i 
PARTNERSHIP FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAIRED)
FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
May 2023
DISCLAIMER 
This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared 
by the Analytical Support Services and Evaluations for Sustainable Systems (ASSESS) activity, a partnership of the United States Department of 
Agriculture/Foreign Agriculture Service (USDA/FAS), the University of Rhode Island (URI), and Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology 
(KNUST). The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Partnership for Agriculture Research, Education and Development (PAIRED) Final Performance 
Evaluation was prepared for the USAID/West Africa Agriculture Team under the Analytical Support 
Services and Evaluations for Sustainable Systems (ASSESS) Project (Project No. 624-P-14-00004). It was 
prepared by Katrina Makuch, Richard Akromah (PhD), Jorge Oliveira, and Sounka Ndiaye with support 
from the USAID ASSESS Team.
This final performance evaluation would not have been possible without the tremendous support of 
USAID West Africa and the PAIRED Activity, the West and Central African Council for Agricultural 
Research and Development, the various National Agricultural Research Institutions, Innovation Platform 
members, including farmers to executive leaders, seed companies, regional agricultural entities and all 
those who generously contributed their time for the evaluation. 
A special acknowledgement is made for the PAIRED Activity Coordinators, who were essential for the 
success of the field visits. The Evaluation Team is boundlessly thankful to everyone who shared their 
PAIRED experience, thoughts on the seed sector in the region and their countries, and expectations and 
hopes for the future of West African regional seed upscaling.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ACRONYMS vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 1
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING 3
INTRODUCTION 4
ACTIVITY BACKGROUND 4
EVALUATION PURPOSE 5
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 5
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 7
SCOPE AND COVERAGE 7
PAIRED COUNTRY PROFILES 8
DATA COLLECTION 10
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 10
EVALUATION LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES 11
EVALUATION QUESTION 1 12
STAKEHOLDER CAPACITY AND IMPROVED PERFORMANCE 12
TRAINING ACTIVITIES AND TOOLS 15
INNOVATION PLATFORMS 16
PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT 19
INCREASING QUALITY AGRI-INPUTS IN WEST AFRICA 21
VOLUME OF SEED PRODUCTION 21
REGIONAL/ CROSS BORDER TRADE 23
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS 25
GENDER AND YOUTH 25
PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS FOR REMEDIAL ATTENTION 26
EVALUATION QUESTION 2 29
VIABILITY AND CONTINUITY 31
EVALUATION QUESTION 3 32
REGIONAL SEED SYSTEM STRENGTHENING 32
LEADERSHIP TO EXPAND SEED SUPPLY 33
v
INFLUENCING SEED MARKET DEMAND 33
EVALUATION QUESTION 4 36
EVALUATION QUESTION 5 39
GROWING THE PRIVATE SECTOR 41
EVALUATION QUESTION 6 43
EVALUATION QUESTION 7 46
WASIX 46
FESERWAM PLATFORM 46
MITA WEB-BASED APPLICATION 48
FUTURE ELECTONIC PLATFORM CONSIDERATIONS 48
RECOMMENDATIONS 50
ANNEX A: INTERVIEW LIST 51
ANNEX B: INNOVATION PLATFORM COMPOSITION 60
ANNEX C: EVALUATION FIELD WORK CALENDAR 95
ANNEX D: PAIRED INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TRACKING TABLE 97
ANNEX E: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES 105
ANNEX F: EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK 113
ANNEX G: EVALUATION MATRIX 114
ANNEX H: EXPERT PROFILES 117
ANNEX I: DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 119
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Final Evaluation Data Schedule.....................................................................................................................10
Table 2: Number of unique interviews, by country and stakeholder group .....................................................11
Table 3: Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance - CBLD-9 (Indicator 1.1)..13
Table 4: Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs - EG.3-2 (Indicator 2.1)...................14
Table 5: Number of Agro-ecology based Seed and fertilizer information toolkit made available (Indicator 
2.1.3)...................................................................................................................................................................................16
Table 6: Number of functional Innovation Platforms used for T&Is upscaling (Indicator 2.1.1)...................17
Table 7: Innovation Platform compositions, by Country, NARI, and Actor.....................................................18
Table 8: Number of innovation platforms action plans developed and implemented (Indicator 2.1.2)......19
Table 9: Number of new seed companies supplying quality seed in West Africa (Indicator 3.1.1).............20
Table 10:Volume of quality seed produced in the region, in metric tons by value chain (Indicator 3.1)...22
Table 11: Volume of intra-regional quality seed trade, in metric tons (Indicator 3.2)....................................24
Table 12: Number of Private Public Partnerships formed as a result of USG assistance (Indicator 3.1.3)25
Table 13: List of signed partnerships, by organization and expected outcomes. .............................................34
Table 14: Number of countries for which ECOWAS policies are gazetted and fully implemented with 
technical assistance of PAIRED (Indicator 1.4.1)......................................................................................................36
Table 15: Seed associations and companies, by country........................................................................................39
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance, target versus achieved by 
group type. ........................................................................................................................................................................13
Figure 2: Distribution of individuals participating in USG food security programs, by group type..............15
Figure 3: FeSERWAM user distribution, percentage by country .........................................................................47
vii
ACRONYMS
AfDB African Development Bank
AFSTA African Seed Trade Association
AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
AMELP Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan
ASIWA Alliance for Seed Industry in West Africa
ASSESS Analytical Support Services and Evaluations for Sustainable Systems
CILSS Comité permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel/Permanent 
Interstates Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel
CORAF Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles/ 
West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
CRI Crop Research Institute
ECOWAP Economic Community of West Africa Agricultural Policy
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
EnGRAIS Enhancing Growth through Regional Agricultural Input Systems
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 
FtF USAID Feed the Future Initiative
FUCOPRI Fédération des Unions et Coopératives des Producteurs de Riz/
Federation of Unions of Rice Producers’ Cooperatives
FY Fiscal Year
GAP Good Agricultural Practices
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GFSS Global Food Security Strategy
IAR Institute of Agricultural Research
IAR4D Integrated Agricultural Research for Development
IER Institut d'Economie Rurale/ Rural Economy Institute
viii
IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
IPTT Indicator Performance Tracking Table
INRAN Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique du Niger/ National Institute of 
Agronomic Research of Niger
INSAH Institut du Sahel/ The Sahel Institute
ISRA Institut Sénégalais de Recherche Agricole/ Senegalese Institute of Agricultural Research
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NARIs National Agricultural Research Institutions
NCRI National Cereals Research Institute
ONG RAIL NGO Reseau d’Appui aux Initiatives Locales
PAIRED Partnership for Agricultural Research, Education and Development 
PVP Plant Variety Protection
ROPPA Réseau des Organisations Paysannes et des Producteurs Agricoles de l’Afrique de 
l’Ouest/ West African Network of Peasants and Agricultural Producers
RQPL Regional Quarantine Pests List 
SARI Savannah Agricultural Research Institute
SEDAP Sahélienne D’entreprise de Distribution en Agrobusiness
SEEDAN Seed Entrepreneurs Association of Nigeria
SOW Scope of Work
T&Is Technologies and Innovations 
TAAT Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation
ToC Theory of Change
ToT Training of Trainers
ix
UEMOA Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine/ West African Economic and 
Monetary Union
UNIS Union Nationale des professionnelles des semences/ National Union of Seed 
Professionals
USAID/WA United States Agency for International Development/ West Africa Regional Mission
WAAPP West Africa Agricultural Productivity Program
WACTAC West Africa Association for Cross Border Trade of Agroforestry-Pastoral
WASIX West Africa Seed Information Exchange
WASP West Africa Seed Program
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
USAID/West Africa (WA) and the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and 
Development (CORAF) commissioned a final performance evaluation of the Partnership for Agricultural 
Research, Education and Development (PAIRED) Activity to measure the successes from this partnership, 
learn about its challenges and areas for improvement, and to draw lessons to inform future programming 
of each partner organization. 
The final performance evaluation specifically focused on two technical components of the program: 
Component 2, with the expected result of “innovative scaling framework for agri-input technologies and 
innovations established in West Africa'' and Component 3, with the expected result of “use of quality agri￾inputs in West Africa increased.” Targeted areas for this evaluation include PAIRED activities in key 
locations across six countries in the region. Analysis and documentation of results is given to PAIRED’s 
work in the Feed the Future (FtF) focus countries of Benin, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Senegal.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation utilized a semi-structured, qualitative evaluation design appropriate for a final performance 
evaluation, relying on quantitative data, where available, to triangulate findings. This approach allows 
USAID, CORAF and its stakeholders to understand the effectiveness of the PAIRED Activity and build a 
knowledge base to inform decision-making, enabling USAID to test the key hypotheses underlying the 
overarching results framework’s theory of change (ToC). This design provided for inquiries into the 
evaluation of processes and the achievement of the project’s targets and objectives.
The PAIRED Final Performance Evaluation team conducted a total of 108 unique interviews across the six 
evaluation countries. Given the PAIRED Activity’s primary intervention approach, interviews were focused 
heavily on Research Institutions and with the various actors associated with Innovation Platforms. In all,18 
interviews were conducted within eight Research Institutions and 61 interviews were completed within 
20 Innovation Platforms. The data collected provided detailed information on program management and 
organizational development, national and/or regional seed regulation, agri-input technologies and 
innovations, and private sector engagement throughout the levels of PAIRED implementation. The 
expansive scope, in both the number and type of interview, informed the assessment of PAIRED 
performance successes and challenges, and lessons learned at all levels of stakeholder engagement. 
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The PAIRED Final Evaluation addressed seven evaluation questions, each delving into the various actors 
and objectives of the PAIRED implementation. As an activity intended to address seed upscaling in West 
Africa, the PAIRED Activity delivered mixed results. At a macro level, success was made in increasing 
maize and rice seed production, but this had virtually no impact in increasing regional trade. At the farm 
level, the PAIRED activity struggled to move beyond the focus on grain production to seed upscaling. 
There are substantial lessons to be learned, as the PAIRED experience had unique elements in each of the 
six countries allowing for a comparative analysis to complement the overall analysis approach. A synopsis 
of findings and conclusions, by implementation layer, includes:
• The PAIRED Activity managed an intensive training program on good agricultural practices, 
technical applications of seed regulation, and business/programmatic governance at the level of 
the NARIs, Innovation Platforms and select private sector actors. These training courses were 
well received and appreciated by the intended beneficiaries. Seventy-three firms improved their 
organization’s capacity, and 10,603 individual producers increased their knowledge.
• Supplementing the training activities, CORAF produced 357 agro-ecology seed and fertilizer 
information kits which were made available through the PAIRED Activity: 90 in maize, 172 in rice, 
56 in millet and 39 in sorghum. In all, these toolkits exceeded the intended target by 233 percent.
2 
• Staffing limitations influenced multiple aspects of the PAIRED Activity. The simultaneous, multi￾country implementation approach, which required needs assessments, contracts with NARIs, 
development of work plans and seed delivery at the correct time were affected by the staffing 
capacity of the core team. Difficulties coordinating a six-country activity resulted in the PAIRED 
Activity ultimately resembling six national projects, rather than one harmonized regional activity. 
PAIRED’s attempt to roll out the program simultaneously invariably missed the planting season in 
some sites, thus losing the opportunity for at least two seasons of demonstrations for new and 
improved seed varieties.
• CORAF’s heavy reliance on training activities left the NARIs primarily responsible for managing 
the integration of private sector actors and market linkages, which had limited success. The 
PAIRED staffing structure’s lack of any requirement to staff an external private sector/seed 
business specialist to assist in the development of a private sector strategy resulted in poor 
utilization of the private sector under PAIRED. 
• Financial flows posed a substantial challenge to implementation. Delays in transferring funds from 
USAID to CORAF, from CORAF to NARIs, and from NARIs to different local partners 
significantly reduced the progress of field activities in different countries. The quantity of funds 
further limited the types of activities which could be implemented at the NARI/Innovation Platform 
levels.
• A lack of clear understanding of the PAIRED Activity’s up-scaling outcomes at the NARI level 
contributed to Innovation Platform farmers’ inability to upscale any varieties of certified seeds due 
to time constraints of PAIRED interventions, technical and bureaucratic demands for certification, 
and the absence of clear linkages to market actors to absorb the increased production of certified 
seed.
