmers don’t have access to finance, and this is really a big challenge to our farmers." Respondents reported misunderstandings and a misalignment between the FGA’s needs and what the Activity offered, which hindered their ability to benefit from the Activity. According to one FGA respondent, “CNFA has misconception of our structure, which led to total refusal of our members in engaging with the Activity. Later, we informed CNFA about the Anchor’s borrowers’ loan, which we have applied for. And we also gave the loan document to CNFA for them to facilitate the process for us. But, unfortunately, since then, we have not heard anything from them.” Gender Considerations The CNFA Technical Proposal included numerous mentions of the importance of gender considerations and making sure that the Activity focus on gender equality. However, in talking with Activity stakeholders, this focus appeared to be missing in most cases. To this end, one FGA respondent reported that, though the Activity did not emphasize gender considerations, they themselves had done so. They said, “The Activity has not made any substantive effort in creating opportunities. But we have about 10 thousand registered members of which about 6 thousand are males and 4 thousand are females. The youths comprised about 50 percent of the members and the adults both male and female constitute about 30 percent, while females constitute about 20 percent of the whole members.” Beyond this particular example, the ET did not find significant efforts being made to ensure gender equity through the Activity. This finding is also supported by the Activity’s monitoring data (Table 4). Though the share of female participants beat early implementation targets in 2019 and 2020, this performance has fallen off in 2021 where female participants comprised only 18 percent compared with the 30 percent target (see Table 5). On the other hand, the IP noted that they developed a Gender and Youth Integration Framework in 2019. The ET was not provided a copy of this plan, however, and therefore cannot access its contents or the extent to which it has been followed. The IP reports having targeted several AFs and FGAs specifically for their higher proportions of women and/or youth and conducting trainings with stakeholders regarding the specific needs of these groups.1 EQ1A CONCLUSIONS The capacity building approach has led to an improvement in organizational performance of AFs and FGAs, which beneficiaries have appreciated. AFs and FGAs received training on better record keeping, financial management, and awareness about loan conditions. However, the Activity has not yet been able to extend these benefits to the longer-term goal of increasing access to finance. Particularly for those firms and associations that have not accessed loans in the past, the Activity has not been able to increase their access to loans. The institutional frameworks defining the formal partnerships in some focal states appears to be weak, leading to frustration on the part of some partners. Unless the challenges and misunderstandings can be rectified, the objectives of these partnerships are unlikely to be realized. 1 The ET was notified of the Gender and Youth Integration Plan and of the IP’s gender- and youth-focused efforts in April 2022, after the draft evaluation report was complete. 11 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY There appears to be differing perspectives on the extent to which gender equity has been integrated into the Activity. While the IP believes that significant efforts have been made, including through a Gender and Youth Integration Framework, the ET has not been able to review the framework, and other stakeholders did not feel that gender equity considerations or the specific needs of female beneficiaries were adequately taken into account. EQ1A RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Activity should refocus their attention on the Activity objectives. Capacity building alone is not sufficient to drive access to finance and investment in agribusiness. 2. The Activity should ensure partnerships are properly established with clear expectations and proper documentation. This will enable more effective partnerships. 3. The Activity should review and strengthen the communication strategy with the MDAs so that they can be better informed about partnership mandates, prevent loss of institutional memory, and engage more effectively with the Activity through their MoUs. EVALUATION QUESTION 1B (EQ1B) To what extent have the intended results per the Activity been achieved? How could achievement of results be improved? EQ1B FINDINGS The ET’s assessment of the extent to which the Activity’s results have been achieved begins with a review of the Activity’s monitoring indicators. Table 5 summarizes the Activity’s key indicators and the Activity’s reported progress towards each. Detailed findings regarding progress towards improving the agribusiness enabling environment and access to finance will be discussed in more detail under EQs 2 and 3. Overall, the ET found that the majority of the twelve performance indicators focused on short-term results (the sub-purposes) rather than the longer-term Purpose (Table 5). Another finding the indicator review shows is that the majority of indicators (seven out of twelve) focus on agribusiness finance and investment. This focus reflects the broader emphasis of the Activity on these themes. The importance of these indicators makes the EQ1 findings regarding the remaining challenges AFs and FGAs face in accessing finance all the more important. Unless more can be done to help AFs and FGAs access finance, the Activity will struggle to meet its finance and investment goals. Details regarding how the Activity can better achieve outcomes related to the agribusiness enabling environment and access to finance are discussed in EQs 2 and 3, respectively. 12 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY Table 5: Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Performance Indicators (March 2019–July 2021) 2 Indicator number Year 2019 Year 2020 Year 2021 Indicator Statement/Description Baseline Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Purpose: Strengthen the Enabling Environment for Agricultural Finance and Investment NAII-1 Percentage change in value of aggregate lending and investment to agricultural sector actors as a result of USG assistance 11% 0 N/A 5% N/A 5% TBD NAII-2 Number of agricultural enabling environment policies approved or implemented with USG assistance 0 0 N/A 2 0 5 5 Sub-Purpose 1: Improve Agribusiness Enabling Environment NA1.1-2 Number of consultative processes on agricultural enabling environment policies as a result of USG assistance 0 8 3 13 15* 8 14* NAI.1-2 Number of agricultural enabling environment policies drafted, analyzed or revised 0 2 0 8 4** 12 2** Sub-Purpose 2: Broaden Access to Agribusiness Finance Sub-Purpose 3: Facilitate Investment EG.3.2-27 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance (in millions of US dollars) 0 10 10.4 54.6 47.4* 82.1 48.4** DO1-19 Number of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), including farmers, receiving agricultural-related credit and investment as a result of USG assistance 0 350 294 656 5708* 2500 5673* EG.4.2-1 Number of clients benefiting from financial services provided through USG assisted financial intermediaries, including nonfinancial institutions or actors 0 0 0 590 5718* 2490 5669* Sub-Purpose 4: Enhance Agribusiness MSMEs Performance EG.3-29 Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs 0 0 572 850 7397 3500 3703 CBLD-9 Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance 0 0 N/A 70% 0** 90% TBD EG.5-3 Number of microenterprises supported by USG assistance 0 0 0 600 5804* 3000 2602 Cross-Cutting GNDR-2 Percentage of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources (assets, credit, income or employment) 0 20% 46%* 25% 30%* 30% 18%* YOUTH-3 Percentage of participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase access to productive economic resources who are youth (15-29) 0 10% 9% 16% 9%* 27% 16%* 2 Note: This table includes amendments over the course of implementation. * Indicates targets exceeded. **Indicates target not met. 14 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY EQ1B CONCLUSIONS The monitoring indicators are heavily weighted towards shorter-term indicators, making it more difficult to track the extent to which the Activity is making progress towards its longer-term objectives in the results framework. The emphasis in the indicators on finance and investment makes sense in light of the central focus of these components within the overall objectives of the Activity. EQ1B RECOMMENDATIONS 1. USAID should ensure that monitoring indicators sufficiently capture both short- and long￾term achievements so that progress across the results framework can be adequately captured and tracked. Custom indicators could be used to achieve this coverage. EVALUATION QUESTION 1C (EQ1C) How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment and seizing opportunities for impact? If needed what options exist for improving adaptation within the Activity? EQ1C FINDINGS In general, respondents felt that the Activity has been able to respond to the needs of FGAs, FIs, and AFs through the training conducted. The effectiveness of the response, however, varies from one location to another. In Abuja, respondents reported emerging needs like digital marketing, registration, record keeping, etc. The Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency, with support from the Activity, is currently working on addressing these needs. In Niger, however, FGA members have had more difficulty getting an adequate response from the Activity to meet their needs. There, FGA members reported needing affordable farming tools to improve the productivity of their farmers. Though they reported their challenges to the Activity, they said they have yet to receive a response. Another notable adaptation mentioned by respondents was the Activity’s efforts to employ a B2B approach to link AFs to sources of raw materials. In cases where AFs were not directly benefiting from improved access to finance, improved access to raw materials was an alternative benefit. According to one AF respondent, “Before now it was difficult to access raw materials for our businesses, but now the Activity has facilitated linkages with different stakeholders and that has made access to raw materials easier.” The activity also employed the B2B approach in another case in Delta State to help an FGA access credit from a non-bank source. In this case, the FGA respondent indicated that, “In 2020, the Activity aided us and serve as a mediator between us and a feed distributor to give a credit facility of 30 days which the activity under the leadership of the state coordinator, we got the first credit facility of 5 million, we had it two times.” EQ1C CONCLUSIONS The Activity has been responsive to the changing needs of the business environment and seizing opportunities for impact. Though AFs and FGAs have continued to experience difficulties accessing finance through the banks, the Activity has used alternative approaches to ensure that beneficiaries derive some benefit from the Activity. EQ1C RECOMMENDATIONS The ET did not have any EQ1C-specific recommendations. 15 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY EVALUATION QUESTION 2 (EQ2) How is the Activity working on improving the business enabling environment for agribusiness? How could these efforts be improved? EQ2a: What is the status of policy reforms pursued by the Activity? How are these policy reform efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? EQ2b: What other efforts to improve the business enabling environment for agribusiness are underway and what is their status? How are these efforts contributing or not to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? EQ2 FINDINGS The Activity’s primary efforts to improve the agribusiness enabling environment involved policy reviews, policy analysis, and support for drafting new policies. For this reason, the answers to EQ2 and its sub-questions are addressed together. To assess the Activity’s policy efforts, the ET began with a review of all the policies the Activity was engaged in reviewing, analyzing, or drafting. Table 5 provides a summary of each policy the Activity is engaged with as well as a short summary of the ET’s assessment of the extent to which each policy should be prioritized by the Activity. Table 6: Relevance and Status of Nigeria Agricultural Investment Activity Policy Interventions S/N Title of Policy Policy (New/Review) Policy Status Remarks 1 National Quality Policy Review Approved 2 Delta State Ag Policy Review/IFPRI Approved 3 Kaduna State Ag Policy Review/Synergos Approved 4 Niger State Ag Policy Review/Synergos Approved 5 National MSMEs Policy Review Approved by Federal Executive Council March 17 6 Ebonyi State Ag Policy Review/IFPRI Under Review for State EXCO High Priority 7 National Agricultural Technology and Innovation Plan Review NCA approved the draft policy. Regional validation to continue High Priority 8 Cross River Ag Policy Review Draft policy to be reviewed High Priority 9 National Agricultural Seed Policy Review Policy review in progress High Priority 10 National Agricultural Soil Management Policy New Policy Work in Progress High Priority 11 Digitalization of Coops Registration in Delta State New Policy New guidelines for registration of coops approved High Priority 12 Benue State Rural Devt Policy New Policy Work in Progress High Priority 13 Kaduna State Contract Farming Policy New Policy Work in Progress Low Priority 16 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY S/N Title of Policy Policy (New/Review) Policy Status Remarks 14 Review of CBN Prudential Guidelines Review Work in Progress High Priority 15 Benue State Policy on Soybean Value Chain. New Policy Work in Progress Develop a Business Model To Pilot Financing and Investment 16 Policy on Aquaculture Value Chain in Niger State New Policy Work in Progress High Priority 17 Review Investment and Securities Act to include Warehouse Receipt System Review Work in Progress To Be Given High Priority 18 National Trade Policy Review Work in Progress Low Priority 19 Niger state Sector Specific Investment Incentive Policy New Policy Approved High Priority 20 Policy on Soybean Value Chain in Kaduna State New Policy Work in Progress Develop a Business Model To Pilot Financing And Investment 21 Policy on Soybean Value Chain in Niger State New Policy Work in Progress Develop a Business Model To Pilot Financing And Investment 22 Policy on Aquaculture Value Chain in Ebonyi State New Policy Work in Progress Develop a Business Model To Pilot Financing And Investment 23 Policy on Aquaculture Value Chain in Delta State New Policy Work in Progress Develop a Business Model To Pilot Financing And Investment 24 Policy on Aquaculture Value Chain in Kebbi State New Policy Awaiting the decision of Government Develop a Business Model To Pilot Financing And Investment 25 Cross River State Industrial Policy New Policy N/A Low Priority 26 National Fertilizer Policy Review Work in Progress 27 Digitalization of Cooperative Registration in Cross River Review Work in Progress High Priority 28 Digitalization of Cooperative Registration in Ebonyi Review Work in Progress High Priority 17 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY As shown in Table 5, the Activity engaged in 28 policy interventions across the focal states. Out of these, fifteen efforts (54 percent) involved policy reviews while 13 (46 percent) involve new policies. Of the policies reviewed, four involved partnerships with other FTF Activities (two each in collaboration with International Food Policy Research Institute and Partnership for Inclusive Agricultural Transformation in Africa, through Synergos). The ET summarized the findings of their review in the figures below. Figure 2 summarizes the status of the various policy efforts. And Figure 3 summarizes the ET’s assessment of the policies that should be prioritized. Figure 2: Status of the Activity’s Policy Interventions Figure 3: ET’s Prioritization of Policy Efforts in Progress The Activity is engaged in a very large number of policy efforts (28). This number is particularly large considering that the Activity’s target for the number of agricultural enabling environment policies drafted, analyzed, or revised is only twelve. Policy interventions can be very time consuming, often taking extended