• In regard to overall volume of quality seed produced, the achievement rate varied according to 
the commodity type and the type of seed. For maize and rice, the targets for breeder, foundation 
and certified seed were exceeded, with maize returning 461 percent in excess of the original set 
target for certified seeds and certified rice seed arriving at 54 percent above the targeted volume. 
Breeder seed production resulted in the highest percentage increase across the three seed 
categories, indicating that the NARIs were successful in increasing their breeder seed production 
for maize and rice. For millet and sorghum, no targets were met for any type of seed (breeder, 
foundation, and certified). 
• The evaluation team observed that the PAIRED Activity engaged with a total of 43 Innovation 
Platforms during the course of implementation, in excess of their target of 36. The majority of 
NARIs elected to work with previously established innovation platforms (33), while in Ghana and 
Nigeria, the NARIs also established 10 new innovation platforms.
• In all countries excluding Ghana, the number of beneficiary farmers reflected more than a decade’s 
worth of investment in previously established innovation platforms, with upwards of 3,500 farmers 
in the innovation platforms. Ghana represented the most conservative approach to designing the 
innovation platforms, where an effort was made to limit all actors engaged in the innovation 
platform to 30, irrespective of the age of the group. In total, the Innovation Platform approach 
reached a total of 9,043 farmers made up of 4,425 men, 4,572 women, and 1,281 youth.
• Ultimately, the PAIRED Activity failed to produce a single certified seed grower at the time of the 
evaluation. Failure to adequately invest in facilitation of the certification licensing process for 
community seed producers in the Innovation Platforms thwarted the upscaling intention of the 
PAIRED Activity through the Innovation Platform intervention instrument.
3
• The Evaluation team noted that the private sector engagement with the PAIRED Activity, in 
general, and within the Innovation Platforms specifically, was weak. The weak private sector 
engagement within the Innovation Platforms was inconsistent and failed to capitalize on private 
sector strengths; this engagement was mostly limited to demonstration plots. This micro-level 
engagement is in contrast broader macro-level where the growing presence of private sector seed 
companies regionally resulted in 349 new seed companies reported during the Activity’s 
performance period, a nearly 15-fold increase over the expected target. 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING 
● The foundational assumption that existing Innovation Platforms could be reinforced to create seed 
upscaling opportunities should be revisited. While PAIRED did not have more than two complete 
seasons to achieve the intended results, the trends which emerged indicate greater resources 
and/or investments need to be considered to achieve a substantial increase in seed upscaling 
through the application of the Innovation Platform approach. 
● The PAIRED Activity demonstrates the implementation limitations faced at the farm level. Future 
programming must take into consideration the institutional capacity of all actors to manage 
financial systems, planning processes, implementation calendars, etc. as necessary to achieve a 
single, harmonized project. 
● Should future programming continue at the farm level, CORAF must take on a greater leadership 
role in actively managing the engagements “on the ground.” In the absence of adequate PAIRED 
leadership, each NARI adapted to their own understanding of the PAIRED Activity. The NARIs, 
despite limited funding and a pandemic, were not adequately supported which influenced their 
ability to achieve the PAIRED expected results. 
● Any future programming must revisit the private sector engagement strategy. The expectation 
that the private sector would be motivated to fill programmatic gaps on their own was unrealistic; 
the private sector is often growing in spite of, not because of, the public sector. Greater 
consideration for the challenges seed companies experiences and stronger integration with the 
private sector in identifying shared objectives are needed to build a more cohesive private sector 
strategy. 
● CORAF holds a particular advantage in advocating for regional seed objectives. Having made 
progress over the past decade in harmonized seed regulations, the focus now should look at the 
significant gaps which exist in the operational elements of these regulations. Working with national 
governments on their processes for customs clearing of seed would benefit future programming 
for seed upscaling. Reducing customs bottlenecks would have substantial impact in opening up the 
regional seed trade, thus increasing the volume of intra-regional trade by private sector seed 
companies.
4
INTRODUCTION
ACTIVITY BACKGROUND
In June 2017, USAID/West Africa (WA) and the West and Central African Council for Agricultural 
Research and Development (CORAF) signed a five-year (2017-2022), US$15 million-dollar Cooperative 
Agreement to provide support for a program entitled the Partnership for Agricultural Research, Education 
and Development (PAIRED). 
The PAIRED Activity’s primary aim was to undertake systemic reforms that would improve the efficiency, 
effectiveness, and professionalism of CORAF. This would be done to move the organization towards 
becoming a leading instrument for the regional coordination of agricultural research, and to put it on a 
path to financial stability and sustainability. The reforms would result in making the organization solid and 
resilient with a new strategic orientation capable of providing a high-quality, demand-led, core services 
package. 
The PAIRED Activity derived its legitimacy and urgency from three interconnected realities. First, CORAF 
needed to build its organizational capacity to deliver more efficiently and effectively on its vision, with 
robust operational and implementation systems. Secondly, CORAF needed to engage emerging actors 
more effectively (e.g., private sector and Agricultural Research for Development (AR&D) foundations) 
and facilitate, enable, and encourage public and private investments in specific value chains. Finally, the 
program sought to ensure much needed adoption of improved agricultural technologies and practices by 
smallholder farmers. To this end, CORAF was expected to innovatively work with governmental and non￾governmental partners to support and advocate for mechanisms that could persuade the private sector 
to put in place systems that ensured sustained availability, delivery, and adoption of improved seeds, 
fertilizers, and other agri-inputs. 
Ultimately, the PAIRED Activity arrived at the following theory of change (ToC) to guide the design of 
the change pathways resulting in the expected results of the PAIRED Activity. It states as follows:
If, capacity of CORAF is strengthened to effectively coordinate agricultural research and 
development in West Africa, then, CORAF will be able to assemble the necessary capacities, 
systems, and processes to deliver most efficiently on its vision, with robust operational and 
implementation systems, and this will lead to improved agri-input market and agricultural 
productivity in West Africa through establishing innovative scaling framework for Agri-input 
Technologies and Innovations and increasing the use of quality Agri-inputs in WA. 
The PAIRED Activity consisted of three mutually reinforcing components that provided CORAF with 
financial, technical, and human resources to execute its core mandate. They included: 
● Component 1: Strengthening CORAF’s institutional capacity. 
● Component 2: Innovative scaling framework for agri-input technologies and innovations 
established in West Africa; and
● Component 3: Use of quality agri-inputs in West Africa increased.
Components 2 and 3 were expected to deliver, in tandem with an increasingly strengthened CORAF 
secretariat (Component 1), to foster a progressively conducive policy environment for technology 
generation, dissemination, and adoption across the region and beyond. This was in line with the PAIRED 
TOC wherein enhanced coordination of a strengthened Executive Secretariat will impact positively on 
technology generation, dissemination, and utilization.
This independent PAIRED Final Evaluation assessed the performance of the PAIRED Technical Program 
Components 2 and 3, to determine if planned activities led to the achievement of activity objectives and 
expected outcomes. 
5
EVALUATION PURPOSE 
This independent evaluation assessed the performance of the PAIRED Activity’s Technical Approach 
under Components 2 and 3, to determine if planned activities led to the achievement of activity objectives 
and expected outcomes. Evaluation findings will be used by USAID and CORAF to assess progress to date 
in building the capacity of key regional stakeholders, scaling access to proven agricultural input 
technologies and good agricultural practices, determining the sustainability of accomplishments to date, 
and serving as a learning tool on the successes, weaknesses, and gaps of the program. The intended 
audiences of this evaluation are the USAID/WA, Economic Community of West African States 
(ECOWAS) and its affiliated bodies, the National Agricultural Research Institutions, and any development 
actor who may be interested in regional agriculture and seed systems development.
Additionally, evaluation findings will be used to inform new activity descriptions for future programs in 
support of key strategic documents: i.e., newly adopted ECOWAS Regional Integrated Strategy for Inputs; 
the ECOWAS Agriculture Program (ECOWAP); and the USAID Regional Plan for Global Food Security 
Strategy (GFSS) for West Africa.
This evaluation focused on PAIRED Activity performance with respect to expected results and objectives 
by PAIRED technical program components 2 and 3; program design and management; the prospect of 
long-term sustainability; and practical recommendations for performance improvement and strategic 
planning. The evaluation determined if planned activities led to the achievement of activity objectives and 
expected outcomes. In a general sense, the objectives of the final evaluation are to provide an overall 
independent ability:
● To assess the progress toward meeting PAIRED objectives.
● To assess the validity of program strategies, approaches, and assumptions.
● To assess program performance management by PAIRED implementing partners; and 
● To identify lessons learned and recommend actions for improving future programming.
In keeping with best practices, the evaluation team prioritized best practices and methodologies as a 
measure of the PAIRED Activity’s performance. Output measurements are included to provide evidence 
for gauging the overall relationship between PAIRED assumptions, PAIRED interventions, and overall 
sustainability. Challenges and limitations are presented to justify the evaluation approach as the best 
possible methodology, given the reality on the ground. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The PAIRED Final Evaluation scope of work (SOW) detailed the following list of evaluation questions:
1. How successful has the PAIRED activity been in meeting its planned targets?
a. If certain activity components have not been successful, please explain why (in areas of the 
program’s assumptions, programmatic implementation, gender/youth integration into the seed or 
fertilizer sector, private sector partnership, staffing, etc.).
2. Which areas of performance require CORAF and USAID’s remedial attention?
What recommendations are there for strengthening, improving, and building upon (scale-up) program 
successes of PAIRED’s components and sub-activities post-2022? What is the viability of the approach 
PAIRED has taken to scale up agriculture technologies and to build supply and/or meet agri-business 
companies and farmer demand for improved seeds?
6
3. Is CORAF/PAIRED’s leadership in strengthening the seed system and advancing the ECOWAS Seed 
Regulations regarded as effective (or integral to scaling-up seed input success) by their counterparts 
such as the International Agriculture Research Centers, and NARIs, or others?
a. Are the institutional structures/relationships now in place, for example, within partnership 
institutions such as the National Agriculture Research Institutes (NARIs), or are they being 
developed to sustain the relationships and investments that are being made by PAIRED?
4. Have CORAF and ECOWAS achieved success in advancing the ECOWAS Seed Regulations with 
USAID support? If not, please describe and justify what is left to do and what could be considered as 
success. What are the implications of donors not funding this regulation under future programs?
5. Has the CORAF leadership used the PAIRED activity to forge deeper private-sector engagement in 
the agricultural inputs system, especially seeds? How has the private sector fulfilled the roles expected 
of it in the regional seed sector? For example, describe the viability of the private sector and how it 
is advancing the development, promotion, and sale of certified and foundation seed.
a. What vulnerabilities/weaknesses/gaps still exist within the private sector and what can be done to 
address them?
6. To what extent has PAIRED and International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC)/ Enhancing 
Growth Through Regional Agricultural Input Systems (EnGRAIS) collaboration been effective in 
addressing agriculture technologies’ scale up and availability of quality inputs? What is the value 
addition of CORAF/PAIRED in this collaboration? Include an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses 
of this collaboration as well as recommendations, if any, on how to improve this partnership.
7. How efficient and sustainable are the tools and systems developed and/or maintained by CORAF with 
the support of PAIRED (i.e., West Africa Seed Information Exchange (WASIX), FeSERWAM platform, 
MITA web-based Application, etc.)? What are the strengths (usefulness, utilization) and weaknesses 
of each tool/system?
7
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation relied heavily on a semi-structured qualitative design appropriate for a final performance 
evaluation, while also relying on available quantitative data to triangulate findings. This approach allows 
USAID, CORAF and its stakeholders to understand the effectiveness of PAIRED programming and build 
a knowledge base to inform future decision-making, enabling USAID to test the key hypotheses behind 
the overarching results framework’s theory of change. This design allows for process evaluation and an 
assessment of the achievement of the project’s targets and objectives.
SCOPE AND COVERAGE
The PAIRED Final Evaluation was carried out in a total of six West African countries and captured the 
experiences of national government representatives and agricultural authorities, representatives of 
research and academic institutions, private sector actors working in agricultural input supply, cooperative 
and association representatives working in agriculture, and community members in the targeted areas. 