periods of time to engage all relevant stakeholders, undergo rounds of review, and build the necessary support and buy-in to get the new or revised policies adopted. With 28 different policy actions underway, there is concern that the Activity’s energies are being pulled in too many different directions, making it harder to achieve results on any particular individual policy. In 2021, the Activity achieved significant increases in the number of consultative processes conducted. However, the Activity is behind regarding the expected number of policies actual drafted or revised (see Table 5). Based on discussions with stakeholders, the lack of progress in getting policies adopted is in part due to the limited or poor relationship between the Activity and some of the government agencies and line ministries, especially in Kaduna and Kebbi States. In addition, it is important to note that while some of the policies received approval, this outcome was not always due to the Activity’s work. For example, the Kaduna State Agricultural Policy review was already underway before the Activity became involved. During its review and based on interviews with key stakeholders, the ET found that the agricultural value chain policies have yet to crystalize, since those efforts are still in their preliminary stages. The 2 5 10 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 New Policies Policy Reviews Approved In Progress 10 2 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Policy Efforts in Progress High Priority Low Priority Needs Alternate Approach 18 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY industrial policy for Cross River State and the aquaculture policy in Kebbi State are awaiting government decisions for take-off. Additionally, the ET observed that these value chain focused policies require clear business models that could take advantage of the proposed changes to the policies. However, new business models that could be piloted and later scaled up with support from the policies have not been explored by the Activity. Based on the policies on which the Activity is engaging and feedback from State Ministries, many of the policies on which the Activity is engaging would not directly benefit AFs. One exception is the Sector Specific Incentive Policy (SSIP). This policy addresses many common agribusiness concerns such as double taxation, high taxation rates, and tax exemptions. However, the Activity is engaging in several value chain specific policies (such as soybean policies) that are unlikely to have a significant impact on the ability of AFs or FGAs to access finance (the central focus of this Activity). Creating value chain specific business models could provide an alternate pathway to increase access to finance instead of focusing on the value chain policies. The revised policies are not necessary to realize improved business models, and it is the business models that are more likely to result in improvements for AFs and FGAs. Regarding the policy engagement process, respondents noted gaps in the process. Many AFs, FGAs, and FIs indicated that the activity had not engaged them in any of their policy activities, despite the extent to which the policies would likely affect them in the future. For example, one AF respondent indicated that the firm was not aware of any of the policy issues the Activity was engaged in. Though more AFs felt they were not being sufficiently engaged, there were some exceptions in which some AFs felt that they were actively engaged in the Activity’s policy work. Respondents in Benue and Delta States reported a similar lack of engagement in the Activity’s policy work. Niger State was an exception, however. Respondents in Niger indicated that the Activity actively engaged with them through policy dialogues. Based on the interviews conducted, government stakeholders (such as the MDAs) were the most heavily engaged stakeholder group in the Activity’s policy efforts. From the perspective of AFs, government policy work is a low priority. Firms were significantly more concerned with their immediate ability to access loans and credit than about policy weaknesses. Respondents reported that the primary constraints limiting AFs’ access to loans were a lack of collateral and a lack of credit-risk guarantees. Generally speaking, AF respondents did not believe they have benefited from any of the Activity’s policy work. As one AF respondent put it, "The area that is most critical is the access to finance. The facilitation the Activity said it is doing is not effective at all because the major issue which is access to finance has not been solved at all." EQ2 CONCLUSIONS To improve the agribusiness enabling environment, the Activity has focused its efforts on policy work, both reviews of existing policies as well as the creation of new policies. To this end, the Activity engaged in a wide variety of policy efforts (28 in total). Given the difficult and time-consuming work required for policy action, 28 different policies is a large number. From the ET’s perspective, this is too many policy efforts, requiring the Activity to split its attentions across myriad efforts. Additionally, given the limited amount of time remaining in the Activity lifespan, and the reality that many efforts are still in their early stages, it will be difficult for the Activity to achieve significant progress on many of the remaining policy efforts. The ET found that the links between some of the policy efforts and the overall objectives of the Activity regarding agribusiness finance and investment were tenuous. Table 6 provides the ET’s assessment of the priority of each policy based on its likelihood to contribute to the Activity’s long￾term objectives. Many of the policy efforts are unlikely to have a significant impact on agribusiness investment or finance, which is a primary constraint for AFs. In addition to the above concerns, in most states, the Activity has not actively engaged with AFs, FGAs, or FIs in their policy work, despite these groups being a key stakeholder group. 19 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY EQ2 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Activity should ensure that all key stakeholders are engaged in policy improvement. 2. The Activity should narrow its policy focus to those policies that are most likely to have a direct effect on agribusiness finance and investment (the ten remaining high priority policies that are still in progress). This focusing should include discontinuation of efforts related to low priority policies (see Table 6). EVALUATION QUESTION 3 (EQ3) What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the agriculture sector? How successful have they been and how could they be improved? EQ3 FINDINGS The Activity employed several approaches to increasing financing and investment in the agriculture sector, including the following: (i) Facilitation of capacity building and linkages for AFs using sector experts and consultants (ii) Use of consultancy services in developing SSIP state aquaculture policies (iii) Facilitation of access to DFC funding, which provides FIs up to US$10M for innovation The arrangement has both guarantee and grant components. FIs can use the funds for innovation with both commercial businesses and smallholder famers (iv) Cost-sharing for environmental audits and the development of environmental hazard policies Despite the potential benefits to these approaches, they do not entirely align with the strategies outlined in the original Activity design (see EQ1 for more details). The Activity has achieved some successes in increasing access to finance. In one case, the Activity provided a consultant who assisted an AF in developing a franchise blueprint. The documents helped the firm secure a bank loan that enabled them to invest in improvements for their business. In another example, the Activity facilitated a review of an AF’s business and operational management strategy, helping them to secure approval for a large USAID Trade Hub grant. The Activity’s cost-sharing efforts also achieved success by reducing the financial burden of applying for loans. An AF shared their experience with Activity cost-sharing saying, “The Activity supported the factory while co-sharing the cost for the development of an ‘Environmental Audit Report’ which was part of the pre-condition banks were asking for to enable Agribusiness firms access loan facilities. So, the Activity supported the factory with 50 percent cost for the development of the ‘Environmental Audit Report’ which was part of the documents the factory used to secure an N800 Million loan facility at 9 percent interest rate from Fidelity Bank earlier this year [2021].” According to the IP, they have also pursued some efforts to improve digitalization of agribusiness finance, such as helping Ebonyi and Benue states create e-Wallet systems and remote networking opportunities for agribusinesses and stakeholders in Benue, Kaduna, and Delta states. Other stakeholders suggest, however, that much more could be done through digitalization to help facilitate agribusiness finance. The Activity tried to link FGAs and AFs directly with FIs but found mixed results. Despite the linkages, some AFs still have not been able to access a loan, primarily due to insufficient collateral and a lack of credit-risk guarantees. According to one AF respondent, “The Activity introduced us to some financial institutions with the aim of securing a loan from them. Right now, we are currently working with Sterling and Stanbic IBTC. However, the connection with Sterling is not as strong as the one with Stanbic bank. Secondly, the main focus of the relationship with Sterling is to apply for Federal Government (CBN) or their intervention. However, we have not been able to get access to loans.” Another AF respondent echoed these challenges, 20 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY saying, “So far, we are yet to secure any grant or funding since we entered partnership with the Activity. We are not even aware of any grant opportunity facilitated by the Activity.” As previously discussed in EQ1a, despite improvements in AF and FGA capacity, these firms and associations continue to struggle with accessing credit. And respondents across the focal states emphasized that accessing credit remains the primary constraint keeping them from increasing their profitability. According to some respondents, even some of the early gains in the Activity’s credit￾related performance indicators are not wholly due to Activity interventions. Many of the loans granted early in the Activity period were initiated prior to the start of the Activity. For example, an organization in Delta State secured a large loan from the CBN Anchor Borrowers’ Program, but the organization’s application was already in progress at the start of the Activity. Thus, their success cannot be entirely attributed to the work of the Activity, suggesting that some of the performance indicator figures may overstate the Activity’s successes in increasing access to credit. Additionally, as highlighted in EQ2, many AF’s have not yet seen any direct benefits to the Activity’s policy and enabling environment work. According to one AF respondent, “We have not seen any results because our aim is that through the activity will be able to access funds or loan and have access to investors so we can practically say we have not been able to achieve this intended results." In discussing the main challenges to expanding access to credit, stakeholders reported that lending to agribusinesses is still prohibitively risky. They noted that the Activity’s planned efforts to assist in de￾risking lending to MSMEs have not been sufficiently implemented. In one example from Niger State, a respondent reported that, “…the Activity attempted to provide linkage to mechanized source of inputs like Tractors Owners and Hiring Facility of Nigeria (TOHFAN). But the group could not meet the required guarantee of 50 percent capital as recommended by TOHFAN.” Thus, the group was unable to extend an Activity supported FI linkage into better access to finance. According to the group, “[the] efforts of CNFA would have been appreciated if the required guarantee by TOHFAN could be negotiated or waived.” The ET asked AFs their opinions about how the Activity could better improve access to finance. Top responses included supporting improved lending terms (such as interest rates or collateral requirements), providing access to inputs (rather than cash), supporting market linkages, leveraging technology for digital financing and marketing opportunities, expanding access to grants, cost sharing, and other subsidized opportunities, and monitoring AF/FI linkages to ensure successful deals. According to one AF respondent, “One of the things the Activity can still do is to further work with the financial institutions to see that interest rates are cut down below the existing levee interest [i.e cost of securing capital by Agribusiness firms]. In addition, the Activity can also work on de-risking measures including collateral. This way access to finance for agribusiness firms can be enhanced.” The ET also asked FIs about how the Activity could better support expanded access to finance for agribusinesses. The FIs suggested the following ideas: (i) Introduction of innovative and technological approaches to expand lending portfolios, (ii) Facilitation of technology-driven access to loans from FIs, (iii) Creation of platforms for networking between input dealers, producers, off-takers, and buyers, (iv) Facilitation and connection to grants, subsidies, and other cost sharing opportunities, given firms’ ongoing difficulties in securing loans from commercial banks3, (v) De-risk lending to agribusiness firms, and (vi) Expand the definition of finance beyond cash loans, to include credit for inputs and other investment needs. Respondents emphasized that continuous stakeholder engagement was necessary to resolve some of the ongoing challenges. In some cases, stakeholders reported poor communication between the 3 Though the Agribusiness Investment Activity does not include a direct grant program, the FI’s suggestion to facilitate access to grants and other subsidized opportunities could also include connections with other projects and programs (from USAID or other donors). 21 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY Activity staff and partner organizations. For example, one respondent noted, “We have been surviving on our own. Our expectation was to see continuous engagement to remove this challenge what we see is that the Activity staff only make calls to check on the group and to gather data.” To remedy these communication challenges, respondents asked for more effective and sustainable platforms for communication among AFs. More direct engagement between AFs would allow for continued knowledge sharing as well as better sharing of loan opportunities (respondents indicated that many firms were still not aware of the lending opportunities that exist). EQ3 CONCLUSIONS The primary challenge facing AFs and FGAs remains access to finance for investment. The Activity achieved some successes in this regard; however, these successes were limited and far fewer than expected. Many respondents complained about the ongoing challenges and their continuing inability to access loans or credit. Though some efforts were made, the Activity did not adopt many of the innovative supply-side interventions anticipated in the original Activity design. In particular, the Activity has done little to effectively de-risk lending to agribusinesses for FIs. This remains a major gap in Activity implementation. Respondents shared many good ideas for improving the Activity’s impact on accessing credit. In addition to their ideas on how to better support AFs and FGAs and de-risk lending to agribusinesses, respondents also called for stronger engagement between the Activity and its partners. This engagement and communication would better enable the Activity to ensure it is addressing the right needs in the right ways. EQ3 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To de-risk lending to agribusinesses, the Activity should: a. Mobilize guarantee funds from international organizations to incentivize credit transactions on the demand and supply sides. To achieve this, the Activity could utilize a Trust Fund Model, which was suggested by FI stakeholders, which can engage stakeholders at the higher end of the value chain (such as off-takers and processors) in a consortium that provides funds via a trust for FIs. However, the specific details of this type of approach would need to be explored in collaborative development with value chain stakeholders for each value chain. A pilot program could start with FGAs and then be scaled up across the targeted value chains. b. Explore innovative de-risking options with Nigeria Incentive-Based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL), lead firms, and FIs. Options should be based on well-thought-out agribusiness models for boosting investment in the target value chains. Innovations should include finance product development, credit-risk guarantees, and subsidies or other cost-sharing opportunities to break the barriers to agribusiness finance. 