The evaluation approach was designed with extensive and detailed qualitative questionnaires, specifically
intended to address PAIRED regional learning objectives, and was administered across relevant actors 
within the six West African countries: Benin, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Senegal. The following 
stakeholder groups were identified as the primary groups able to comprehensively address the seven 
evaluation questions:
● PAIRED Implementing Partner
● CORAF Directorate
● National Agricultural Research Institution
● Innovation Platforms
● Private Sector Businesses
● Community Agri-Input Dealers 
The thematically structured, qualitative questionnaires collected detailed information on PAIRED Activity 
implementation, performance successes and challenges, and lessons learned at all levels of stakeholder 
engagement. The following are the broad areas from which data was collected during the study:
● Program management and organizational development. 
● National and/or regional seed regulation.
● Agri-input technologies and innovations; and 
● Private sector engagement. 
For the purposes of this study, each questionnaire was designed to provide guidance on expected 
questions to each stakeholder group, and thus was not subject to a completion threshold. In every site 
visit, the evaluation team ensured that women and youth were included to gather independent feedback 
from their experiences. The full set of questionnaires is available in Annex E.
8
PAIRED COUNTRY PROFILES1
The PAIRED Final Evaluation assessed the PAIRED Activity’s implementation in the following West African 
countries: Benin, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Senegal. Below is an overview of each country’s 
characteristics as relevant for the PAIRED Activity. 
A. Benin
With a population of approximately 13,760,000 people, agriculture significantly contributes to food 
security and supports livelihoods through income generation and job creation. However, the sector is 
dominated by subsistence farming, is largely dependent on rainfall and is vulnerable to climate change. 
Under the PAIRED Activity, the Institut National des Recherchés Agricoles du Bénin (INRAB) worked 
with two Innovation Platforms in the maize value chain, reaching a total of 427 farmers over the life of the 
Activity.
B. Ghana
Ghana has a population of 25,370,000 people with approximately 52 percent of the labor force engaged 
in agriculture. Agriculture contributes to over half of Ghana’s GDP, accounts for over 40 percent of 
export earnings, and provides for over 90 percent of the food needs of the country. The PAIRED Activity 
worked with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research’s Crops Research Institute (CRI) and the 
Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) in maize and rice value chains, reaching 511 farmers 
through 22 Innovation Platforms.
C. Mali
Mali’s 20,740,000 people experienced a severe prevalence of food insecurity in 2021, primarily due to an 
upsurge of violence. Approximately 80 percent of the labor force is engaged in farming and fisheries in 
either the Niger River or Senegal River watersheds which cover nearly 55 percent of the country’s land 
area. Mali’s remaining land area is located in the interior basin of the Sahara Desert. Facing a unique set of 
challenges in Mali, the PAIRED Activity partnered with the Institut d'Economie Rurale (IER) to address 
Sahelian millet, sorghum, and maize crops, reaching 2,831 farmers in 10 Innovation Platforms.
D. Niger
With a population of just over 24 million people, Niger is prone to recurrent food crises, which compound 
the challenges faced by an already food-insecure population. For over a decade, Niger has experienced a 
food security crisis with agricultural and pastoral production deficits, caused by rapid population growth, 
high food prices, and climatic and environmental factors disrupting production. The PAIRED Activity 
worked with the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique du Niger (INRAN) to implement four 
Innovation Platforms and reach 950 farmers in rice, millet, and sorghum value chains.
E. Nigeria
Nigeria is the largest country in West Africa with a population of over 225 million. Over 70 percent of 
Nigerians engage in the agriculture sector mainly at a subsistence level, with agriculture contributing 
upwards of a quarter of Nigeria’s GDP. To adequately address the scale of Nigeria, PAIRED partnered 
with two research institutions, the Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR) and the National Cereals 
Research Institute (NCRI), working in maize and rice value chains, allowing the Activity to reach 4,324 
farmers.
1 All population statistics are estimates for 2021 and derived from tps://www.cia.gov/; all GDP and agriculture related statistics are extracted from 
https://www.fao.org/.
9
F. Senegal
With a population of 17,920,000, agriculture accounts for 15 percent of Senegal’s GDP. Senegal hosts the 
CORAF Offices and serves as the Headquarters location for the PAIRED Activity. The PAIRED Activity 
looked to partner with the Institut Sénégalais de Recherche Agricole (ISRA); however, due to management 
challenges, no Innovation Platforms were established at the time of evaluation. The PAIRED Activity 
intended to work with millet and sorghum value chains in Senegal. 
10
DATA COLLECTION
The PAIRED Final Evaluation was conducted by four expert consultants, with operational support 
provided by the PAIRED Activity and the USAID ASSESS teams. The Evaluation Team Lead designed and 
supervised the field data collection effort, while the ASSESS Activity staff travelled with the expert 
consultant team to each evaluation county and provided operational support for engaging and coordinating 
with PAIRED Activity counterparts. 
Prior to the commencement of field data collection activities, the evaluation expert team held a workshop 
to ensure continued technical understanding and interviewing guidelines to maintain strict quality-control, 
ethical, and confidentiality procedures. All workshop activities were conducted over a 2-day period in 
Dakar, Senegal, including a half-day session revising data collection instruments with USAID/WA 
representatives. The workshop consisted of harmonizing the various technical lenses needed to evaluate 
the PAIRED Activity, questionnaire explanations and practice, and engagement approaches for the 
different stakeholder groups. 
The main evaluation fieldwork took approximately four weeks to complete, from August 8 to September 
1, 2022. The evaluation team split into two groups to ensure adequate time for assessing each evaluation 
question and its underlying objectives within each country. To maintain harmonization of data collection 
activities, the expert consultants maintained regular communications throughout the data collection 
period. The following table provides the detailed data collection schedule.
Table 1: Final Evaluation Data Collection Schedule
Activity Start Date End Date
Evaluation Team Harmonization Workshop August 4 August 6
Data Collection
Benin August 26 September 1
Ghana August 11 August 23
Mali August 15 August 18
Niger August 19 August 25
Nigeria August 25 September 1
Senegal August 8 August 12
Data Synthesis & Analysis September 2 October 2
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
The PAIRED Final Evaluation relied on seven qualitative interview guides. The aim of each questionnaire 
was to gain information on the variety of experiences and issues faced by the various levels of PAIRED 
stakeholders and beneficiaries and to document successes and changes in beneficiary behavior. Each 
questionnaire included components on program management and organizational development, national 
and/or regional seed regulation, agri-input technologies and innovations, and private sector engagement. 
The questionnaires were tailored to the specific respondent group, and where applicable, questions 
related to the interconnectivity of the PAIRED program between groups were included.
11 
The PAIRED Final Evaluation conducted a total of 108 unique interviews across the six evaluation 
countries. Given the PAIRED Activity’s primary intervention approach, interviews were focused heavily 
on the NARIs and the various actors associated with Innovation Platforms, with 18 interviews held within 
eight NARIs and 61 interviews completed across 20 Innovation Platforms. Table 2, below, details the 
distribution of unique interviews conducted during the course of data collection
Table 2: Number of unique interviews, by country and stakeholder group
Benin Ghana Mali Niger Nigeria Senegal Total
PAIRED Staff - - - - - 1 1
CORAF - - - - - 1 1
Research Institution 2 8 1 2 4 1 18
Innovation Platform 14 33 3 3 8 - 61
Private Sector - 4 1 1 3 1 10
Cooperative / 
Association 
- - - 2 1 2 5
Other Stakeholder 1 - 2 3 3 3 12
Total 17 45 7 11 19 9 108
For a detailed list of all interviews conducted, please see Annex A.
EVALUATION LIMITATIONS AND CHALLENGES
As with all evaluations, several limitations and challenges emerged during the course of the fieldwork. The 
evaluation team made every effort to address the limitations that emerged and to maintain best practices 
in identifying appropriate solutions. 
PAIRED staff availability: The PAIRED core staff was engaged in various implementation activities during the 
evaluation period, reducing their availability to conduct detailed one-on-one interviews during the 
Evaluation Team’s time in Senegal. 
Safety and security of interviewees and evaluators: The field team faced various engagement challenges related 
to insecurity in Mali, Niger, and Nigeria. In all three countries, the number of available innovation platform 
engagements were restricted due to two reasons: (1) the evaluation team was barred from traveling 
outside of the capital cities and (2) road security issues made it difficult for innovation platform actors to 
travel into the capital cities. The Evaluation provided logistical support to bring the innovation platform 
actors for in-person discussions with the evaluators in all three insecure countries. However, this reduced 
the evaluation team’s ability to engage with large numbers of innovation platform actors when compared 
against the three other country sites (Benin, Ghana, Senegal.)
The following report reflects chapters mapped against the evaluation questions and serves as the main 
structure for outlining the evaluation findings. Each evaluation question chapter provides a synthesis of 
quantitative and qualitative findings, field observations, notes, considerations, and remaining areas for 
improvement or engagement, as relevant to that question.
12 
EVALUATION QUESTION 1 
1. How successful has the PAIRED activity been in meeting its planned targets? 
a. If certain activity components have not been successful, please explain why (in areas 
of the program’s assumptions, programmatic implementation, gender/youth 
integration into the seed or fertilizer sector, private sector partnership, staffing, etc.). 
b. Which areas of performance require CORAF and USAID’s remedial attention? 
The PAIRED program sought to improve agricultural productivity in West Africa through the delivery of 
training, technical support, coordination, and enhanced access to agri-inputs in a holistic system that 
considers access, affordability, availability, and incentives for farmers to adopt technological packages. The 
program sought to enhance the production, distribution, and widespread use of certified seeds, fertilizers,
and pesticides by smallholder farmers as a package (seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, and best practices), and 
thus improve agricultural productivity. The program was expected to use a two-pronged approach: 
● Scaling up promising agricultural technologies and innovations, with a focus on seed production 
and distribution, to farmers and other technology users throughout the major agricultural value 
chains in the region.
● Increasing production and availability of quality agri-inputs through the promotion of business 
models in support of contractual arrangements for marketing of seeds and fertilizers.
The following discussion outlines the results from the PAIRED Activity’s Key Performance Indicators and 
triangulated against findings from the independent interviews and discussions held in the field. 
STAKEHOLDER CAPACITY AND IMPROVED PERFORMANCE
The PAIRED Activity’s performance is tracked against twelve indicators selected to measure IR2 and IR3: 
three outcome indicators (one standard and two custom indicators) and nine output indicators (one 
standard and eight custom indicators). Disaggregation by sex and age is done for relevant indicators. 
Additional indicators required disaggregation per organization type, management practice / technique, 
commodity, and development stage, when applicable. The complete PAIRED Indicator Performance 
Tracking Table (IPTT) is provided in Annex D2. 
Table 3 introduces one of the key outcome indicators of the PAIRED Activity, the percent of USG-assisted 
organizations with improved performance. PAIRED activities designed around training, capacity support 
and skills transfer underpinned this indicator.
2 The IPTT in Annex D provides a detailed breakout of annual targets and achievements, with LOP aggregates provided as a simple difference 
between target versus achieved for all indicators. 
13 
Table 3: Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance - CBLD-9 (Indicator 1.1)
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Target
Achieved3
Total percentage of organizations with 
improved performance 100 100 35 89 - 62
Research Institution 100 100 226 128 - 95
Cooperative - - 0 50 - 37
Producer Group - - 0 109 - 67
NGO - - 0 50 - 33
Government Agency - - 0 135 - 76
Other - - 0 0 - 0
The Activity did not achieve any of its intended targets for this indicator, with only 62 percent of 
organizations with improved performance across all groups. In a clear reflection of observations made in 
the field by the evaluation team, research institutions, producer groups and government agencies served 
as the main beneficiaries of PAIRED implementation, with 95 percent of research institutions, 76 percent 
of government agencies and 67 percent of producer groups with improved performance. Just a third of 
cooperatives (37 percent), NGO (33 percent) and other organizations (zero percent) demonstrated 
improved performance. Figure 1 below illustrates the difference between target versus actual achieved in 
the IPTT reported data.
Figure 1: Percent of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance, target versus achieved by group type.
3 This calculation appears to be miscalculated and likely reflects a cumulative versus non-cumulative record keeping in the IPTT. The bias appears 
to over report this statistic, resulting in higher than true values. As this evaluation does not serve the function of a Data Quality Assessment, and 
clear meaning in the reported number was unclear in the AMELP. The evaluators have taken all reported data as accurate and reported in line 
with this assumption, despite reservation on the data quality.