2. The Activity should develop, in collaboration with stakeholders, appropriate business models for each of the value chains. The business models should enable an increased supply of credit and mitigate credit risks. 3. The Activity should improve linkages between AFs/FGAs and FIs. Seasonal funding programs should be designed to enable FGAs to access loans in time for the production period, with payback periods occurring after harvesting their farm produce. 4. The Activity should establish effective follow-up mechanisms on loan applications from supported organizations. Follow up could include monthly interaction among the stakeholders to ensure timely and effective follow up on any concerns or issues. In addition, loan applications should be vetted by the state agribusiness coordinator or Business Development Service Provider to ensure a successful transaction. 22 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 5. The Activity should pay particular attention to the constraints inherent in the Prudential Guidelines and spearhead a review to eliminate the inherent disincentive for bank lending to agribusinesses. The lending guidelines focus on production and collateralization through fixed assets. The Activity should facilitate a review of these guidelines to accommodate the movable assets and activities of agribusinesses. EVALUATION QUESTION 4 (EQ4) How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? How could this be improved? EQ4 FINDINGS To the ET’s knowledge based on interview with all stakeholders, no exit plans or sustainability plans have been created for the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. Thus, the ET’s assessment of the likelihood of sustainability is based on interviews with key stakeholders. The capacity achievements achieved through the Activity’s capacity building efforts are likely to be sustained. FGAs, AFs, and FIs have appreciated the skills and knowledge built through the Activity and indicate that they are likely to continue using those skills and knowledge in the future. The use of training-of-trainer models hold promise for future dissemination of best practices. The Activity’s involvement in cost-sharing for loan processing may not be sustainable, however. As noted under prior EQs, many FGAs and AFs still struggle to access loans. Unless more loans are accessed, this component is unlikely to be sustainable. The Activity has not yet been able to achieve significant improvements in access to credit. Some respondents who have previously been able to access credit were able to do so again through the Activity, while those without previous credit access have not gained access through the Activity. Thus, in the future, without changes in the Activity, this trend is likely to continue. Interview respondents provided several suggestions for improving sustainability of the Activity’s efforts. These options are summarized in Figure 4. Figure 4: Ways of Improving Sustainability 23 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY EQ4 CONCLUSIONS The Activity has yet to outline an exit plan or strategy, which likely hampers prospects for sustainability. Based on respondent feedback, the Activity’s achievements in increasing capacity are likely to continue after the end of the Activity. However, AF’s and FGA’s challenges in accessing credit are likely to continue as well. Organizations that have previously accessed credit will likely continue to have access; however, those that have not been successful in the past are likely to be discouraged and will continue to have difficulties accessing credit in the future. The likelihood for sustainability will improve if the Activity articulates an appropriate exit strategy. Improvement can also be achieved if the Activity ensures (i) an inclusive approach to the design and implementation of interventions, (ii) increased awareness about grant, cost sharing, and other subsidized opportunities (whether through USAID or other donor programs), (iii) more effective communication with stakeholders to prevent loss of institutional memory and (iv) technical support for FIs in the digitalization of loan transactions and access to market in the target value chains. EQ4 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Activity should increase awareness about grant, cost sharing, and other subsidized opportunities (whether from USAID or other donors) and strengthen communication with stakeholders. 2. The Activity should articulate exit plans and share the plans broadly with stakeholders. 3. The Activity should adopt a more inclusive approach to intervention design and implementation. 4. The Activity should extend its support to digitalization with FIs. The Activity will thereby build necessary experience that can be upscaled to other FIs as a way of incentivizing them to finance agribusiness. 5. The Activity should facilitate the introduction of digitalized markets to promote access to markets in each of the target value-chains. Ways to improve Activity sustainability Digitizing the market Effective follow up of activities Continuous capacity building through training, mentorship, and step-down trainings Increase awareness of subsidized opportunities Facilitate access to inputs Strengthen stakeholder communication Inclusive project design and implementation 24 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The findings and conclusions from the four EQs contribute to an overall picture of the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. The following sections discuss broad lessons learned from the Activity as well as high-level recommendations regarding future directions for the Activity. LESSONS LEARNED DESIGNING IMPLEMENTATION INTERVENTIONS The scope of technical assistance needs additional clarity and innovation. The original Activity design anticipated several innovative approaches for addressing difficulties in accessing finance for agribusinesses. The lack of implementation of these innovative approaches remains a significant gap in Activity implementation. Despite a few success cases, long-term success in increasing access to finance has not been achieved. The heavy Activity focus on policy reform and capacity building have not been sufficient to meaningfully impact AF and FGA access to loans or credit. Improvements are possible by refocusing the Activity on the anticipated results framework and activities that are most likely to have a direct impact on access to finance for AFs and FGAs. USAID should ensure that new approaches focus on innovative approaches to mitigate lending risks. Effective business models to boost access to finance by MSMEs are needed. Capacity building and B2B approaches are the cornerstone of the current Activity. These approaches are not inherently bad, but they are not innovative. These traditional approaches rely on traditional business models such as vertical integration, horizontal integration, contract farming, out-growers’ schemes, etc. which have been practiced at different times in different places in Nigeria over the years. There is no reason to believe that the Activity’s use of these traditional business models will be any more effective at increasing access to finance than similar, past efforts. Moving away from traditional business models to those that are technology-driven, finance-attracting, and inclusive of key actors in each of the target value chains holds more promise for achieving results. Allocation of resources needs to align with expected outcomes. As noted in the findings and conclusions, a disproportionate amount of attention and resources are being spent on efforts that are not directly linked to increasing access to finance. This, despite access to finance being a central pillar and objective for the activity. Activity time, attention, and resources, should be balanced proportionately across the expected outcomes, as outlined in the results framework. Activity interventions should be focused on filling the most critical gaps for achieving anticipated results, in particular increasing access to finance. There should be a clear pathway from each intervention through the results framework. KEEPING THE ACTIVITY ON TRACK TO ACHIEVING TARGETS Policy review and analysis should not replace innovative business models for agribusiness transformation. The Activity spent substantial time on a wide number of policy activities, some of which were only tangentially linked to the broad aims of the Activity. In particular, some of the value chain policies (such as the soybean and aquaculture value chain policies) were being pursued without first articulating suitable business models that could be piloted or scaled up with support from the policies. Without new business models that could benefit from the policy, it is not clear how the policy would ultimately lead to improved outcomes. 25 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY SUCCESS AND SUSTAINABILITY Awareness creation and relationship building will sustain interest in the Activity’s interventions. Several examples of poor relationships between the Activity staff and key stakeholders were discussed in the findings and conclusions. In some cases, key stakeholders, particularly within the government, were not even aware of the Activity or its work. Additionally, the lack of inclusive design in the Activity’s policy work further inhibited outcomes. As outlined in EQ4, stakeholder engagement is key to ensuring long-term sustainability of Activity outcomes. A more inclusive approach and more effective communication with key stakeholders holds significant potential for improving Activity implementation and sustainability. FUTURE DIRECTIONS Building on the EQ-specific recommendations as well as the broad lessons learned discussed above, the ET has the following broad recommendations for the future of the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. 1. Articulate innovative business models for each of the five value chains in the Activity. Going forward, USAID should ensure that the Activity elaborate innovative business models. These business models should include technology-driven value chain financing models that bring MSMEs, lead firms, and FIs together to address well-known but least-addressed bottlenecks in the lending system. In each of the focal states, the Activity should apply these technology driven value chain financing models to each of the targeted value chains. 2. Refocus the intervention approach. The Activity should refocus the intervention away from eclectic interventions to interventions driven by appropriate business models for AFs, MSMEs, and FGAs. Revised interventions should be designed based on an inclusive design approach that integrates the perspectives of key stakeholders, including farmers, service providers, processors, traders, FIs, etc. 3. Reduce the scope of policy work. As outlined in EQ2, the Activity is overly involved in policy work, some of which is only tangentially related to the long-term objectives of the Activity. To ensure a more focused used of time and resources, the Activity should narrow its focus on the policy efforts that are most likely to have a direct impact on agribusiness finance and investment. Policies without a direct link to the results framework should be dropped. 4. Map the Activity’s key stakeholders in each of the five targeted value chains. To enable a more inclusive approach to activity design and implementation, the Activity should conduct an exhaustive mapping of key stakeholders and beneficiaries, including government actors, FIs, FGAs, AFs, and other key actors. A better understanding of who the stakeholders are will enable better design to more directly affect the key barriers to accessing finance for agribusinesses. 5. Develop innovative agribusiness loan products. CNFA originally planned to develop innovative lending products tailored to meet the needs of agribusinesses while de-risking lending for the FIs. The Activity should return to this plan and collaboratively develop new lending products in collaboration with both FIs and FGAs/AFs. Activity support could come in the form of technical assistance to FIs to design innovative ways of using value chain linkages and transactions to mitigate risks and facilitate investment across the focal states. 6. Activate innovative risk-reduction mechanisms to promote agribusiness finance and investment. De-risking lending remains a critical barrier to expanding agribusiness finance. Without addressing this critical barrier, little progress can be achieved. Thus, the Activity should emphasize efforts to reduce and mitigate lending risks through future interventions. To this end, the Activity should provide technical assistance to FIs to develop appropriate financing models relating to each of the target value chains including: (i) value chain financing and de-risking models that will bring together 26 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY FIs, AFs, and MSMEs that operate at different stages of the value chains and (ii) risk-adjusted agribusiness loan products as indicated in the design of the Activity. 7. Ensure that achievements move beyond output indicators. As the Activity enters into its final years, the Activity should focus its attentions not just on meeting immediate, output-level performance indicators, but expand their focus to longer-term outcome indicators as well. The Activity should use its results framework as a guide for focusing future interventions. 27 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY ANNEX I: FULL LISTING OF REFERENCES AND REPORTS UTILIZED Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) (April 30, 2019). Feed The Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. USAID Contract # AID-72062019-C-00001. Quarter II, Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. Quarterly Progress Report (January 1–March 31, 2019). Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) (April 30, 2021) Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. USAID CONTRACT # AID-72062019-C-00001. Quarter 2, Fiscal Year (FY) 2021. Quarterly Progress Report (January 1–March 31, 2021) Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) (April 30,2020). Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity USAID CONTRACT # AID-72062019-C-00001. Quarter 2, Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. Quarterly Progress Report (January 1–March 31, 2020) Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) (January 29, 2021). Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. USAID CONTRACT # AID-72062019-C-00001. Quarter 1, Fiscal Year (FY) 2021. Quarterly Progress Report (October 1–December 31, 2020) Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) (January 31, 2020). Feed The Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. USAID CONTRACT # AID-72062019-C-00001. Quarter 1, Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. Quarterly Progress Report (October 1–December 31, 2019) Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) (July 30, 2020). Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. USAID CONTRACT # AID-72062019-C-00001. Quarter 3, Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. Quarterly Progress Report (APRIL 1–JUNE 30, 2020) Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) (July 30, 2021). Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. USAID CONTRACT # AID-72062019-C-00001. Quarter 3, Fiscal Year (FY) 2021. Quarterly Progress Report (APRIL 1–JUNE 30, 2021) Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) (July 31, 2019). Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. USAID CONTRACT # AID-72062019-C-00001. Quarter III, Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. Quarterly Progress Report (April 1–June 30, 2019). Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). Agribusiness Investment Activity. Project Year 1 Work Plan. (17 DECEMBER 2018–30 SEPTEMBER 2019). USAID Contract AID-72062019-C-00001 Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). Agribusiness Investment Activity. Project Year 2 Work Plan. (01 OCTOBER 2019–30 SEPTEMBER 2020). USAID Contract AID-72062019-C-00001 Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). Agribusiness Investment Activity. Project Year 3 Work Plan. (01 OCTOBER 2020–30 SEPTEMBER 2021). USAID Contract AID-72062019-C-00001 Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). Technical Proposal. Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment. SOL-72062018R00003. 1828 L Street NW Suite 710, Washington D.C., 20036 18T18TUSAID, (April 2019a). FTF Nigeria Agribusiness18T18T 18T18TInvestment, Monitoring,18T18T 18T18TEvaluation and Learning18T18T 18T18T(MEL) Plan. 18T18T1828 L St NW, Washington, DC 20011 USAID, (October 2019c). FTF 18T18TNigeria Agribusiness18T18T 18T18TInvestment, Monitoring,18T18T 18T18TEvaluation and Learning18T18T 18T18T(MEL) Plan18T18T. 1828 L St NW, Washington, DC 20011 18T18TUSAID, (September 2019b). FTF Nigeria Agribusiness18T18T 18T18TInvestment, Monitoring,18T18T 18T18TEvaluation and Learning18T18T 18T18T(MEL) Plan. 18T18T1828 L St NW, Washington, DC 20011 18T18TUSAID, (September 2020). FTF Nigeria Agribusiness18T18T 18T18TInvestment, Monitoring,18T18T 18T18TEvaluation and Learning18T18T 18T18T(MEL) Plan. 18T18T1828 L St NW, Washington, DC 20011 28 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY USAID/NIGERIA (July 2020). Feed The Future Agribusiness Investment Activity. Contract Number: AID-OAA-I-15-00018/620-TO-16-00001. Data Quality Assessment (DQA), fy, 2020. The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Activity 29 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY ANNEX II: FULL LISTING OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED The full listing of persons interviewed was submitted separately in line with data de-identification policies. Please contact Olufemi Gisanrin, ogisanrin@melsa.ng to request the data. 30 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS 3.1 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS–USAID/NIGERIA STAFF PROTOCOL FOR USAID/NIGERIA STAFF DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS–FTF AGRIBUSINESS INVESTMENT ACTIVITY MID TERM EVALUATION The midterm evaluation is one of the proposed evaluations of the Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Project. The project is currently being implemented by the Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). You will be asked to respond verbally to a series of questions related to your involvement and knowledge about the project. The purpose of these questions is to assess the extent to which the project has been implemented to further on the implementation approach. As a stakeholder in the project, we would like to hear your views, opinions and or observations regarding the project. Please, kindly note that you are free to voluntarily choose to participate in this interview, refuse to answer certain questions, or stop participating at any time without any loss or harm to you. If you choose to participate, your help in answering these questions is greatly appreciated. Your responses will be kept completely confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your responses will be combined with those from other stakeholders in Nigeria. For any questions about the study, contact: Fiona Rowand– Acting Chief of Party, The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Support Activity, Navanti Group, No. 22 Kumasi Street Wuse II, Abuja, FCT, Nigeria–Contact Email: frowand@melsa.ng EQ 1 To what extent has the Activity been implemented as intended? FURTHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. The Activity start-up is not as rapid as proposed. Why is this so? 2. Do USAID staff think that implementation has gone as expected? 3. What, if any, major changes have occurred and why? 4. The staffing of the Activity has witnessed some instability hitherto. How does this affect project activity design and implementation performance? 5. The project proposal and initial design of the project focused on 3 key major components. During implementation this changed to 4. What prompted the changes? In what ways have the change affected the orientation of the project and achievement of expected outcomes? 6. In terms of reporting, a stand-alone section on cross-cutting issues is observed in the various progress reports. Do USAID staff consider a reporting format that shows the integration of those issues with the key components of the project a more plausible way of presenting the results? Is there any concern about this? a. To what extent have delivery methods contributed to ensuring Activity is on track to achieving targets? 1. The Activity collaborated with projects and activities funded by USAID and other donor agencies and signed MoUs with several partners. How responsive are these partners? 2. What tangible outcomes have resulted from these partnerships and MoUs? 31 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 3. How do the MoUs serve as an instrument for making progress towards achieving the key outcomes of the Activity? 4. Given the work of the FTF NAPP do you support extensive incursion by Agribusiness Investment Activity into generic agricultural policy work? Is there a need for a limit to the scope of the Activity’s policy work? b. to what extent are the intended results been achieved? 1. Can you identify some of the fascinating results from the Activity? 2. Which results have met your expectation and which ones are you concerned about? 3. How can your expectations be met better? c. How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment? 1. In what areas do you expect changes in Nigeria’s agribusiness environment? 2. In what ways have the Activity been able to bring about such changes since its inception? 3. What could they have done better? d. What options exist for improving adaptation within the Activity? 1. What specific changes have occurred in the agribusiness environment since the inception of the Activity? 2. How has the Activity adapted to such changes? 3. What have been the fallouts? 4. What could the implementers have done better? EQ2 What is the status of policy reforms pursued by the Activity? FURTHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. What policy work are you aware of under the Activity? 2. Are you aware of where things stand concerning those policies? a. How could these efforts be improved? 1. What is the link between the policy reform pursued and the key components of the project? 2. How have the policies pursued contributed to the achievement of the project outcomes. 3. What could the implementers have done better to improve the relevance and impact of their policy interventions? b. What is the status of policy reforms pursued by the Activity? 1. Are you aware of the types and current status of policy reforms supported by the Activity? c. How are these policy reform efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? 1. What is the driving force behind the Activity’s participation in consultative processes? 2. Are you aware of particular business models being promoted under the Activity that are capable of enhancing access to finance and boosting agribusiness investment? 32 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY d. What other efforts to improve the business enabling environment for agribusiness are underway 1. Are you aware of other efforts being made by the Activity in support of Improvement of the agribusiness environment e. How are these policy reform efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? 1. How do you expect progress in implementing policy reforms to translate into the achievement of expected outcomes? EQ3 What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the agriculture sector? FURTHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. What is the focus of the MoUs executed by the Activity with partners? 2. What innovations have the Activity introduced and piloted? a. How successful have they been? 1. Are you aware of success stories about increases in access to finance and expansion in agribusiness investment under this Activity? b. How could they be improved? 1. In the case of successful innovations, what are the success factors? 2. Are there known constraints to the realization of expected outcomes? 3. What do USAID staff consider as possible solutions? EQ4 How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? FURTHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. What mechanisms did the Activity put in place to ensure sustainability? 2. What are the likely challenges to sustainability? 3. Do you have any concerns or know of any major risks that will not make the achievements of the Activity long lasting? a. How could these efforts be improved? 1. What are your suggestions for improving sustainability under this Activity? 2. What sort of systemic value chain specific business models can the project develop going forward? 3. How can the project promote adoption of such models by the agribusinesses, SHFs FIs and investors? 3.2 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS–ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTERS–CNFA PROTOCOL FOR ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTERS –CNFA DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS–FTF AGRIBUSINESS INVESTMENT ACTIVITY MID TERM EVALUATION 33 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY The midterm evaluation is one of the proposed evaluations of the Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Project. The project is currently being implemented by the Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). You will be asked to respond verbally to a series of questions related to your involvement and knowledge about the project. The purpose of these questions is to assess the extent to which the project has been implemented to further on the implementation approach. As a stakeholder in the project, we would like to hear your views, opinions and or observations regarding the project. Please, kindly note that you are free to voluntarily choose to participate in this interview, refuse to answer certain questions, or stop participating at any time without any loss or harm to you. If you choose to participate, your help in answering these questions is greatly appreciated. Your responses will be kept completely confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your responses will be combined with those from other stakeholders in Nigeria. For any questions about the study, contact: Fiona Rowand– Acting Chief of Party, The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Support Activity, Navanti Group, No. 22 Kumasi Street Wuse II, Abuja, FCT, Nigeria–Contact Email: frowand@melsa.ng EQ 1 To what extent has the Activity been implemented as intended? FURTHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. The Activity start-up is not as rapid as proposed. Why is this so? What, if any, major changes have occurred as a result and why? 2. The staffing of the Activity has witnessed some instability hitherto. How does this affect project activity design and implementation performance? 3. The project proposal and initial design of the project focused on 3 key major components. During implementation this changed to 4. What prompted the changes? What have been the consequences of this change? 4. In terms of reporting, a stand-alone section on cross-cutting issues is observed in the various progress reports. Do the implementers consider a reporting format that shows the integration of those issues with the key components of the project a more plausible way of presenting the results? 5. In what ways is the fourth component connected with better agribusiness environment, increased access to finance and expansion of investment? a. To what extent have delivery methods contributed to ensuring Activity is on track to achieving targets? 1. How has the Activity addressed the issues of access to finance and increased agribusiness investment through their partnership with FIs? 2. Has any support been given to FIs to design and develop agri-finance policy manuals as requested? How many of the FIs has agri-finance policy manual? 3. 10 Agricultural lending value chains work planss have been developed and implemented. What is the status of the implemented work plans and what achievements have been recorded? 4. The Activity collaborated with projects and activities funded by USAID and other donor agencies and signed MoUs with several partners. How responsive are these partners? 5. What tangible outcomes have resulted from these partnerships and MoUs? 6. How can the MoUs serve as an instrument for making progress towards achieving the key outcomes of the Activity? 34 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 7. Given the work of the FTF NAPP how do you justify the extensive incursion by the Agribusiness Investment Activity into generic agricultural policy work? 8. The Activity prioritized the review of State agricultural policies (Niger, Delta, Ebonyi and Kaduna), reviewed one national policy and facilitated the approval of the National MSMEs Policy by the Federal Executive Council. What is the status of the remaining policies? b. to what extent are the intended results been achieved? 1. Lending to actors within the agribusiness sector is an area where an outcome indicator is required and a target of 5 percent change per annum from Year 2 has been set. However, the indicator has reported as TBD till date. Why is this so? 2. Even though MoUs have been signed and technical support provided to FIs, financial product services for partner SMEs seem to be non-existent. Why is this so? What factors are responsible for this result? c. How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment? 1. Five policies have been approved (4 State and 1 national policy) but there is no report on level of implementation. How effective is the review exercise? How many actors have recorded progress following the policy review? 2. Potential investment worth $38.9 million was recorded. How many of the potential investments have turned to a real investment? d. What options exist for improving adaptation within the Activity? 1. What specific changes have occurred in the agribusiness environment since the inception of the Activity? 2. How has the Activity adapted to such changes? 3. What have been the fallouts? 4. What could the implementers have done better? 5. What role did the Activity play in the training consultancy involving Partnership for Inclusive Agricultural Transformation in Africa and SCOPE Insight (a Dutch training consultancy) to deliver a training of trainer (TOT) on Basic and Pro Credit Readiness courses? What is the extent of the adoption of this approach in service delivery across the focal states? EQ2 How is the Activity working on improving the business enabling environment for agribusinesses? FURTHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. What were the value chain specific business models introduced by the Activity? 2. What were the strategies for the adoption of the inherent innovations in such models? 3. What were the strategies for upscaling the models? 4. How successful were the adoption and upscaling strategies? 5. What were the lessons for sustaining the successes achieved (if any)? 6. What sort of systemic value chain specific business models can the project develop going forward? 35 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 7. How can the project promote adoption of such models by the agribusinesses, SHFs FIs and investors? a. How could these efforts be improved? 1. What is the link between the policy reform pursued and the key components of the project? 2. How have the policies pursued contributed to the achievement of the project outcomes. 3. What could the Activity have done better to improve the relevance and impact of their policy interventions? b. What is the status of policy reforms pursued by the Activity? 1. What policy reforms are being pursued by the Activity? 2. What is the status of each of such reforms? 3. How effective are the consultations (PPD, validation workshops), associated with the policy reform efforts? c. How are these policy reform efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? 1. How effective are the policy reform efforts? What is working well and what are the challenges? 2. How have the policy reviews/reforms contributed to better financing and expansion of agribusiness investment? 