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Target
Achieved
14 
Through these organizations, the PAIRED Activity was able to reach a total of 16,840 individuals through 
USG food security programs4 (Table 4), exceeding their target by 33 percent. Women made up one-third 
of the total participants, while youth accounted for every one in five individuals. Producers accounted for 
the vast majority of individuals in the PAIRED Activity, representing 63 percent of the total number of 
individuals and exceeded the intended target by 206 percent. 
Table 4: Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs - EG.3-2 (Indicator 2.1)
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 TOTAL
% 
Difference 5
Total individuals - 0 3628 11319 1893 16840 33 
Sex of individuals participating
Male - 0 1377 7952 1232 10561 36 
Female - 0 2251 3367 661 6279 27 
Age Category of individuals participating
15-29 - 0 692 1924 384 3000 18 
30+ - 0 2936 9395 1509 13840 36 
People in government - 0 1025 1132 284 2441 -47 
People in private sector 
firms - 0 2250 340 95 2685 -21 
People in civil society - 0 353 453 305 1111 -8 
Producers - 0 0 9392 1209 10603 206 
Overall, the PAIRED activity met their targets in regard to total individuals, gender, and age distributions. 
However, the Activity’s focus on producer groups within the Innovation Platforms meant that the Activity 
exceeded its target in producers but fell short of engaging other stakeholders, missing 47 percent of their 
targets for people in government, 21 percent for individuals in the private sector and 8 percent of civil 
society actors. Figure 2 provides a supplemental analysis in the distribution of beneficiary group types as 
a proportional share of total beneficiaries in USG food security programs. The distribution illustrates the 
PAIRED Activity’s focus on producer groups, with 63 percent of all beneficiaries belonging to this group;
4 The Evaluation Team noted that these calculations do not disaggregate against new versus continuing participants on an annual basis. The average 
LOP of average participants per country amounts to 2,834 individuals, which appears high given the observations made in the field during the 
evaluation. 
5 To understand the PAIRED performance more clearly, the final LOP achievements are provided as the percentage difference between the 
targeted value and the achieved performance. This allows for understanding the results as either in the positive or in the negative direction of the 
target. If the Activity achieved its target exactly, the percentage achieved would be “1”. If the Activity overachieved, the reported statistic provides 
how much of that achievement was above the expected target (a positive value). Conversely, a negative value should be understood to mean the 
Activity performed 42 percent below the target (or achieved only 58 percent of its intended target). For example, in Table 4 the Activity reported 
a 33 percent over achievement from the expected target for all individuals but missed its target by -47 percent when disaggregated by people in 
government. 
15
people in government (14 percent), private sector (16 percent) and civil society (7 percent) accounted 
for only a third in the total composition of beneficiaries.
Figure 2: Distribution of individuals participating in USG food security programs, by group type.
TRAINING ACTIVITIES AND TOOLS
Training activities served as invaluable in building the capacity of NARIs and Innovation Platform leadership 
but had limited scope past traditional “producer association” actors. The human capacity at the NARIs 
was enhanced, specifically in areas of management and operations, innovation platform development, 
monitoring and evaluation (M&E), financial accounting and report writing, while innovation platform 
leaders and seed growers reported enthusiastic approval of the quality of training they received in good 
agricultural practices.
All of the training was useful, but I most enjoyed the M&E Training. It helped us understand 
how to create a strong baseline and defend our work. It is something I hope to use in other 
areas of my work - NARI Staff Member
I am a leader at the Innovation Platform. I really benefited from the training in trustworthiness 
and transparency. It is good for us as leaders to understand how to lead our farmers into the 
future – Innovation Platform Executive Leader
Training activities served as the key aspect of PAIRED’s improved performance activities. The PAIRED 
Activity promoted a series of training during the entire Activity period, including:
● Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)
o Seed quality control and compliance with the regional seed certification schemes
o Plant variety protection and seed business empowerment.
o Training on technical examination of the Distinctiveness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) 
of new plant varieties candidate for protection and or registration in the national and 
regional catalogs.
o Training on Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture
People in 
Government
14%
People in 
Private 
Sector 
Firms
16%
People in 
Civil 
Society
7%
Agriculture 
Producers
63%
16 
● Online trainings6 on: Quality Seed production, Drying, Processing and Storage; Seed demand 
forecasting and production planning; Seed quality control and compliance with the regional seed 
certification schemes; Seed business management and marketing; Use of ITC in enhancing small 
farmers’ access to quality seeds.
● Training actors to speed up domestication and the implementation of the regional protocols. 
● Training on seed certification
● PAIRED specific management training 
● Training for Monitoring & Evaluation
● Training on gender capacity building for stakeholders involved in projects and interventions. 
In addition to providing training activities, the PAIRED Activity capitalized on CORAF’s research capacity 
to design, develop and distribute seed and fertilizer toolkits to increase the number of resources and 
documented good agricultural practices available to PAIRED beneficiaries (Table 5). Overall, 357 agro￾ecology seed and fertilizer information kits were made available through the PAIRED Activity; 90 in maize, 
172 in rice, 56 in millet and 39 in sorghum. In all, the Activity exceeded its target by 233 percent.
Table 5: Number of Agro-ecology based Seed and fertilizer information toolkits made available (Indicator 2.1.3)
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 TOTAL
%
Difference
Maize - - 51 31 8 90 233
Rice - - 52 88 32 172 562
Millet - - 21 31 4 56 107
Sorghum - - 18 18 3 39 44
TOTAL - - 142 168 47 357 233
INNOVATION PLATFORMS
PAIRED’s primary mechanism for upscaling was through the use of Innovation Platforms. A functional 
Innovation Platform was designed to be anchored by a NARI which managed the PAIRED activities within 
the Innovation Platform; Agricultural extension officers, private seed companies, agri-input dealers, credit 
institutions, insurance institutions, producers, grain traders and processors formed the “universe” of 
actors expected to be linked into the Innovation Platform. The Activity had a target of 36 Innovation 
Platforms for T&Is upscaling. As Table 6 notes, the Activity well exceeded that target by 133 percent.7
6 Developed and conducted in partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
7 It is worth noting that the Evaluation Team was only able to document a total of 43 Innovation Platforms during the field work. This is still in 
excess of the proposed target of 36, but significantly lower than the cumulative totals reported in the IPTT. 
17 
Table 6: Number of functional Innovation Platforms used for T&Is upscaling (Indicator 2.1.1)
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
% 
Difference
Total Number of Innovation 
Platforms - 0 32 26 26 133 
Supplementing the Activity’s reported data, Table 7 below details the composition of the Innovation 
Platforms associated with each country and NARI as recorded by the evaluation team. In total, the PAIRED 
Activity engaged with 43 Innovation Platforms during the life of project. The majority of NARIs were 
elected to work with previously established Innovation Platforms. The expectation was that these 
previously established groups would have lower initial investment costs to begin the PAIRED 
implementation. Previously established Innovation Platforms were established under a number of different 
donor engagements, ranging from AfricaRice to AfDB projects. These Innovation Platforms functioned as 
producer groups first and foremost and ultimately returned limited success at upscaling seed production 
and availability. Only CRI and IAR, in Ghana and Nigeria respectively, organized new Innovation Platforms 
in their targeted communities, where the focus on quality seed production was a foundational aspect of 
the Innovation Platforms identity. 
In terms of the size of each Innovation Platform, there was substantial variation across the farmers engaged 
in the Innovation Platforms. Mali and previously established groups in Nigeria’s NCRI cohort reflected 
over a decade’s organization into some form of farming group, with 2,831 farmers linked into IER’s 
activities and 3,734 farmers associated with NCRI. Ghana represented the most conservative approach to 
designing their Innovation Platforms; Ghanaian NARIs limited the actors engaged in the Innovation 
Platform to 30 participants. 
A functional Innovation Platform was designed to be anchored by a NARI which managed the PAIRED 
activities within the Innovation Platform; Agricultural extension officers, private seed companies, agri-input 
dealers, credit institutions, insurance institutions, producers, grain traders and processors formed the 
“universe” of actors expected to be linked into the Innovation Platform.
18
Table 7: Innovation Platform compositions, by Country, NARI, and Actor
Benin Ghana Mali Niger Nigeria Senegal
Total
INRAB CRI SARI IER INRAN IAR NCRI ISRA
Innovation 
Platforms 2 10 12 10 4 3 2 0 43
New 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 10
Previously 
established 2 3 12 10 4 0 2 0 33
Farmers 427 288 223 2831 950 590 3734 0 9043
Male 236 138 101 1280 699 455 1516 0 4425
Female 191 94 132 1551 251 135 2218 0 4572
Youth 55 57 41 730 106 157 135 0 1281
Certified Seed 
Growers8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Agri-Input 
Suppliers 1 11 8 13 5 5 21 0 64
The Innovation Platforms in each location worked with the NARIs to set up demonstration plots and 
introduced the latter’s improved varieties, in addition to required fertilizer, pesticides and good 
agricultural practices as a package. These demonstrations also utilized farmers preferred local seed 
varieties as a check for comparison. The model sought to enhance the use of improved seed and fertilizer 
packages in the Innovation Platform catchment areas and thus generate a critical mass of users and 
guarantee widespread adoption of the innovation. 
In all six countries, the PAIRED Activity struggled to attract the interest of agri-input dealers to become 
actors in the Innovation Platform model. In Ghana, for example, only Atebubu, Amantin and Nsoatre 
Innovation Platforms were able to attract an agri-input dealer to join the group. In these IPs, the dealers 
offered advice on seed and pesticide applications to the members. Some offered sales on credit for inputs 
at the start of the season, which were paid at the end of the season, either in cash or in kind with farm 
produce. 
Community seed production isn’t enough. There is a need to formalize them into Seed 
Innovation Platforms with linkages to certification. Innovation Platform seed growers could 
move into certified growers, but inspector availability and inspection processes create 
limitations that need to be addressed – PAIRED Activity Coordinator
Overall, PAIRED seed upscaling was limited for maize and negligible for rice in Ghana and Nigeria due 
mainly to poorly composed Innovation Platforms or a lack of understanding of how the Innovation 
Platform model should pivot from producer group to seed producing group. The bulk of the seeds 
8 PAIRED was expected to increase the number of available certified seed growers, creating community seed growers to increase community 
access. This measurement reflects new certified seed growers created in the Innovation Platform by PAIRED related activities. Where previously 
established certified seed growers were linked to the Innovation Platform, they are absorbed as agri-input suppliers. 
19 
produced from the PAIRED Activity supported Foundation Seed, which offered a certified seed quality to 
be used for the next season’s crop, but which was instead sold as grain. 
There appeared to be limited understanding by the Innovation Platform farmers and leadership that the 
yield from the provided foundation seed was intended for use as high quality (if not formally certified) 
seed and not grain. Consistently, in nearly every Innovation Platform visited during the evaluation, Certified 
seed growers grew more seed than was demanded within the Innovation Platform; with no additional 
market channels to sell their seeds to, the growers sold the majority of their seed crop to grain buyers. 
In one of the more severe cases of market linkages failure, nearly 30 tons of “certified” quality seed was 
sold to a commercial grain buyer for animal feed in Nigeria. Despite these seed upscaling difficulties, the 
PAIRED Activity producers reported high satisfaction at their increased yields and the premium price they 
received, even as grain, for their seed. 
The PAIRED Activity required that each Innovation Platform develop and implement an action plan (see 
Table 8). All of the Innovation Platforms developed their action plans and began implementation.9 Given 
the challenges associated with connecting upscaling activities to a production mindset within most of the 
Innovation Platforms, greater care should have been taken in designing these action plans to incorporate 
market channels and private sector actors into the broader objectives of the PAIRED Activity. 
Table 8: Number of innovation platforms action plans developed and implemented (Indicator 2.1.2)
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Target 
Achieved
Number of action plans 
developed & implemented - - 12 26 26 178 %
The limited period of project implementation did not make it possible for the Innovation Platform 
members who showed interest in and were trained as seed growers to complete both the registration 
and certification processes necessary to become certified seed producers. In the case of maize, most 
PAIRED countries required at least two seasons of observation before any certification could be 
established. The rice, sorghum and millet value chains had the lowest success in committing to certified 
seed growing; grain production remained the key production interest for Innovation Platform farmers 
associated with these crops. 