3. What are the pathways through which the intervention activities will lead to the attainment of the Activity objectives of transforming the agribusiness sector in Nigeria? 4. What are the outcomes achieved following the consultative processes and policy reform efforts? d. What other efforts to improve the business enabling environment for agribusiness are underway 1. What factors continue to make the business environment unfriendly? 2. What other innovative approaches/efforts are underway to remedy the situation? And what is their status? 3. What actions are you contemplating to ensure that already identified potential investments are translated into reality? e. How are these efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? 1. How will these other types of policies/actions/efforts that are underway contribute to the achievement of the project outcomes? EQ3 What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the FURTHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. What business models have been introduced by the Activity to drive investment and access to finance? 2. What changes in existing business models by MSMEs have been introduced to minimize lending risks and to stimulate financing and boost investment? 36 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY agriculture sector? a. How successful have they been? 1. Are there success stories to be told about increased financing and investment due to the interventions of the Activity? b. How could they be improved? 1. What challenges are being faced in realizing better access to finance and greater investment in agribusiness? 2. How could these challenges be addressed? 3. Are there possible roles and responsibilities specified in the MoUs to tackle the challenges and improve the situation? 4. What innovations have the Activity introduced and piloted in bringing about improvement in agribusiness financing and investment? EQ4 How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? FURTHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. What mechanisms did the Activity put in place to ensure sustainability? 2. What are the potential challenges and risks to the sustainability of the contributions and reforms being made by the Activity? 3. What is the likelihood that the existing sustainability plans (if any) will be effective in addressing those challenges and risks? 4. What mechanisms did the Activity put in place to ensure sustainability? 5. What efforts are being made to ensure that the gains achieved in implementing this Activity will be long lasting? a. How could these efforts be improved? 1. What will the Activity have to do better to tackle the challenges and risks to sustainability? 3.3 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS–FINANCE INSTITUTIONS PROTOCOL FOR FINANCE INSTITUTIONS DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS–FTF AGRIBUSINESS INVESTMENT ACTIVITY MID TERM EVALUATION The midterm evaluation is one of the proposed evaluations of the Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Project. The project is currently being implemented by the Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). You will be asked to respond verbally to a series of questions related to your involvement and knowledge about the project. The purpose of these questions is to assess the extent to which the project has been implemented to further on the implementation approach. As a stakeholder in the project, we would like to hear your views, opinions and or observations regarding the project. Please, kindly note that you are free to voluntarily choose to participate in this interview, refuse to answer certain questions, or stop participating at any time without any loss or harm to you. If you choose to participate, your help in answering these questions is greatly appreciated. Your responses will be kept completely confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your responses will be combined with those from other stakeholders in Nigeria. 37 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY For any questions about the study, contact: Fiona Rowand– Acting Chief of Party, The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Support Activity, Navanti Group, No. 22 Kumasi Street Wuse II, Abuja, FCT, Nigeria–Contact Email: frowand@melsa.ng EQ1 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS To what extent has the Activity been implemented as intended? 1. Are you aware of the objectives of the FTF Agribusiness Activity? Please, describe. 2. In what ways would you say the Activity has supported your institutions towards contributing to agribusiness development? a. To what extent have delivery methods contributed to ensuring Activity is on track to achieving targets? 1. In what ways have the Activity been engaging with your institution on agribusiness finance products and services? Please, explain. 2. How would you describe the appropriateness of the Activity’s methods towards promoting agribusiness finance products and services? 3. What other things do you think the Activity could to support your institution towards the increasing supply agribusiness finance? b. to what extent are the intended results been achieved? c. How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment? 1. Do you know of any policy or organizational procedure that is limiting your institution on agribusiness finance products? 2. Is there anything the Activity has done or is doing to bring about improvement on such policies or procedure? 3. Have you had any improvement in your organizational performance on agribusiness finance for MSMEs? Please, explain. d. What options exist for improving adaptation within the Activity? 1. While the debate to improve on the procedures or policies are still is on, what other ways do think the Activity could do to facilitate agribusiness finance products and services in the interim? 2. Apart from changing the policies or procedure, what other think the Activity could do to bring about improvement in the agribusiness finance products and services? EQ3 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the agriculture sector? 1. Do your organization have or has developed any agribusiness finance products for MSMEs since your engagement with the Activity? If yes, please describe the product(s)? 2. What exactly did the Activity do to facilitate the development/release of the product? 3. Has the Activity offered you any form of support (capacity building or linkages) that has assisted you in the development or release of financial products or services for MSMEs? If yes, describe exactly what the Activity do? 4. How has the support contributed to increasing finance and investment in the agribusiness sector? 38 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY EQ1 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 5. Do you consider the Activity support an innovative approach to agribusiness finance and investment? If yes, how is it different from the other interventions you know? 6. How will you describe the engagement of men and women in your financial products and service? a. How successful have they been? 1. What has been the level of Activity’s contribution to your organizational performance in agribusiness finance and investment? 2. How has the approach contributed to mitigating credit risk in agribusiness? 3. How many people have benefited from the intervention? b. How could they be improved? 1. In your own opinion, what do suggest that FTF Activity could do to improve FI capacity on agribusiness finance and investment? EQ4 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? 1. Do you anticipate a continuous access to finance and investment between your Institution and MSMEs, even after the Activity? 2. Do you anticipate a continuous credit risks mitigation systems between FIs and agribusiness firms? a. How could these efforts be improved? 1. What do you suggest the Activity could do to ensure sustainability or improve on the interventions? 3.4 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS–AGRIBUSINESS FIRMS PROTOCOL FOR AGRIBUSINESS FIRMS DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS–FTF AGRIBUSINESS INVESTMENT ACTIVITY MID TERM EVALUATION The midterm evaluation is one of the proposed evaluations of the Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Project. The project is currently being implemented by the Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). You will be asked to respond verbally to a series of questions related to your involvement and knowledge about the project. The purpose of these questions is to assess the extent to which the project has been implemented to further on the implementation approach. As a stakeholder in the project, we would like to hear your views, opinions and or observations regarding the project. Please, kindly note that you are free to voluntarily choose to participate in this interview, refuse to answer certain questions, or stop participating at any time without any loss or harm to you. If you choose to participate, your help in answering these questions is greatly appreciated. Your responses 39 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY will be kept completely confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your responses will be combined with those from other stakeholders in Nigeria. For any questions about the study, contact: Fiona Rowand– Acting Chief of Party, The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Support Activity, Navanti Group, No. 22 Kumasi Street Wuse II, Abuja, FCT, Nigeria–Contact Email: frowand@melsa.ng EQ1 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS To what extent has the Activity been implemented as intended? 1. Are you aware of the objectives of the FTF Agribusiness Investment Activity in Nigeria? Please, describe! 2. How is the Activity facilitating agribusiness finance and investment opportunities/transactions for your firm? 3. Have you received financial support from any institution since your engagement with the Activity? Please, explain. 4. What has the Activity done to improve your performance towards accessing agribusiness finance and investment? Please explain. 5. Has there been any improvement in your business performance? Please, describe. a. To what extent have delivery methods contributed to ensuring Activity is on track to achieving targets? b. to what extent are the intended results been achieved? c. How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment? d. What options exist for improving adaptation within the Activity? 1. While the debate to improve on the procedures or policies are still on, what other ways do you think the Activity could to enhance access to finance in the interim? 2. Apart from changing the policies or procedures, what other think the Activity could do to bring about improvement in access to finance? EQ3 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the agriculture sector? 1. Do you consider the Activity support an innovative approach to agribusiness financing and investment? If yes, how is it different from the other interventions you know? a. How successful have they been? 1. In what ways has the Activity’s approach contributed to the realization of your finance and investment goal? b. How could they be improved? 1. What do you think the Activity could do to improve on the approach? 40 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 2. What other things do you think the Activity could do to increase the financial and investment support for agribusiness apart from the current methods. EQ4 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? 1. Do you anticipate a continuous engagement between your firm with financial institutions on loans and investment even after the project closure? a. How could these efforts be improved? 1. What do you suggest the Activity could do to ensure sustainability of the interventions? 41 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 3.5 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS –MDAS PROTOCOL FOR MDAs DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS–FTF AGRIBUSINESS INVESTMENT ACTIVITY MID TERM EVALUATION The midterm evaluation is one of the proposed evaluations of the Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Project. The project is currently being implemented by the Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). You will be asked to respond verbally to a series of questions related to your involvement and knowledge about the project. The purpose of these questions is to assess the extent to which the project has been implemented to further on the implementation approach. As a stakeholder in the project, we would like to hear your views, opinions and or observations regarding the project. Please, kindly note that you are free to voluntarily choose to participate in this interview, refuse to answer certain questions, or stop participating at any time without any loss or harm to you. If you choose to participate, your help in answering these questions is greatly appreciated. Your responses will be kept completely confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your responses will be combined with those from other stakeholders in Nigeria. For any questions about the study, contact: Fiona Rowand– Acting Chief of Party, The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Support Activity, Navanti Group, No. 22 Kumasi Street Wuse II, Abuja, FCT, Nigeria–Contact Email: frowand@melsa.ng EQ1 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS To what extent has the Activity been implemented as intended? 1. Describe the effort of your MDA in facilitating improvement in Nigeria’s agricultural sector and agribusiness finance and investment? How is the MDA contributing to National Food Security and employment creation? 2. Let’s discuss your MDA’s engagement with the FTF Agribusiness Investment Activity. Describe your MDA’s engagement with the Activity? Probe for: • When? What is the commitment involved in the partnership? • Roles and responsibilities in the partnership. 3. How effective is your MDA’s partnership with the Activity? Probe for: • What worked well • The challenges • What areas of the partnership has been most critical in the improvement of the MDA? • What area/s of the partnership was less critical to the improvement of the MDA. 4. What are the major challenges in the Agribusiness environment that the Activity is addressing in partnership with the MDA? a. To what extent have delivery methods contributed to ensuring Activity is on track to achieving targets? 1. How has the FTF Activity facilitated improvement in the agribusiness environment in partnership with the MDA? 2. What approaches/methods are been employed by the Activity in the delivery of the intervention? Probe for: • Engagement of experts where necessary • Partnership with GON including the private sector 3. How effective are these approaches/methods to ensuring the Activity is on track to achieving targets? 42 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 4. In your opinion, how does the Activity differ from other similar interventions in Nigeria? b. to what extent are the intended results been achieved? 1. What will you describe as the results been achieved by the Activity in enabling agribusiness finance and investment? 2. How does the results differ for the different stakeholders involved in the Activity including women and youths? 3. To what extent are the intended results been achieved? c. How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment? 1. How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment? d. What options exist for improving adaptation within the Activity? 1. What could the activity have done better? EQ2 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS How is the Activity working on improving the business enabling environment for agribusiness? 1. Describe the major activities/programs been implemented by the Activity on improving the enabling business environment for agribusiness? 2. In your opinion, how effective are these activities in improving the business enabling environment for agribusiness? Explain. b. How could these efforts be improved? 1. How could these efforts be improved? c. What is the status of policy reforms pursued by the Activity? 1. What is the status of policy reforms pursued by the Activity? d. How are these policy reform efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? 1. How are these policy reform efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agricultural sector in Nigeria? e. What other efforts to improve the business enabling environment for agribusiness are underway and what is their status? achieved? 