Not all farmers can be, or should be, seed farmers – PAIRED Activity Coordinator
While CRI in Ghana showed the strongest understanding of the stakeholder linkages needed to graduate 
community seed growers to certified seed growers, failure to facilitate the certification licensing process 
for the vast majority of seed producers in the Innovation Platforms thwarted the upscaling intention of 
the PAIRED Program. In total, approximately 30 seed growers were identified and engaged at some level 
towards the process of certification; while not a single certified seed grower was produced under the 
PAIRED implementation period, the Activity is likely to have facilitated potentially 6-8 certified seed 
growers by the end of this growing season. 
PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT
While adoption of improved seed is about 50 percent in Eastern and Central Africa, the 
adoption in West Africa is only between 5 – 10 per cent – Private Seed Company
9 It is not clear to the Evaluators how this result is above 100%. From this statistic, 78 percent more Innovation Platforms completed Action 
Plans, which is illogical. It is assumed that there are data errors in relation to cumulative tabulation that is resulting in awkward statistics.
20 
The private sector plays a role in the supply of quality inputs and the adoption of technological packages 
that will be essential in realizing the agricultural potential for greater impact. The PAIRED Activity’s 
collaboration with other ECOWAS technical partners looked to engage diverse private sector 
stakeholders, who are the key players in commercializing agricultural technologies and innovations, 
together with their associated products.
The Evaluation team noted that the private sector engagement between the PAIRED Activity, in general, 
and the Innovation Platforms, specifically, with various private agri-input actors in West Africa was weak. 
This is in contrast to the growing presence of private sector seed companies, especially in Ghana and 
Nigeria. Table 9 below illustrates this growth, with 349 new seed companies being reported during the 
Activity’s performance period, a nearly 15-fold increase over the expected target. 
Table 9: Number of new seed companies supplying quality seed in West Africa (Indicator 3.1.1)
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Target
Achieved
Number of new seed companies - 0 0 132 217 1,938 %
Despite a large increase in the number of seed companies operating in PAIRED supported countries, there 
was limited and uninspired engagement during the PAIRED Activity. The primary method of private sector 
engagement resulted from NARIs inviting private seed companies to exhibit their seed on PAIRED 
supported demonstration plots and Innovation Platform communities. Private sector firms such as SeedCo 
were involved in the design of demonstrations, field days and promotional materials, where they show￾case their varieties alongside those of the NARIs. In all five countries with active Innovation Platforms, at 
least one private seed company was invited to exhibit one seed variety on a demonstration plot. 
“Promote our own” when it comes to seed production; the community needs to see that 
the seed business is viable; identify individual farmers who can scale drying and storage 
linkages; marketing grain versus seed – PAIRED Activity Coordinator
Certain private sector actors, limited seed companies and community seed growers, received technical 
training on seed production and the certification process. While the NARIs are well positioned, and in 
many instances mandated to a role in the certification process, PAIRED leadership did not adequately 
impress upon the NARIs their need to engage private sector actors more deeply. This lack of adequate 
planning and communication at the leadership level left wide gaps in the linkages from community seed 
growers to large scale seed companies. On the supply side, the Evaluation Team recorded multiple 
instances of farmers utilizing their seed as grain from a lack of localized demand. There was no focus on 
creating a path for farmers to become certified seed growers. Conversely, seed companies often rely on 
out growers for their seed production needs. Such opportunity to link supply and demand side actors was 
glaringly missing from the Activity.10 In the final year of implementation, PAIRED has committed some 
efforts to reverse this situation, collaborating with Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and 
Syngenta Foundation, bringing the private sector actors to link with the African Enterprise Challenge Funds 
(AECF). The Evaluation Team was unable to evaluate any outcomes of this effort due to the resulting 
short implementation window
10 In Nigeria, the market linkages were in fact with large grain buyers, who annually purchased seed stock for their grain business.
21
INCREASING QUALITY AGRI-INPUTS IN WEST AFRICA
VOLUME OF SEED PRODUCTION
The paramount objective of PAIRED’s Components 3 was to arrive at seed upscaling, which was measured 
through volume of quality seed produced in the region. Overall, the achievement rate varies according to 
the commodity and/or the type of seed. For maize and rice, the targets for breeder, foundation and 
certified seed were exceeded, with certified maize returning 461 percent and certified rice seed arriving 
at 54 percent above the targeted volume. In millet and sorghum, no targets were met for any type of seed 
(breeder, foundation, and certified). Discussions held with NARIs and leaders in the millet and sorghum 
Innovation Platforms indicated that supply for certified seeds in these value chains is not yet met because 
farmers are not willing to pay for certified seeds; reduced profitability resulted in limited interest from the 
private sector. Table 10 illustrates the volume of quality seed produced in the region (in metric tons and 
by seed type.) 
22 
Table 10: Volume of quality seed produced in the region, in metric tons by value chain (Indicator 3.1)
Value Chain Disaggregate FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
% 
Difference
Maize
Breeder - - 0 116 558 349 
Foundation - - 0 3482 4326 189 
Certified - - 65641 117791 119305 461 
Millet
Breeder - - 0 14 12 -56 
Foundation - - 0 819 6082 92 
Certified - - 1913 11788 5563 -51 
Rice
Breeder - - 0 186 149 179 
Foundation - - 0 5204 5560 139 
Certified - - 71560 122060 105940 54 
Sorghum 
Breeder - - 0 20 22 -54 
Foundation - - 0 668 1217 -58 
Certified - - 4836 24962 26981 -5 
Breeder to Foundation Seed is the key barrier to
increasing seed availability – PAIRED Activity Coordinator
Despite having very limited success in turning Innovation Platform farmers into drivers of certified seed 
production, it is clear the overall market for certified seed is growing. These certified seed volumes track 
reasonably with the substantial increase in the number of seed companies in West Africa (Indicator 3.1.1). 
Maize, which has the highest barriers to entry11 for new certified seed growers, performed particularly 
well in the aggregate, which is likely a reflection of strong market demand driving seed suppliers to profit 
from maximized production. 
Maybe I’ll leave the grain and only grow seed in the future – Community Seed Grower
The data derived from the indicator data and evaluation gathered data raises questions around the 
underlying approaches to community seed growers versus established seed companies. As evidenced by 
the aggregate PAIRED reported data, certified seed production is increasing in West Africa; however, 
supply is still unable to address demand. The evaluation team’s observations suggest that there remains 
an opportunity to identify individuals in communities who have the resources and entrepreneurial 
11 Certified maize seed, which generally is grown as a hybrid varietal, requires substantial investment in terms of land (as a barrier against cross 
pollination contamination is controlled for) and fertilizer inputs. Any hybrid varieties have higher demands than open pollinated varieties.
23
characteristics to become certified seed growers,12 but it is unclear if this type of investment is suitable 
for a regional body to engage in or lead. 
The market conditions needed to facilitate growth of the seed sector were in part influenced by the 
PAIRED collaboration with CILSS/INSAH in updating the 2021 Regional Seed Catalogue on Plant Species 
and Varieties of West Africa, and the full impact of which will need to be measured in the future. 
We don’t plan, so there is no way of forecasting [foundation seed production] projections 
– NARI Director
From the available data, it is clear that limitations in upscaling are in part driven by the development of 
breeder seed and the conversion to foundation seed. Planning and forecasting remain a challenge for the 
NARIs, which have struggled to adapt to more market responsive management practices in their seed 
divisions. To illustrate this point, the Evaluation Team looked to independently gather data on each NARIs’ 
total production and dissemination of foundation seed13. Only two of the eight NARIs were able to 
provide the team with production figures from 2019 – 2022, and only one was able to provide production 
and dissemination figures. 
REGIONAL/ CROSS BORDER TRADE
The PAIRED Activity saw little, if any, movement on the volume of cross-border trade of quality seeds. 
Maize represented the one exception, with approximately 25,000 metric tons of certified seed traded 
under the PAIRED Activity. The breeder and foundation seed trade did not cross borders during the 
Activity. This was in part a result of monopolistic practices at the NARIs regarding breeder and foundation 
seeds and the application of national seed policies within each country. Table 11 details the complete 
volume of intra-regional quality seed trade, in metric tons by value chain and seed type.
12 How these growers would engage the marketplace appears to vary widely by country, with some individuals better suited to out-growing for 
established seed companies while others could make the transition into full-fledged seed companies with adequate time and technical support.
13 The intention for this data was to test the hypothesis that foundation seed was the barrier to increased production. If the disseminated values 
consistently equal the production figures, then it is reasonable to assume the foundation seed volumes are a limitation to seed upscaling. From 
the one NARI who was able to provide both data points, dissemination did not equal 100% in 2021 and 2022, suggesting that forecasting efforts 
were helping the NARI plan adequately for demand.
24 
Table 11: Volume of intra-regional quality seed trade, in metric tons (Indicator 3.2)
Value Chain Disaggregate FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
% 
Difference
Maize
Breeder - - 0 0 0 -100 
Foundation - - 0 0 0 -100 
Certified - - 5600 1631 18157 370
Millet
Breeder - - 0 0 0 -100 
Foundation - - 0 0 0 -100 
Certified - - 15 5909 304 -68 
Rice
Breeder - - 0 0 0 -100 
Foundation - - 0 0 0 -100 
Certified - - 100 13 98 -95 
Sorghum 
Breeder - - 0 0 0 -100 
Foundation - - 0 0 0 -100 
Certified - - 72 3 9 -99 
Changing the conditions needed to expand intra-regional quality seed trade required more time than was 
allotted under the PAIRED Activity. A key element of success was PAIRED’s contribution to the Regional 
Quarantine Pests List (RQPL). The RQPL was a high regional priority for enhancing regional trade. This 
List is part of the Regional Quarantine System comprising a number of regulatory and operational activities 
that together are designed to prevent the entry, establishment and spread of regulated pests in the region. 
The PAIRED Activity worked alongside CILSS/INSAH in promoting a wide dissemination of the List. 
The Evaluation Team noted three areas, in particular, which were not integrated into the PAIRED Activity 
and were indicated by various stakeholders as significant and substantial in changing the pace of the regional 
seed trade. 
First, at a policy level, more resources were needed to accelerate and finalize the full implementation of 
the Regional and National seed policies. While the ECOWAS, UEMOA and CILSS West Africa Regional 
Seed and Seedling Committee (WARSSC) was functional, the Committee has been limited in organizing 
meetings and conducting adequate follow up actions to move the Regional and National seed policies 
forward. 
Second, at a programmatic level, PAIRED leadership did not adequately engage the “Seed Policy” Task 
Force of experts from the West African and the Sahelian sub-region working in the seed sector. During 
the USAID WASP Activity, a full-time staff seed specialist was engaged for the entirety of the Activity. 
Under PAIRED, this position was not integrated into the Activity and was supported through the use of a 
short-term consultant to assist at the ECOWAS Regional and National seed meetings. By the end of 2020, 
25 
the Activity did not have a seed policy expert engaged in support of the PAIRED regional trade objectives 
in any capacity. 
Third, on an operational level, PAIRED did not adequately consider the processes faced by seed companies 
and traders when conducting cross border trade. While the ECOWAS regional regulations related to free 
movement of goods and services provides some groundwork legislation, they either do not properly 
integrate seed trade components, or the integration of seed trade components is not well understood by 
customs agents. Nearly all large seed companies who conduct cross border trade lamented the haphazard 
application of the regional seed regulations by customs officials. The national customs services do not have 
simplified or modernized import and export processes, procedures, documentation, and other regulatory 
measures. Seed company truck drivers are often delayed and hassled at border crossings, delays of which 
are compounded by language differences and customs agents’ lack of familiarity with seed versus grain 
regulations. As a regional activity, PAIRED’s attention to reducing the bottleneck in applying regional 
regulations at the point of customs clearing would have likely contributed to a substantial expansion of 
regional seed trade.
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are needed to address the above-mentioned bottlenecks and to develop 
market responsive solutions to both national and regional seed trade barriers. The PAIRED Activity 
formed a total of 44 PPPs during the height of the pandemic, in 2020 and 2021. This achievement was 38 
percent above the target.