1. What other efforts to improve the business enabling environment for agribusiness are underway and what is their status? Achieved? EQ3 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the agriculture sector? 1. What are the innovative approaches/methods adopted by the Activity to increase financing and investment in the agricultural sector? 2. How sustainable are these approaches/methods? 43 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY a. How successful have they been? 1. How successful have they been? b. How could they be improved? 1. How could they be improved? EQ4 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? 1. Are you aware of the Activity’s plans for ensuring sustainability of its programs? If yes, please describe the exit plans known to you. 2. What are the factors that can influence the sustainability of the Activity’s gains in the agribusiness environment? 3. What efforts are you making as a partner MDA to sustain the current gains at the exit of the Activity? How could these efforts be improved? 1. How could these efforts be improved? 44 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 3.6 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS–FARMER GROUPS AND ASSOCIATIONS PROTOCOL FOR FARMERS GROUPS AND ASSOCIATIONS DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS–FTF AGRIBUSINESS INVESTMENT ACTIVITY MID TERM EVALUATION The midterm evaluation is one of the proposed evaluations of the Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Project. The project is currently being implemented by the Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). You will be asked to respond verbally to a series of questions related to your involvement and knowledge about the project. The purpose of these questions is to assess the extent to which the project has been implemented to further on the implementation approach. As a stakeholder in the project, we would like to hear your views, opinions and or observations regarding the project. Please, kindly note that you are free to voluntarily choose to participate in this interview, refuse to answer certain questions, or stop participating at any time without any loss or harm to you. If you choose to participate, your help in answering these questions is greatly appreciated. Your responses will be kept completely confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your responses will be combined with those from other stakeholders in Nigeria. For any questions about the study, contact: Fiona Rowand– Acting Chief of Party, The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Support Activity, Navanti Group, No. 22 Kumasi Street Wuse II, Abuja, FCT, Nigeria–Contact Email: frowand@melsa.ng EQ1 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS To what extent has the Activity been implemented as intended? 1. Describe your Association’s partnership with the Activity? Probe for: • The purpose of the partnership and when the partnership was established. • The processes involved in selecting the association for partnership. • Whether MoU was signed with the Association. • Details of roles, responsibilities and duration of the partnership entailed in the MoU 2. What are the specific supports your association received from the Activity? Probe for: • Training to meet various capacity and finance needs • Organizational performance improvement • Linkage to lead firms to access finance • Technical support on business plan development 3. How effective was the partnership with the Activity? Probe for: • What worked well for this activity? • What are the challenges faced? • How has this partnership facilitated improvement of the Association? • What areas of the partnership has been most critical in the improvement of the Association? 45 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY • What area/s of the partnership was less critical to the improvement of the Association. a. To what extent have delivery methods contributed to ensuring Activity is on track to achieving targets? 1. What specific activities delivered by the Activity contributed to the improvement of the Association? 2. How will you describe effectiveness of the activities in contributing to the improvement of the Association? 3. Is the Activity’s support to the Association creating more opportunities for the Association and its members? What are these opportunities? Probe for access to finance, investment opportunities etc. b. to what extent are the intended results been achieved? 1. What were the major weaknesses or challenges the Activity has addressed for the Association? 2. Which areas of the Association’s challenge has the Activity been most and least successful in improving? Why? 3. Overall, what will you describe as the result or success stories achieved from partnership between your Association and the Activity? Probe for: • Improved access to finance and investment • Increased women and youth involvement in the Association’s activities • Improved livelihood c. How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment? 1. In your opinion, were there emerging agribusiness needs for your Association and its members? 2. How did the Activity respond to you Association’s emerging needs? d. What options exist for improving adaptation within the Activity? EQ2 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS How is the Activity working on improving the business enabling environment for agribusiness? 1. What efforts of the Activity are you aware of in improving the business enabling environment? Probe for: • Training services for partners • Network and linkages between partners • Policy reform engagements 2. How are the Activity participants benefiting from the Activity’s programs? 3. What are the most significant improvements you have seen, especially in relation to your partnership with the Activity? a. How could these efforts be improved? 1. Describe the challenges or weaknesses associated with effective implementation of the Activity’s programs. 2. How could these be improved? b. What is the status of policy reforms pursued by the Activity? 1. What is the status of policy reforms pursued by the Activity? c. How are these policy reform efforts contributing (or not) to 1. How are these policy reform efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? 46 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? d. What other efforts to improve the business enabling environment for agribusiness are underway and what is their status? achieved? 2. What other efforts to improve the business enabling environment for agribusiness are underway and what is EQ3 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the agriculture sector? 3. What innovative approach could you report was employed by the Activity to increase financing and investment in the agricultural sector? Probe for: • Partnership with different stakeholders • Public private dialogue approach • Engagement of specialist to facilitate capacity building a. How successful have they been? 4. What are the successes achieved in the areas of access to finance, expansion of investment and others? b. How could they be improved? 5. How could they be improved? EQ4 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? 1. Are you aware of the Activity’s plans for ensuring sustainability of its programs? If yes, please describe the exit plans known to you. 2. What is sustainability to you? 3. What are the factors that can influence sustainability in the agribusiness environment? 4. What do you think will happen after the activity ends? 5. 5. What efforts are you making as an Association to sustain the current gain at the exit of the Activity? a. How could these efforts be improved? 1. How could sustainability be improved? 3.7 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS–PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS PROTOCOL FOR PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS–FTF AGRIBUSINESS INVESTMENT ACTIVITY MID TERM EVALUATION The midterm evaluation is one of the proposed evaluations of the Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Project. The project is currently being implemented by the Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA). You will be asked to respond verbally to a series of questions related to your involvement and knowledge about the project. The purpose of these questions is to assess the extent to which the 47 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY project has been implemented to further on the implementation approach. As a stakeholder in the project, we would like to hear your views, opinions and or observations regarding the project. Please, kindly note that you are free to voluntarily choose to participate in this interview, refuse to answer certain questions, or stop participating at any time without any loss or harm to you. If you choose to participate, your help in answering these questions is greatly appreciated. Your responses will be kept completely confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your responses will be combined with those from other stakeholders in Nigeria. For any questions about the study, contact: Fiona Rowand– Acting Chief of Party , The Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Support Activity, Navanti Group, No. 22 Kumasi Street Wuse II, Abuja, FCT, Nigeria–Contact Email: frowand@melsa.ng Evaluation Question INTERVIEW QUESTIONS EQ1 To what extent has the Activity been implemented as intended? 1. How has the Activity (FTF Agribusiness Investment) engaged with your organization/office (Ministry/Department/Agency)? Probe for: • Was an MoU signed with the Activity? When? • Mandates/Activities in relation to the MoU signed with the Activity • Target audience in relation the MoU signed with the Activity • Activity implementation approach/strategy • Duration of the MoU 2. How effective is the partnership with the Activity? Probe for: • What is working well • What needs to improve • How the partnership has strengthened the capacity of the organization • How many staff benefited from capacity building disaggregated by gender? • So far which best practices or success stories could you share about the partnership with the Activity • In your opinion, which areas of the partnership have been most significant to enable the Activity achievement? • So far which areas/activities have not been given adequate consideration by the Activity that could have had great impact on the Activity? 3. What are the major challenges in the Agribusiness environment that the Activity is addressing? 4. Which areas of the Agribusiness environment challenges has the Activity been most successful in improving/strengthening? Why? 5. Which areas of the Agribusiness environment challenges has the Activity been least successful in improving/strengthening? Why? a. To what extent have delivery methods contributed to ensuring 1. How has the Activity been implemented influenced improvement in the Agribusiness environment in the targeted states? Probe for: 48 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY Activity is on track to achieving targets? • How the Activity targeted and is addressing the three (3) major components of the intervention (ease of doing business, access to finance, and investment promotion) 2. How have the target audience benefited from the intervention implemented by the Activity? Probe for: • Ease of doing business - Improving the enabling environment for agricultural sector growth. • Broadening access to finance for MSMEs. • Promoting and facilitating investment opportunities for agribusinesses to expand and scale up operations. • Enhancing the performance of agribusiness micro, small and medium sized enterprises (MSMEs). 3. In your opinion, how does the Activity differ from other similar interventions in Nigeria? Probe for: • What aspects of the Activity are effective than other types of interventions? 4. How have you used the information available to you from the Activity to improve on the strategic mandate of your organization in contributing to the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS)? b. to what extent are the intended results been achieved? 1. What have been the noticeable changes in creating the enabling business environment for agribusiness finance and investment in Nigeria? c. How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment? How responsive is the Activity to the emerging needs of the business environment? 1. What will you describe as those changes made to the Activity’s program/s arising from an emerging need during the Activity implementation? What options exist for improving adaptation within the Activity? EQ2 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS How is the Activity working on improving the business enabling environment for agribusiness? 1. How will you describe the Activity’s focus areas and how it aligned with the Nigeria’s Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS)? Probe for: • How those interventions will be sustained or expanded in the Agribusiness environment? 2. Describe the Activity’s effort in improving the business environment for agribusiness. How could these efforts be improved? 1. What are the challenges affecting Activity implementation? 2. How can these challenges be addressed to achieve the Activity’s aim of strengthen enabling environment for agribusiness finance and investment? a. What is the status of policy reforms pursued by the Activity? 1. What policy reforms has the Activity influenced to support improve the enabling environment for agribusiness finance and investment? 49 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 2. What are the on-going policy reform efforts been pursued by the Activity to improve the enabling environment for agribusiness finance and investment? How are these policy reform efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? 1. Describe the approach/es of the policy reforms embarked by the Activity in transforming the agricultural sector in Nigeria. 2. Who are the stakeholders involved in the policy reform process? Probe for: • Review and implementation processes. b. What other efforts to improve the business enabling environment for agribusiness are underway and what is their status? 1. What additional efforts are been considered by your organization towards improving the enabling environment for agribusiness finance and investment? EQ3 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the agriculture sector? 1. What will you describe as an innovative approach by the Activity to increase financing and investment in the agricultural sector? a. How successful have they been? 1. What does success mean to you on this Activity? b. How could they be improved? 1. What would you like to see done differently moving forward on the Activity’s programs with regards to your participation in the Activity? 2. Do you have any other information you wish to share with us? EQ4 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS EQ4 How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? 1. What factors are most important for sustaining improvement in the agribusiness environment that have occurred as a result of the Activity? 2. How likely do you think this improvement will be sustained? 3. Are you aware of any transition/exit plan in place by the Activity to allow your organization take over the Activity’s programs after its exit? If yes, describe the plan/s. 4. In your opinion, will your organization continue with implementation of the Activity’s programs after the Activity ends? i. e. support to strengthen the enabling environment for agribusiness finance and investment in Nigeria. Probe: • How? What are the strategies in place to ensure continuity of Activity program implementation? • What challenges do you foresee that may impeded your organization from continuing with the Activity’s programs? 50 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 5. How can the support provided to your organization by the Activity (capacity building, network & linkages) be leveraged to continue implementation of the Activity’s programs after the Activity’s closure? How could these efforts be improved? 1. What would you like to see done differently moving forward on the Activity’s programs with regard to your participation in the Activity? 