Table 12: Number of Private Public Partnerships formed as a result of USG assistance (Indicator 3.1.3)
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 TOTAL
% 
Difference
Number of PPP formed - - 29 15 0 44 38 %
As part of the PPP approach, PAIRED continued to provide support to the reform efforts at the Alliance 
for Seed Industry in West Africa (ASIWA). The reform process is moving slowly, and responsibility for 
delays in reform measures is, in part, with the leadership provided by the West Africa Farmers 
Organization (ROPPA). The African Seed Trade Association (AFSTA) and IFDC have formally requested 
to enable farmers’ capacity to adopt and use new seed technologies, and to expand seed markets across 
borders as part of a broader agri-input strategy. At the time of this evaluation, little progress had been 
made in moving this strategy forward and more attention needs to be given to resolving and improving 
leadership issues to further advance the agri-input strategy.
GENDER AND YOUTH
Gender and youth viewpoints were assessed and integrated throughout the evaluation. The evaluators 
noted that the most successful integration of women and youth occurred in the composition of the 
Innovation Platforms. In Benin, the NARI worked with a consultant from PAIRED to develop an approach 
to increase the inclusion of women and youth into various aspects of the Activity. The requirement of 
tracking of gender and age disaggregated data harmonized with national policies to promote the 
participation of women in all sectors and was incorporated into the NARIs approach to working with 
beneficiaries. Mention was made to the existence of “La Collective des Femmes” which is implemented 
by the NARI to support female researchers, providing an example of the gender being institutionalized. In 
Mali, two Innovation Platforms were composed predominantly of women, a notable difference as 
compared to the other Innovation Platforms which were composed of fewer women and youth and, even 
then, their participation was more in planting and processing activities. In limited instances, such as with 
26
the seed company Faso Kaba in Mali, women were not directly involved in the upscaling of certified seed, 
nor did they necessarily have full ownership of those processes. 
If you want to get to women, we need to talk about mechanization – PAIRED Activity Coordinator
As a general rule, women tended to be more involved, and had greater influence, in the post-harvest 
processing of grain in all the targeted value chains. Near universal concurrence within discussions among 
Activity Coordinators and Agriculture Extension Officers highlighted the need to address mechanization 
as a way to increase women’s ownership of the seed production process. These leaders expected the 
introduction of basic hand tools would yield stronger outcomes than training and toolkits.
PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS FOR REMEDIAL ATTENTION
The underlying assumptions which grounded the PAIRED Activity’s ToC came into clear focus during the 
course of the evaluation and are reflected in the Activity’s performance. The PAIRED Activity was an 
experiment in applying industry standard approaches (Innovation Platforms) to upscaling outcomes, which 
is a departure from the traditional role of Innovation Platforms in overall agricultural production. The 
Evaluation found that the PAIRED Activity was challenged by the expansive scope and broad range of 
activities, both at regional and national levels, through the engagements with the NARIs, Innovation 
Platforms, and key individual stakeholders. These limitations impacted the successful upscaling of 
improved, certified seeds in the region.
The following areas of performance limitations require CORAF and USAID’s remedial attention:
● Institutional limitations - CORAF: CORAF, as a regional organization has limited capacity to intervene 
at sub-national levels. This limitation required CORAF to work through the NARIs in order to 
reach any farm level interventions. The reliance on NARIs to manage all aspects of the PAIRED 
activities in-country was unsustainable under all conditions. This was complicated further by 
NARIs historic relationships with CORAF, which confused the distinction between CORAF and 
PAIRED as a distinct program. The NARIs did not explicitly have enough resources to manage 
Innovation Platforms as seed upscaling mechanisms which could demonstrate new upscaling 
technologies considered adequate to prove the efficiency and efficacity of the Innovation Platform 
model.
● Institutional limitations - NARIs: NARIs have their own bureaucracies which tend to slow the 
implementation processes. The timelines to undertake needs assessments and reach agreement 
on contracting terms and a plan of action delayed the implementation of PAIRED in nearly all 
countries. In the extreme case of Senegal, ISRA's internal administrative red tape contributed to 
no Innovation Platform being created or revitalized. In Ghana, the initially proposed maize value 
chain for SARI was adjusted to rice by the NARI, a decision that ultimately did not prove beneficial 
to upscaling. In so much that NARIs are research institutions, the limitations in their internal 
capacity to manage private sector and market linkages was evident; the most successful NARIs 
had staff with agribusiness backgrounds, yet not all NARIs were staffed by those with agribusiness 
backgrounds.
● Operational limitations and staffing constraints: PAIRED’s attempt to roll out the Activity 
simultaneously in six countries, resulted in missed planting season in some sites and missed 
opportunities to have at least two seasons of activity in all countries at the time of the evaluation. 
The operating model to ensure the simultaneous implementation of the Activity, from needs 
assessments, contracting with NARIs, developing suitable work plans and the delivering of seed 
was affected by resource constraints facing the core team. The field activity challenges could have 
benefited from stronger coordination and deeper engagement from PAIRED, which was limited 
27
by the staff available. Taking account of the importance of the seed sector on this project, the 
absence of a full-time seed specialist on the core PAIRED staff was also noted as a weakness.
● Research versus agribusiness: The approach to the PAIRED Activity was built on the foundation that 
Research Bodies, in general, and NARIs, in particular, could adequately evolve away from research 
for an academic or policy audience to using data to drive evidence-based decision making in the 
field. The Evaluation Team observed the strongest performance in NARIs who had agribusiness 
professionals associated with their institution and the Activity. Employing coordinators and NARI 
staff with agribusiness backgrounds is necessary if research institutions are expected to take on a 
greater role in the agriculture sector. 
● Timely release of funds: PAIRED funds were not always available in a timely manner in every country 
of implementation. The amount obligated was not disbursed due to delays in financial supporting 
documentation requirements. In Benin and Senegal, NARIs reported on the administrative 
formalities for making funds available. In Benin, the activities initially planned to be implemented 
during the first quarter of 2020 could not start until March 2020. In Senegal, the transfers were 
delayed until July (2020 and 2021). Timing is critical in agriculture; by August it is already too late 
for the implementation of on-farm activities at the Innovation Platforms. In Ghana and Niger, the 
NARIs elected to “pre-finance” their approved activities in order not to lose the critical 
agricultural periods within which the activities needed to commence. Monthly justification and 
other disbursement procedures are not appropriate for the agricultural production cycle. The 
cumbersome and slow pace of ISRA's internal procedures translated into a low budget 
mobilization and lack of engagement.
● Insufficient value for funding: The insufficient amount of available funds limited the performance of 
the NARIs to deliver on upscaling and was not commensurate with the ambitious scope of PAIRED 
activities. In the most egregious of cases, the low value of monthly funding14 did not allow IER to 
correctly perform supervision at their Innovation Platforms. Additionally, all NARIs raised 
concerns over the inadequacy of the financial disbursements granted. As a result, in Benin, the 
repetition of the required trials for registering new varieties in the Catalogue was not completed; 
the Plant Protection and Control Service participated in only two of the five required inspections 
for seed certification with PAIRED seed growers. In Ghana, additional support was provided by 
one of the two NARIs as the PAIRED objectives aligned with those of the NARI. The successes 
of their Innovation Platforms reflect the NARIs’ commitment to their national agriculture sector 
and upscaling. In Mali, the only field monitoring mission related to maize and sorghum crop 
activities took place for three days in July 2021 in the Koulikoro region. In Niger, due to the 
reduction in the initial budget for 2020, the interventions were carried out only in the geographic 
area of Konni instead of the three initially planned geographic areas. In Nigeria, the disbursement 
of foundation seed to Innovation Platform farmers amounted to only 150 kgs of seed (5kg each 
for 30 farmers). 
● Providing stronger support to seed growers in the certification process: Ultimately, greater focus in 
facilitation in the certification licensing process for the seed producers in the Innovation Platforms 
would have increased the upscaling potential of PAIRED Activity through the Innovation Platform 
approach. This can take on different approaches and needs to be market responsive. In Ghana, 
growers responded favorably to technical support while seed growers in Mali would have 
14 The Evaluation Team found the average monthly disbursement amounted to approximately US10,000.
28
benefitted from grants or subsidies to cover the certification costs. While there were no formal 
PAIRED linkages with the Activity and National Seed Services, it is the responsibility of the 
National Seed Services to ensure compliance with the national regulations, including the 
inspections, sampling, and laboratory tests to receive certification. Challenges for PAIRED 
supported farmers ranged from agent availability to registration costs. For future programming, 
upscaling requires the participation of all actors who act as gatekeepers in increasing certified seed 
supply.
A note on the global coronavirus pandemic: What began in November 2019 as a novel virus grew into a 
pandemic by the start of 2020. In March 2020, like in much of the world, many ECOWAS countries found 
themselves navigating a universe of lockdowns and restricted movements in an effort to curb the spread 
of the disease. While a number of stakeholders spoke of the pandemic as a potential explanation for delays 
in implementation, a large portion shared that their activities were not necessarily restricted, but that they 
needed to adapt. In Nigeria, the government proclaimed that agriculture as a sector was exempt from 
work lockdowns. The NARIs saw their role in maintaining food security in the face of a global pandemic. 
While implementation in Benin, Mali, Niger, and Senegal may have lost a season, Ghana and Nigeria 
worked to make 2020 a productive PAIRED year. As such, the evidence of impact as a result of the 
pandemic is mixed, suggesting the pandemic alone was not the cause of low performance in a variety of 
technical areas. The evaluation team has endeavored to provide evidence of the additional assumptions 
and implementation mechanisms that drove the performance of PAIRED, in spite of the pandemic
29
EVALUATION QUESTION 2
2. What recommendations are there for strengthening, improving, and building upon (scale-up) 
program successes of PAIRED’s components and sub-activities post-2022? What is the viability of 
the approach PAIRED has taken to scale up agriculture technologies and to build supply and/or 
meet agri-business companies and farmer demand for improved seeds?
The PAIRED Activity’s Innovation Platforms served as the main strategy to scale up agriculture 
technologies and to build supply and/or meet agri-business companies and farmer demand for improved 
seeds. Innovation Platforms in five of the six PAIRED countries intended to scale up maize, rice, millet, 
and sorghum value chains in order to create an enabling environment for technology upscaling and 
adoption. While Innovation Platforms are largely accepted within the development community as effective 
vehicles for advancing agricultural production, the implementation around the Innovation Platform and the 
characteristics that underpin each Innovation Platform are significant.
Innovation platforms have fast become part of the mantra of agricultural research and 
development projects and programs. Their basic tenet is that stakeholders depend on one 
another to achieve agricultural development outcomes, and hence need a space where 
they can learn, negotiate, and coordinate to overcome challenges and capitalize on 
opportunities through a facilitated innovation process.15 – Schut et al, 2018.
Overall, the Evaluation noted that the PAIRED Activity choice in putting the Innovation Platform strategy 
as the central, upscaling technology tool to increase the volume of certified seeds was not adequate. In 
order to reduce any subjective bias, the following evaluation analysis approached the Innovation Platform 
strategy through the lenses prescribed by Schut et al. (2018) that for an effective innovation platform, five 
conditions needed to be met, including:
i. Ability and mandate to pitch the platform at the right level(s).
ii. Conducive institutional environment for an Innovation Platform approach.
iii. Availability of sufficient capacities and skills.
iv. Organizing monitoring, evaluation, and learning; and 
v. Adequate funding for innovation.
Under PAIRED, the Innovation Platforms took on a variety of different characteristics; the most effective 
PAIRED Innovation Platforms tended to maintain a smaller membership and demonstrated strong central 
leadership. In Ghana, PAIRED created Innovation Platforms averaged 30 members, whose executive 
leadership, on average, was strongly invested in the benefits the Innovation Platform garnered for their 
communities, which conforms to Schut et al’s suggestion that an ideal Innovation Platform membership 
should be in the range of 20 – 40 members. These smaller Innovation Platforms were better able to work 
harmoniously with the PAIRED Activity to focus on the actor dynamics between farmers, community seed 
growers, agri-input suppliers, financial institutions, and public sector actors such as agriculture extension 
officers. This more focused approach provided better conditions for increasing quality seed production 
and uptake by farmers. In Innovation Platforms where group sizes were large, for example those in Benin, 
Mali, Niger, and Nigeria whose memberships ranged from 200 to upwards of 3,500 members per 
Innovation Platform16, the prerequisite that PAIRED programming be clearly central to the Innovation 
Platforms activity experienced challenges. From a managerial perspective, the Innovation Platforms with 
15 Schut, M. et al. Innovation Platforms: Synopsis of Innovation Platforms in Agricultural Research and Development (2018). 
https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/540964
16 A complete list, with detailed actor composition by Innovation Platform, is included in Annex <…>
30
large memberships tended to become unwieldy and in extreme cases, dysfunctional. These large groups,
having historically been organized as producer groups by other donors, had substantial experience in 
production activities and were focused on their own targeted interest, which did not necessarily align with 
PAIRED’s expectations. 