2. Do you have any other information you wish to share with us? 51 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY ANNEX IV: RESULTS FRAMEWORK 52 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY ANNEX V: STATEMENT OF WORK USAID/Nigeria Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Midterm Performance Evaluation Scope of Work I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Activity Identification Data Development Objective Activity Title Broadened and Inclusive Growth Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Award Number Project Dates 72062019C00001 December 17, 2018 to December 16, 2023 Type of Contract Project Funding Contract $15,692,593 Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) Implementing Partner (IP) Jodi-Kaye Wade CNFA II. DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT Background The five-year $15.7M USAID Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity aims to strengthen the enabling environment for agribusiness finance and investment. To achieve this goal, the Activity focuses on four interrelated components: improving the enabling environment for agricultural sector growth; broadening access to finance by mitigating the credit risks of agribusinesses; promoting and facilitating investment opportunities for agribusinesses to expand and scale up operations; and sustainably enhancing the performance of agribusiness micro, small and medium sized enterprises (MSMEs). In line with the U.S. and Nigerian governments’ commitment to growing the non-oil-based economy, these efforts will increase the depth, breadth, dynamism, and competitiveness of Nigeria’s agribusiness sector. Beginning in December 2018 and closing in December 2023, the Agribusiness Investment Activity, with Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture (CNFA) as the prime implementing partner, aims to viably and sustainably link thousands of MSMEs and producer organizations with high-performing commercial actors in the rice, maize, soybean, aquaculture, and cowpea value chains. Furthermore, it has a geographic concentration on the following seven states: Benue, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Kaduna, Kebbi, and Niger. 53 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY Intended Results The Agribusiness Investment Activity’s overall goal is to contribute to Nigeria’s Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) Intermediate Result 1: Strengthened inclusive agriculture systems that are productive and profitable. The purpose is to address the constraints that hamper the overall agricultural business environment of Nigeria and improve the level of agriculture￾related finance and investment. This purpose is linked to USAID Nigeria’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Development Objective 1: Broadened and Inclusive Growth and Intermediate Result 1.2: Business Environment Improved. The Activity also contributes indirectly to Intermediate Result 1.1 which seeks to increase agricultural competitiveness. The Activity is structured into four technical components or result areas (see below), which are also linked to respective sub-Intermediate Results (IRs) in USAID Nigeria’s CDCS: ● Agribusiness Enabling Environment Improved (Sub-IR 1.2.1: Policy and regulatory environment improved) ● Access to Agribusiness Finance Broadened (Sub-IR 1.2.2: Access to finance improved) ● Investment Promotion Facilitated (Sub-IR 1.2.2: Access to finance improved) ● Agribusiness Performance Standards Enhanced (Sub-IR 1.1:1 Agricultural Productivity Increased) Figure 1: USAID/Nigeria Economic Growth Results Framework (2015 -2019 CDCS) III. RESULTS FRAMEWORK DO1: Broadened and Inclusive Growth IR 1.3: Energy Access Increased SIR 1.3.1: Power generation increased SIR 1.3.2 Reliability and reach of transmission network improved IR 1.2: Business Environment Improved SIR 1.2.1: Policy & Regulatory Environment Improved SIR 1.2.2: Access to Finance Improved IR 1.1: Agricultural Competitiveness Increased SIR 1.1.1: Agricultural Productivity Increased SIR 1.1.2: Market Participation Increased SIR 1.1.3: Resiliency of Vulnerable Households and Communities Increased 54 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY The overall results framework for the FTF Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity is outlined in the Figure 2 below. It shows the pathways by which the project will achieve its goal of promoting more inclusive private-sector led agricultural growth (which is FTF strategy’s First Level Objective) and poverty reduction (which is the goal of CDCS). This framework will be central to the management, monitoring, and evaluation of this project. Figure 2. Results Framework: Agribusiness Investment Overall Goal Broader Objective Agribusiness Investments Increased Purpose Intermediate Objective Strengthen the Enabling Environment for Agricultural Development Input Tasks (illustrative) Outputs Accomplishments (components) Investment Promotion Facilitated Ease of Doing Agribusiness Improved Sub-Purposes Outcomes Access to Agribusiness Finance Broadened Credit Risk of Agribusinesses Mitigated Smart and Efficient Regulations in Agriculture Promoted Investment Readiness of Agribusiness Strengthened Ease of Doing Access to Finance Bi Investment Pi I II III Provide firm-level assistance to agribusinesses Support medium-scale investors Strengthen business development and support services Facilitate networking opportunities for agribusinesses, particularly with market linkages Improve legal and regulatory environment Streamline agribusiness registration and permit processes Strengthen quality of agribusiness regulations Assist agribusinesses to improve their credit risk profiles Increase the outreach of financial institutions and agriculture financial service delivery Support introduction of innovative services by financial services providers IV Improve coordination with VC stakeholders Integrate gender and youth into Project activities Coordinate with other Feed the Future programming in Nigeria Promoting knowledge sharing of evolving best practices in agribusiness investment promotion 55 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY IV. PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT The Nigerian Agribusiness Investment Activity was designed to accomplish the IRs and activity objectives through an activity work program. The Activity’s goal is to strengthen the business enabling environment to promote private sector investment in agriculture. To achieve this goal, the activity focuses on four interrelated components: (1) improving the ease of doing business in the agricultural sector through focused analysis and reform of select legal and regulatory constraints; (2) broadening access to finance through training, new financial products and by mitigating the credit risks of agribusinesses; (3) promoting investment opportunities for agribusinesses to expand and scale up operations; and (4) improving the organizational performance of agribusiness lead firms, industry associations, Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) processors, and producer groups. In line with the U.S. and Nigerian Government’s commitment to growing the non-oil-based economy, these efforts will increase the quality, quantity, market access, diversification, and competitiveness of Nigeria’s agribusiness sector. Examples of types of activities to be funded by the project include: 1) Agribusiness Enabling Environment ● Engagement of public and private sector stakeholders on 12 priority policies needing reforms ● Trainings for key policy champions and coalitions for change on advocacy and lobbying ● Trainings for relevant GON MDAs on enhanced stakeholder engagement methodology 2) Access to Finance ● Training to build FI capacity on value chain financing. ● Technical Assistance to financial institutions on specific agribusiness finance opportunities, products or processes to help expand their funding to agribusinesses. ● Lead Firm-driven financial transactions identified, supported, and consummated. ● Onboard 1 new agribusiness-friendly financier. 3) Investment Facilitation ● Equity investment focused trainings to investment firms ● Agribusiness-investment deal making events between the Activity’s agribusiness partners and existing or potential investors ● Agribusinesses evaluated, supported, and made (cross-cutting) Provide on-going support, training, tailored consultancy, and other services for grantees to implement activities and enhance deliverables Coordinate, collaborate, and build synergies across grantee activities 56 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 4) Agribusiness MSME Performance ● A training plan developed to build the capacities of MSMEs. ● New MSMEs and farmer groups identified, assessed towards meeting various capacity and finance needs. ● Business accelerator program focused on youths and women to access finance and investment ● New Lead Firms identified, assessed and provided with technical support to grow and manage input lending to out-growers. ● SMEs and farmer groups assessed to determine organizational performance gaps. Specific activities being undertaken by the Activity under the themes outlined above are necessary to create the appropriate enabling environment to achieve the intermediate and sub￾IRs as well as the overall goal of the project. The Feed-the-Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity was developed based on the following development challenges: ● Most smallholder farming operations have limited recourse to financing to scale operations, and market interest rates reach at least 18 to 25%. Microfinance loans fare no better, at 3-4% per month. Many in Nigeria lack access to formal banking services (women: 60%; youth 15-24: 90%). 4 ● Agribusinesses and agro-processors lack sufficient working capital and express concern over quality/safety of farming output (e.g., aflatoxin). ● Another major challenge is the inability of processors to source a consistent supply of high-quality inputs on the domestic market due to the low quality of on-farm produce. Processors face significant obstacles to importing them from abroad due to restrictions on the abilities of banks to finance the imports of many commodity classes and high tariff rates. ● Nigeria languishes close to the bottom of world rankings on global competitiveness 5 and the ease of doing business. 6 As a result, Nigeria remains a food deficit nation, relying on imported grains, livestock, and fish. Issues related to productivity, efficiency, quality, and price all compound the agribusiness investment climate. After decades of under-investments, the agribusiness sector remains uncompetitive. 7 There were a few critical assumptions for the Nigerian Agribusiness Investment Activity to achieve its targets and objectives. One is that the business environment in Nigeria remains averse to the risks and uncertainties associated with agricultural activities even as it acknowledges the subtle shift in focus from non-oil based revenue generation to agricultural resources. Second assumption is that the government, policy makers, financial institutions, private sector investors and other stakeholders targeted by the project are receptive to new ideas 4 Enhancing Financial Innovation and Access. "Access to Financial Services in Nigeria 2014 Survey: Key Findings." 2014. 5 On the 2015/16 Global Competitiveness rankings, Nigeria places 124th out of 140 countries. See reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2015-2016/competitiveness-rankings/. The report recommends priorities in infrastructure (ranking 133rd and the most constraining factor to doing business) and human capital. Poor health in the workforce (134th) and inefficient higher education (128th) also prevent the country from fulfilling its untapped potential. 6 According to the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business, Nigeria ranks a dismal 169 out of 189 countries. See http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings - www.doingbusiness.org/rankings. 7 For a general overview of agriculture in Nigeria, see Oxford Business Group, Nigeria 2015. 57 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY and responsive to evidence presented and committed to implementing and enforcing the outcomes of policy research and analysis. In other words, the Results Framework relies on there being political will, investment interest and support for the policy change agenda and that the project will receive cooperation and participation of targeted stakeholders in program activities and its outputs. While the above factors pose serious challenges, every effort will be made to achieve the mission of the project, which is to inform the process through rigorous and timely evidence building and help improve local capacity to use this evidence for policy analysis and advocacy. Existing Data The Evaluation Team will have access to the vital documents relevant to conducting this evaluation. These documents will include the technical proposal, original contract, monitoring and evaluation plan, annual work plans, quarterly and annual reports, data quality reports, contract amendments (if any), memorandums of understanding, and any other relevant materials documenting the management, implementation process and results for the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity permitted by the Office of Acquisition and Assistance. V. EVALUATION RATIONALE Evaluation Purpose The primary purpose of this midterm performance evaluation is to determine whether the assistance provided by USAID/Nigeria through the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity is meeting the stated development objectives, and to understand the lessons learned from this particular Activity in Nigeria. It is intended to provide an independent examination of the overall progress and accomplishments of the Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity. The evaluation should provide a detailed picture of the major accomplishments and weaknesses of the Activity since its inception, and determine how its successes can be sustained. This midterm performance evaluation will provide USAID/Nigeria, its implementing partners, and agriculture sector stakeholders with data on outcomes and progress toward achieving its objectives alongside answering fully all of the evaluation questions, and provide recommendations on how to adjust project interventions during the remaining two and half years of the Activity in order to accomplish its objectives. The evaluation should also elucidate the lessons that USAID should learn from this Activity in terms of activity design and management. The evaluation should include specific recommendations to USAID/Nigeria about how the Activity interventions can be sustained and scaled by and collaborate with other FTF activities, partners, private sector firms, or by the Government of Nigeria (GON). Audience and Intended Users The primary users of the evaluation findings are the USAID Economic Growth and Environment (EGE) Office, other Mission colleagues, and other U.S. Government (USG) officials. Other audiences include non-USG donor organizations, the GON, private sector firms and financial institutions, all of whom can use the findings to improve and build knowledge. The evaluation report will also serve as a reference material for the future program design (see Table 1 below). 58 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY Table 1: Audience and Intended Uses and Users # Intended Use Target Audience USAID/ Nigeria FtF Feedback/ Other USG Implementing Partners GON /Other Dev. Partners Research Communities/ Investment Communities 1 Inform Policy ✔ ✔ ✔ 2 Inform Project design ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 3 Improve project monitoring ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 4 Improve operational policy and planning ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 5 Improve resource management ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 6 Enhance professional growth ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 7 Add scientific Knowledge ✔ Evaluation Questions The evaluation will respond to the following critical questions posed by USAID/Nigeria. In answering these EQs, analysis must examine gender and inclusive development impacts. 5. To what extent has the Feed the Future Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity been implemented as intended according to the Activity design? a. To what extent have the methods of delivery contributed to ensuring the Activity is on track to achieving its annual and life of project targets? b. To what extent are the intended results per the Activity design being achieved? How could achievement of results be improved? c. How responsive has the Activity been to the changing needs of the business environment and seizing opportunities for impact? If needed, what options exist for improving adaptation within the Activity? 6. How is the Activity working on improving the business enabling environment for agribusiness? How could these efforts be improved? a. What is the status of policy reforms pursued by the Activity? How are these policy reform efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? b. What other efforts to improve the business enabling environment for agribusiness are underway and what is their status? How are these efforts contributing (or not) to the Activity objectives of transforming the agriculture sector in Nigeria? 59 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 7. What approaches and/or innovations has the Activity taken to increase financing and investment in the agriculture sector? How successful have they been and how could they be improved? 8. How sustainable are the Activity’s efforts to improve the landscape for access to finance and investment likely to be? How could this be improved? VI. EVALUATION METHOD AND METHODOLOGY Evaluation Design The Evaluation Team will use a mixed methods approach to complete a thorough and effective midterm performance evaluation within the timeline and budget parameters set in the contract. The evaluation team should consider a range of possible methods and approaches for collecting and analyzing the information required to answer the evaluation questions. The methodology should include, but not be limited to, the following techniques to conduct the evaluation. Prior to conducting field work, the team should submit to USAID/Nigeria three key deliverables: 1) Document Review Summary, 2) Methodology / Detailed Work Plan, 3) Site Visit Schedule and plan. USAID/Nigeria will review these three deliverables, turning them around within three work‐weeks to the evaluation team. ● Document Review/Data Analysis. Prior to conducting field work, team members will review various documents and reports, including but not limited to the Agribusiness Investment Activity original agreement and amendments; USAID/Nigeria strategy document; FtF Project Appraisal Document; activity quarterly and annual reports; activity technical studies; and other relevant documents such as the specification of the activity deliverables. USAID/Nigeria and CNFA will provide the relevant documents. ● Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). The team will conduct interviews and focus groups with a variety of stakeholders including USAID staff, project beneficiaries, partner banks, government staff, implementing partner staff, and other key donor partners. A list of stakeholders and contacts will be provided by USAID/Nigeria and CNFA, and additional individuals may be identified by the evaluation team at any point during the evaluation prior to the drafting of the final report. ● Site Visits. In addition to the many KIIs that will take place in Abuja, the Evaluation Team will visit activity sites to interview beneficiary communities, service providers, private sector entities engaging with beneficiaries, and federal, state, and local government authorities as indicated. The Evaluation Team will apply robust data analysis techniques including triangulation to draw conclusions and recommendations linked to key findings that are based on strong evidence. The Evaluation Team will compare data collected from KIIs with results from the Activity documents and reports. USAID staff from the EGE Office and from other Mission offices may accompany the Evaluation Team as needed. VII. EVALUATION PRODUCTS 60 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY Deliverables The Evaluation Team will be responsible for producing the following deliverables: ● Detailed Work Plan detailing evaluation methodological approach and draft schedule of field activities and draft and final questionnaire (s) to be used during interviews (prior to travel to the field). This will also include a summary of the document review. ● Inbrief ● Proposed outline of draft evaluation report (either prior to the field or at the end of first week of interviewing). ● Summary of initial findings, including a PowerPoint Briefing (at the end of follow‐up and synthesis effort of the Team). ● Draft Evaluation Report. ● Final Evaluation Presentation, to share the findings more broadly within the mission. ● Final Evaluation Report (within two weeks of receiving Mission comments on draft report). ● Two page brief summarizing the key findings of the evaluation ● One page infographic document sharing key findings of the evaluation All reports are to be submitted in English electronically. Hard copies of materials for in-person activities/presentations/meetings will be provided. The Final Evaluation Report should not exceed 30 pages in length in its body, not including title page; Table of Contents; List of Acronyms; usage of space for tables, graphs, charts, or pictures; and/ or any material deemed important and included as Annexes. The Final Evaluation Report and PowerPoint addressing the Mission's comments should be submitted in both Word and PDF formats. Once the PDF format has been approved by the Mission, the Team will submit the Final Evaluation Report to the Development Experience Clearinghouse for archiving. Reports should be submitted consistent with the Automated Directives System (ADS) 579. Reporting Guidelines USAID’s evaluation policy requires that all evaluation SOWs include USAID’s Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report (USAID Evaluation Policy, 2011). The policy also indicates that the report will outline in detail, any additional expectations USAID has regarding a report’s structure, format, and length. The format for the evaluation report is as follows (number of pages is illustrative): ● Executive Summary (5 pp.) ● Table of Contents (1 pp.) ● Introduction (1 pp.) ● Background (1-2 pp.) ● Methodology (1-2 pp.) ● Findings/Conclusions (15- 20 pp.) ● Issues and Challenges (1-2 pp.) ● Recommendations/Future Directions (3-5 pp.) ● References ● Annexes The draft and final reports will be submitted electronically. All reports will be in English. 61 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY The report must: ● Distinguish clearly between findings, conclusions (based strictly on findings) and recommendations (based clearly on the evaluation findings and conclusions); ● Comply with USAID’s Evaluation Policy ● Ensure submission to the DEC after finalization. Dissemination Plan It is expected that USAID/Nigeria will plan a dissemination session with other technical units within the mission, implementing partners, donor community as well other stakeholders. Dissemination activities will include: a preliminary findings presentation with the USAID technical team, a final presentation with the wider mission, a 2-page brief, and an infographic document. These varied deliverables will help ensure that the learning from the evaluation can be shared as broadly as possible and will help encourage uptake and adaptation in response. For any in-person dissemination activities (such as the final presentation), hard copies of materials will be provided to participants. VIII. TEAM COMPOSITION The Evaluation Team will consist of four key members, including at least one (1) international consultant (who will lead the team) and local consultants. The team members should represent a balance of several types of knowledge and expertise related to Nigerian Agribusiness Investment programming and agriculture-led development. USAID/Nigeria recommends the following staffing structure for the evaluation. The core evaluation team will be supported by the MEL team, who will take the role of overall evaluation coordination, communication with the mission, submission of deliverables, and management of timelines and budgets. Team Leader/Senior Evaluation Specialist (International): The Team Leader will be responsible for the overall management of the evaluation. S/he will be the primary person responsible for ensuring a rigorous and high quality evaluation design.. The Team Leader will develop the evaluation design, the final report, present the evaluation findings to stakeholders, and incorporate USAID/Nigeria staff comments into the final version of the report. All tasks will be completed within the agreed upon timelines. Qualifications for the Team Leader: ● A graduate degree in Development Economics, Public Policy, Economics, Business Administration, Agriculture, or a related field. ● At least ten years of experience assessing or evaluating USAID and other donor￾supported agricultural policy, finance and investment, and agricultural value chain activities. ● Previous experience serving as an evaluation Team Leader on a USAID-supported agriculture-related and/or access to finance activity. ● Previous experience working in Africa. ● Experience facilitating and providing leadership in collaborative and participatory evaluations with multiple stakeholders. ● Excellent writing, communication and presentation skills. 62 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY ● The ability to produce preliminary and final reports on time. Other team members will include: 3. A host-country national or international Senior Agribusiness Specialist: The Senior Agribusiness Specialist must have at least a Master's Degree or equivalent in Development Economics, Investment and Finance, Agricultural Finance, Business Administration, Social Sciences, or related fields. S/he must have a minimum of seven (7) years implementing and evaluating programming around strengthening the enabling environment for agricultural development. S/he must demonstrate good interpersonal and diplomatic skills as well as strong report writing and analytical skills and an excellent oral communication skills in English. 4. A host country mid-level Agriculture Economist: The Agriculture Economist must possess technical competence in the field of Agriculture, Agricultural Policy, Agribusiness and Agriculture value chains, Economics, or related fields. S/he must have a minimum of five (5) years conducting economic assessments and studies in the agriculture sector and must have strong report writing and analytical skills. S/he must demonstrate strong knowledge of the Nigerian agricultural policy and agricultural finance environment. 5. A national Evaluation Specialist with at least five (5) years relevant experience in monitoring, evaluation, and learning. S/he must demonstrate strong experience with data collection procedures, surveys, and analysis of data using statistical analysis tools suitable for a varied audience USAID leaves to Navanti’s discretion other necessary team members/staff for the evaluation (e.g. logistics, scheduling and translation, data analysis). Aside from the above mentioned key personnel, the offeror must decide how the evaluation team should be structured in order to successfully address the evaluation questions. All attempts should be made for the team to be gender balanced and to include local (Nigerian) experts. USAID may propose internal staff from USAID/Nigeria or from Washington to accompany the team in this evaluation as observers. As observers, their role will be to provide guidance and background information, and to reply to the external evaluators’ questions. They will review and comment on the report for accuracy, but evaluators may accept or reject comments. The final report should reflect the opinions of the external evaluators and is the sole responsibility of the selected Evaluation Team. Conflicts of Interest All evaluation team members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflicts of interest, or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the activity being evaluated. USAID/Nigeria will provide the conflict of interest forms. IX. SCHEDULING AND LOGISTICS Responsibilities 63 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY The funding source will be through the budget of the USAID/Nigeria Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Activity. The EGE Office of USAID/Nigeria contributes to the budget of the MEL Activity. The MEL Activity will be responsible for all offshore and in-country administrative and logistical support, including identification and fielding appropriate consultants. Navanti will arrange and schedule meetings, international and local travel, hotel bookings, working/office spaces, computers, printing and photocopying. Navanti will make all logistical arrangements, including the vehicles for travel throughout Nigeria, and should not expect any logistical support from the Mission. Navanti will also make their own arrangements about space for team meetings and equipment support for producing the report. USAID/Nigeria will provide: ● Background documents to be provided to the evaluation team as early as possible prior to work on the evaluation, but at least two weeks before the start of the evaluation; ● A list of key informants, institutions, organizations, and other stakeholders; ● Ensure constant availability of Mission Point of Contact to provide technical leadership and direction for the evaluation team’s work; ● Assistance with arrangements/letters of introduction for formal and official meetings, and where necessary for high‐level meetings, will accompany teams on introductory interviews; and, but not limited to; and ● If necessary and deemed appropriate, assist in identifying and helping set up meetings with local development partners relevant to the assignment. Performance Period The period of performance will start on or about September 2021 depending on the availability of consultants and available funding. USAID/Nigeria will designate a technical representative to work in coordination with the Evaluation Team; however, the Team Leader will have the primary responsibility for ensuring the final deliverables are completed in a timely manner and are responsive to the scope of work and Mission comments. Timeline and LOE for the USAID/Nigeria Agribusiness Investment Activity Midterm Evaluation Item Period of Performance Number of Days International Team Leader Senior Agribusiness Specialist Agriculture Economist Local Evaluation Specialist Recruitment international evaluation and local team members and obtaining travel concurrence from USAID (OAA) September 2021 Desk Review of background documents and initial preparation work towards draft data collection tools, sampling, and workplan October 4 – 8 5 5 5 5 64 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY Preparation and submission of draft workplan & draft data collection tools (protocols) October 9 – 22 5 3 2 2 Submission of Workplan and evaluation design /protocols October 22 0 0 0 0 USAID provides feedback on work plan and evaluation design/ protocol Oct. 25 – Nov. 12 0 0 0 0 Reviewing evaluation tools to incorporate USAID comments November 13 – 24 4 3 1 1 Submission of Final evaluation design and evaluation tools November 24 0 0 0 0 In-country arrival (Abuja Nigeria) for international consultants November 27 - 28 2 0 0 0 In brief/Team Preparation Meeting with USAID November 29 1 1 1 1 Field visits and Data Collection November 30 – December 18 18 18 18 18 Out -country travel (for International Consultants) December 19 - 20 2 0 0 0 Analysis of results, Report writing and preparation of ppt for USAID debrief December 21 – January 9 9 7 3 3 Debrief with USAID (preliminary findings) January 9 1 1 0.5 0.5 Finalizing evaluation report January 10 - 28, 2022 11 9 4 2 Submission of draft report (to USAID) January 28 0 0 0 0 USAID reviews and comments on final draft evaluation report January 28 - February 18 0 0 0 0 Submission of report back to MEL with USAID feedback February 18 0 0 0 0 Team addresses USAID comments and finalizes the report February 19 – March 4 4 3 2 1 Final, Mission-wide Presentation of Results March 4 1 1 0.5 0.5 Submit 2 -3 page summary and Infographic March 4 2 0 0 0 65 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY Submission of final report to USAID March 4 0 0 0 0 TOTAL LOE 65 51 37 34 Title LOE/Days LOE/Hours International Team Lead 65 520 Senior Agribusiness Specialist 51 408 Agriculture Economist 37 296 Evaluation Specialist 34 272 66 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY ANNEX VI: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 67 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 68 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 69 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY 70 | FTF MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NIGERIA MEL SUPPORT ACTIVITY United States Agency for International Development Abuja, Nigeria