Starting a new Innovation Platform is more expensive; however, in regard to outcomes, 
starting a new Innovation Platform is much better – PAIRED Activity Coordinator
While group size influenced Innovation Platforms’ capacities to successfully upscale improved agri-inputs 
and seed production, as opposed to overall grain production, the field visits also highlighted the value in 
investing in newly formed groups as opposed to introducing new objectives to well established, producer￾focused groups. Ghana’s CRI and Nigeria’s IAR approach to PAIRED included creating wholly new groups 
to serve as seed upscaling Innovation Platforms. Interviews held with the executive leaders, farmers and 
seed growers in these Innovation Platforms demonstrated a better understanding of the value their 
Innovation Platforms could bring to their communities, specifically as resources for improved agri-inputs; 
this was reflected in Innovation Platforms which were much better integrated into agri-input streams, 
market linkages, and financial institutions.17 The Activity worked to create market channels for their seeds 
and significantly mentored and supported seed growers in their certification process. One Innovation 
Platform leader in Ghana shared how his close collaborative relationship with the NARI provided him the 
opportunity to access the cold storage room at the research institute to store his excess seed for the 
next season. One Innovation Platform seed grower in Nigeria reported that he was doing good business 
with his high-quality seed and supplying to community members who preferred to buy seed from him. 
These Innovation Platforms demonstrated the most promise at producing locally available certified seed 
growers; however, as documented in Evaluation Question 1, the time horizon for implementing the
PAIRED Activity was not adequately mapped against the certification process and no certified seed 
growers had been created at the time of the evaluation. 
Farmer-level seed upscaling was the most suitable level to receive the platform pitch and for meeting the 
PAIRED objectives; however, inadequate messaging and field reinforcement hampered the overall program 
effectiveness at this level. Many Innovation Platform actors – farmers in particular – were unclear as to 
the objectives of PAIRED support to the Innovation Platform. Few understood the main objective was to 
arrive at seed upscaling, as most farmers were interested in producing more and higher quality grain. In 
certain instances, the NARIs themselves were unclear over the distinction between managing an 
Innovation Platform geared towards overall production versus seed upscaling. Arguably, the absence of a 
dedicated seed specialist on the PAIRED team at CORAF contributed to implementation inefficiency at 
the national levels. 
To enable scaling, Innovation Platforms need to be firmly embedded in existing agricultural innovation and 
extension systems. While the use of NARIs was intended to act as the mechanism through which 
innovation platforms would embed into existing systems, the reality at implementation was less 
encouraging. The majority of farmers from the innovation platforms were unable to bridge the certification 
process to be able to sell their yields as certified seeds. The Innovation Platform model failed to adequately 
address the necessary linkages between production and certification, which led to insufficient capacity for 
the Innovation Platform actors to arrive at upscaling. Any certification activity requires coordination with 
the National Seed Inspectorate Division, in a process which can take upwards of three growing seasons 
to obtain, depending on the crop. Not every farmer is a candidate for developing into a certified seed 
grower. In addition, costs in time, land and financial resources act as substantial barriers to becoming a 
certified seed grower. In Ghana, CRI commenced the PAIRED Activity with a target of having one certified 
17 Integration does not necessarily mean uptake. In Ghana, where financial interest rates were relatively high and geared towards short term 
lending (20 percent) rather than longer term investing (35-40 percent), the demand for using financial products in their farming activities were 
relatively low. Nigeria’s experience, despite significantly lower interest rates which rarely broke a double-digit threshold, also indicated a low 
uptake in formal lending products in the PAIRED supported innovation platforms. 
31
seed grower per Innovation Platform. Of the 12 farmers who began the process, only seven remained 
committed to the certification process at the time of evaluation. By any objective measure, such a level of 
attrition would be considered relatively successful; however, it raises larger issues on the effectiveness of 
Innovation Platforms to serve as scaling mechanisms. At the time of evaluation, not one of the 43 
PAIRED Innovation Platforms had produced a single certified seed grower.
Farmer is still central to the Innovation Platform, but they shouldn’t be the primary actor 
– PAIRED Activity Coordinator
The field findings of this evaluation arrived at the assessment that the concept of an Innovation Platform 
is not inherently an unsuccessful approach. By measures of overall production, the good agricultural 
practices that were shared with Innovation Platform farmers and input suppliers resulted in substantial 
increases to farm yields. Farmers also reported increasing incomes, and few shared any substantive 
complaints. However, the objective of the Innovation Platform within the PAIRED Activity was to arrive 
at upscaling of certified seeds. As documented throughout this report, the mechanisms on how the 
PAIRED Innovation Platforms were structured and supported did not return substantial gains in upscaling; 
rather, the evaluation team repeatedly documented instances where high quality seeds grown under the 
PAIRED Activity were sold off as grain.
VIABILITY AND CONTINUITY
Concerning the viability and continuity of the Innovation Platform approach to scaling up agriculture 
technologies, and specifically to upscale seed production, the evaluation found that the stand-alone 
innovation platform solution was not a successful choice, considering that the capacities of 
farmer associations were geared towards grain production. The innovation platforms 
participating in the PAIRED Activity were relatively well-established and composed of farmers, or 
communal associations supported by previous international organizations such as IITA, WAAPP, Africa 
Rice, CARE International and others. PAIRED looked to capitalize on these previous donor investments 
as a means of building on established capacity. However, this pattern of building on previous investment 
and recycling Innovation Platforms meant that any pivots from previously established objectives proved 
exceedingly difficult. This recycling process proved particularly unsuccessful at effectively transitioning 
producer focused activities to seed upscaling mechanisms. The most successful Innovation Platforms 
proved to be those newly formed under PAIRED, where the Activity was able to set the objectives clearly 
with the Innovation Platform members.
While the seed certification process is fundamentally driven by the National Seeds Services, which can 
take upwards of three years depending on country and value chain, improved efficiency can be achieved 
when the NARIs better integrate with the National Seed Service Offices to better support farmers looking 
to convert to seed producers, reducing the barriers for receiving licenses in certified seed production. 
Seed growers associated with newly established Innovation Platforms understood the market incentives 
to growing certified seed, often returning two to four times the profit of comparable grain sales depending 
on the country and value chain. Stronger integration with all the stakeholders in the certification process 
may have encouraged more farmers to take up the effort to become certified seed growers.
32
EVALUATION QUESTION 3
3. Is CORAF/PAIRED’s leadership in strengthening the seed system and advancing the ECOWAS 
Seed Regulations regarded as effective (or integral to scaling-up seed input success) by their 
counterparts such as the International Agriculture Research Centers, and NARIs, or others?
a. Are the institutional structures/relationships now in place, for example, within 
partnership institutions such as the National Agriculture Research Institute (NARIs, or are 
they being developed to sustain the relationships and investments that are being made by 
PAIRED?
[Custom/Border Officials] understand trade in grain, not in seed – Seed Cooperative 
Executive
One of the largest constraints to agricultural productivity in West Africa is the inefficiency of the regional 
seed system. In response, the PAIRED Activity intended to increase the production quality of quality, 
improved certified seeds in West Africa, building on past USAID investments in this area. The West 
African seed value chain lacks strong links among research institutions, seed producers, certifiers, and 
farmers. PAIRED worked to facilitate such links by recognizing the relationship between public and private 
sectors, and the central role of the private sector in the development of more standard quality seeds. 
PAIRED also increases the coordination capacity of regional seed networks including national seed 
associations, which are critical to the long-term success of a robust and high-quality regional seed supply. 
In short, PAIRED implementation supported regional and national elements in advancing seed regulation 
across West Africa.
REGIONAL SEED SYSTEM STRENGTHENING
At a regional level, seed systems, in general, and ECOWAS Seed Regulations, specifically, have been a 
cornerstone of USAID and CORAF collaboration. Continuing on this legacy of regional integration, 
the PAIRED Activity made substantial advances in: 
(i) Supporting the less advancing countries (Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, and 
Sierra Leone) in completing protocols at their national levels. 
(ii) (ii) Supporting the updating and development of the National and Regional Quarantine 
Pest Lists for the eleven (11) priority crops (Rice, Maize, Sorghum, Millet, Groundnut, 
Cowpeas, Yam, Cassava, Irish Potato, Tomato, and Onion) defined by the ECOWAS 
community. 
(iii) (iii) Developing and disseminating the entrepreneurship & business management tools in 
collaboration with FAO, covering the following trainings: Module 1: development of small￾scale seed enterprises; Module 2: seed processing, principles, equipment & practice; 
Module 3: seed quality assurance; Module 4: seed sector regulatory framework; Module 
5: seed marketing, Module 6: seed storage. 
(iv) (iv) Updating nearly 150 additional seed actors including seed companies, seed producing 
cooperatives and government officials with the modules through CORAF and PAIRED 
Activity networks. 
(v) (v) Supporting the establishment of a collaborative linkage between the national 
implementing partners (NARIs) in four target countries (Ghana, Senegal, Nigeria, Mali) 
and the private sector. 
33
LEADERSHIP TO EXPAND SEED SUPPLY
To address supply limitations, CORAF capitalized on its convening power within its authority as the 
technical arm of the ECOWAS to increase the number of Member States (13 out of 15) effectively 
implementing the ECOWAS harmonized seed regulation, which is integral to scaling-up seed input success. 
These efforts were intended to address regional supply bottlenecks; however, existing bottlenecks in the 
movement of seed across borders, often due to delays in processing documents accompanying goods 
because of language barriers and differences in customs’ regulations between countries remain. 
Despite these gains, private seed companies in nearly all PAIRED countries expressed 
frustrations in the implementation of elements in the Seed Regulations. In Nigeria, seed 
companies raised concern over delays in the trans-boundary movement of seed consigned through the 
Francophone countries. There is a Regional Quarantine Pests List (RQPL) developed and adopted for 
West African countries and national plant protection officers trained in each of the 15 members states; 
however, multiple seed companies described situations where their seeds were delayed at border 
crossing, contributing to losses for both the business and the availability of seed in the region.
The PAIRED experience in Benin indicated that there is capacity to export within the region and trade is 
already occurring with yellow maize from an Innovation Platform region linked to demand from Nigeria. 
However, one private seed company indicated that the cross-border trade situation is not perfect as there 
are rice producers who bring small quantities of rice seed through Niger that they like from neighboring 
countries such as Mali. The import procedures and border controls limit the ability to bring in larger 
quantities. Furthermore, the legislative environment in Niger that only allows NARIs to authorize the 
release of new varieties is a problem for the movement of seed across borders and generates challenges 
for seed companies from neighboring countries to transit through Niger.
In Mali, the NARI suggested that more could be done to elevate scientific engagement at the regional level 
to determine the added value and benefit of the new varieties that do not meet the market demand. 
Emphasis was given to the need to ensure a demand driven approach to strengthening the regional seed 
system. An example was given related to the continued focus on the development of NARI rice varieties 
that have been developed without an accompanying analysis of the comparative market demand for each 
variety. Other matters that could be discussed include assessing the socio- economic impact of 
technologies disseminated to date within the region and reviewing and restructuring how researchers 
participate with end users/ growers/ farmers.
In Senegal, one of the seed producer cooperatives operated within an eco-system that included CORAF 
and Africa Rice; they welcomed the shifts in seed policy regulation and regional harmonization as it creates 
opportunities for the emergence of an active private sector. The private seed companies in Senegal 
demonstrated a desire to engage in research and development, not only in growing certified seeds. Further 
changes to national seed policy could do much to unlock the private sector potential in Senegal.
INFLUENCING SEED MARKET DEMAND
To stimulate demand, PAIRED adopted a strategy whereby technology diffusion and adoption were 
induced at the community level. This was done through mass communication and increased awareness, 
brought forth via appropriate tools and channels including demonstration plots/dissemination plots of 
already released varieties. This strategy provided an opportunity to highlight the performance of improved 
seed varieties to farmers and to support awareness creation, in addition to demonstration/dissemination 
plots, farmer trainings and activities, and other communication approaches including use of local radio, 
open field days, and distribution of small seed packs, were also used to inform farmer decisions to adopt 
and purchase improved agricultural inputs.
The PAIRED Activity components all included an element of capacity building. Institutional capacity building 
at the PAIRED Implementer level (CORAF) was addressed as part of Component 1 and strengthening the 
34
capacity of stakeholders was included in the implementation of Components 2 and 3 (integrated 
technologies and scaling framework and the scaling the use of Agri-inputs). Key levers of capacity building 
are leadership, institutional arrangements, knowledge, and accountability; the PAIRED final evaluation 
questions test multiple dimensions of these four elements. 
Institutional arrangements included but were not limited to the policies, systems, processes, and structures 
used by organizations to regulate, plan, and manage their activities effectively as well as to coordinate with 
others to collaborate and fulfil their mandates. Institutional arrangements and organizational design and 
performance was enhanced when the skills, staff, style, and shared values also referred to as the soft Ss in 
the McKinsey 7s Framework18 are considered in the establishment of effective institutional arrangements.
Table 13: List of signed partnerships, by organization and expected outcomes.
Organizations Expected Outcomes
Sub-awardees: INRAB, CSIR-CRI, 
CSIR-SARI, IER, INRAN, IAR, 
NCRI, ISRA
Collaboration for the implementation of PAIRED. For instance, 
coordination of Research-Extension/Advisory Services-FBOs-Private 
Sector Networks
Syngenta Foundation Development of License Contract Model to Facilitate seed.
Business and access to New Genetic Materials from 
Research. Establishment of linkage and collaboration between the 
national implementing partners (NCoS / RCoS and other national 
research centers) and the private sector for the production of early 
generation seeds on a win-win basis.
UPOV / OAPI Capacity Building on Plant Variety Protection
The Africa Seed Access Index 
(TASAI)
Seed index development and engagement in the Alliance for Seed 
Industry in West Africa (ASIWA). Updating of the country index 
including Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, and Ghana.
The Access to seed foundation Seed index development and engagement in the Alliance for Seed 
Industry in West Africa (ASIWA)
Seed Co – West Africa Experience sharing on variety licensing and engaging in ASIWA
CDC Group Fund leveraging for the private sector and capacity development
AFSTA Revamping partnership with CORAF and revitalization of AFSTA West 
Africa. Advocate and support the regional seed industry. Engage 
negotiation with AFSTA to support the organization of the learning visit 
in East Africa on the seed industry. 
COMESA Learn and deploy COMESA regional seed Label Model in West Africa
African Union Inter-African 
Phytosanitary Council (AU￾IAPSC)
Support the development of the regional framework and the executive 
regulation for phytosanitary control and certification of seed
18 https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/enduring-ideas-the-7-s-framework
35
AATF/TAAT Update the joint action plan to support the implementation of the 
regional seed regulation particularly the support to non-PAIRED 
countries and the co-funding of the regional catalogue development
FAO Financial support to conduct a meta-analysis of the seed sector in 8 
countries of West Africa. A task force established to develop the 
roadmap of activities to be conducted for operationalizing the regional 
framework to manage emerging productivity risk.
CILSS/INSH Upgrade the electronic data of varieties and conduct in country missions 
in Chad, Cabo Verde, and Guinea Bissau to fast track the implementation 
of the seed regulation in these countries
Seed Systems Group (SSG) Joint activities plan developed relating to Agri-Inputs and Agricultural 
Technologies Development in West Africa
AKADEMIYA2063
AfricaSeeds
World Benchmarking Alliance Regional Access to seed index development has been developed in 
collaboration with CORAF/PAIRED and the regional index has been 
shared during the side event of the 7th Session of the UN Africa Regional 
Forum on Sustainable Development and during the regional seed 
committee.
Union Nationale des 
professionnelles des semences 
(UNIS), Faso Kaba, SeedCo, and 
OCP
Facilitate the communication on the improved technologies and foster 
their dissemination and adoption.
The challenge in the process of signing MOUs however as seen in countries like Senegal and Niger can 
become complex and long as internal institutional processes, compliance to financial motivations and the 
international banking processing timelines in different countries delayed the implementation of the 
program. Understanding the internal financial systems is important and building capacity to be expeditious 
in the management of the flow of funds has been identified as an area of focus from the interview process. 
Where there is a dual point of contact with CORAF, and PAIRED challenges exist for accounting of 
resource allocation distinguishing between CORAF activities and the PAIRED activities as mentioned by 
the NARIs.
The PAIRED Activity focused attention on strengthening and operationalizing the Innovation Platforms by 
building the capacity of Innovation Platform members to become certified seed producers; developing and 
production of communication, marketing and awareness raising tools and content on the use of agri-input 
packages; facilitating training in agribusiness, finance and entrepreneurship, seed demand forecasting, and 
seed planning tools, impact assessment training on the PVP system and legal environment, strengthening 
the capacity of plant breeders and quality control agents in the implementation of the seed regulations at 
the regional level. Training was provided both face to face and virtually. 
36 
EVALUATION QUESTION 4 
4. Have CORAF and ECOWAS achieved success in advancing the ECOWAS Seed Regulations with 
USAID support? If not, please describe and justify what is left to do and what could be considered 
as success. What are the implications of donors not funding this regulation under future programs?
The launching of the Alliance for Seed Industry in West Africa (ASIWA) in Abidjan, Ivory Coast in August 
2015 brought the regional seed industry to another level, which aroused stakeholders’ interest, awareness, 
and commitment to the development of the seed industry and to open up the regional seed trade across 
borders. Subsequently, 10 ASIWA National Affiliates were established in Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte 
d’Ivoire, Ghana, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, and national meetings were organized to spur the 
development of the seed sector. The establishment of the regional steering committee of ASIWA in Lomé, 
in March 2017 provided a clear roadmap for operationalizing the Alliance in a more sustainable way.
In 2019, PAIRED took the responsibility to continue the work on the seed policy implementation initiated 
by USAID’s West Africa Seed Program (WASP). The effective implementation of a regional seed policy 
would create a harmonized environment to facilitate seed trade among ECOWAS Member States.
The ECOWAS Seed Regulations seek to have all the national seed laws aligned with the regional 
regulations for improved variety registration and certification processes, including clear and consistent 
procedures and fees. It is also required for Member States to put in place a Plant Variety Protection (PVP) 
System which could motivate the private sector to engage in the development of new and relevant seed 
varieties more actively for the market. 
To support the implementation of the ECOWAS harmonized seed regulation in Member States, PAIRED 
developed partnerships through the signing of MoU with the African Agricultural Technology Foundation 
(AAFT) under the framework of the AfDB Initiative, Technology for Africa Agriculture Transformation 
(TAAT). The purpose of these partnerships was to support the enforcement of the harmonized 
procedures for variety release and registration and the development of procedure manuals for seed 
import/export. PAIRED and AAFT organized a consultative meeting in June 2019 to improve the 
implementation of the regional seed regulation, involving the RECs, AFDB, AATF, CORAF, the private 
sector, the ECOWAS Member States, the donors including USAID, the World Bank, FAO, etc. The 
workshop resulted in the development of an action plan and recommendations to address the bottlenecks 
in the full implementation of the regulation. 
CORAF and ECOWAS sensitized national policy makers and stakeholders to fast-track the 
implementation of the seed regulation in countries lagging behind, Chad and Mauritania, and in the 
development of national action plans to strengthen the national seed sector. 
Table 14: Number of countries for which ECOWAS policies are gazetted and fully implemented with technical assistance of PAIRED (Indicator 
1.4.1)
FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
% 
Achieved
Number of countries 0 0 0 8 - -71 
PAIRED’s performance indicator related to seed harmonization was Indicator 1.4.1, Number of countries 
for which ECOWAS policies are gazetted and fully implemented with Technical Assistance of PAIRED. 
The Activity only reported country contributions in 2021 with eight countries having fully gazetted and 
implemented the ECOWAS policies, 71 percent below the expected target.
Despite not achieving the planned target, the evaluators noted that the Parliaments of Ghana and Nigeria 
had enacted the UPOV- PVP system but had not as yet operationalized the private seed developers to 
37
benefit from their investments. The use of quality seed is a critical input for increasing agricultural 
productivity and attainment of food self-sufficiency. Due to the dominance of small-scale farmers, the use 
of quality seed is limited, which if left unaddressed may lead to a continuous diminishing of agricultural 
productivity and compromise the cherished regional goal of food security.
Seed Policy looks to subsidize seed – this means the Government is the main client for 
seed companies – NARI Staff
In addition to the policies at the regional level, the following advancements were accomplished across the 
ECOWAS region, but outside the scope of the 6 evaluated countries:
• Publication of the regulations in the Official Journal: with the exception of Guinea Bissau, 
Mauritania and Liberia, all other countries, actually published the regional regulations in their 
official journal.
• The establishment of a national catalog of species and varieties: most countries have instituted 
a national catalogue, with a registration of plant varieties based on results of the required DHS 
and VATE tests. Some only have a list of varieties plants authorized, on the basis of their 
adaptability to the cropping systems of the country (case of Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau). Liberia 
has drawn up a national catalog of species and varieties in 2022 (CILSS)
• The establishment of national seed committees: all member states have a CNS but not all are 
operational – low frequency of holding sessions statutory (Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry, 
Mauritania, Chad).
• The establishment of the Seed Sector Support Fund (FASS): Even if actions are initiated in most 
countries, the seed sector support fund is not implemented. Only Burkina Faso has created the 
FASS by law and which has been supplied, but it is not yet fully operational as the fund 
management procedures are in the process of being validated.
• PAIRED organized a consultative meeting to launch the creation of the West Africa Seed Trade 
Association (WASTA) and set up a regional task force for developing the chart of the 
Association and organizing the first General Assembly., but not operational.
• Seed index development and engagement in the Alliance for Seed Industry in West Africa 
(ASIWA). PAIRED conducted strategic discussions and technical meetings with the executive 
steering committee of ASIWA to update its agenda and to engage ASIWA in strategic regional 
consultative meetings and policy and regulation paper as well as seed business tools 
developments and validations (Phyto-sanitary executive regulation, regional catalogue of plant 
varieties, seed demand forecasting and seed production planning tool etc.).
Sustainability remains at the forefront of regional seed policy. The donor community has invested heavily 
in the harmonization and implementation of regional seed policy. Concerning the sustainability of the 
Regional Seed Regulations, ECOWAS and UEMOA indicated that these regulations remain a priority and
in the event that donor funds are allocated towards different priorities in the future, ECOWAS and 
UEMOA will be able to take the lead in moving this process forward.
OUTSTANDING ISSUES
In spite of all the various activities which have been implemented through the PAIRED Activity and its 
partners at ECOWAS, UEMOA, and CILSS, the evaluators noted that the Regional Harmonized Seeds and 
Seedling Regulations are still not fully implemented. Challenges remain and impede the full implementation 
of the Regional Seed Policy and Regulations. These challenges include fragmentation at the national 
government seed services in each country, whose collective bureaucratic, lengthy, inefficient, and 
sometimes inconsistent local procedures hampered the full enforcement of regionally agreed upon 
provisions. Additionally, the lack of stronger coordination and inclusion of the private sector failed to 
38
adequately identify the bottlenecks in regional seed movement. And, as noted above, the Regional Seeds 
and Seedling Committee for West Africa and Sahel secretariat (led by CORAF) does not have a dedicated 
seed expert and rarely calls on the “Seed Policy” Task Force. The implementation of a dedicated seed 
expert is something which ideally would have been executed based on PAIRED experience under the 
WASP program. These problems, and potential solutions are further detailed below.
The chain between seed company to farmer is broken – Seed Company Owner
Problems at the private sector level: Seed companies have expressed difficulties in exporting and importing 
seeds between ECOWAS countries. Faso Kaba seed company provided an example where one of their 
transportation trucks from Mali to Sierra Leone was delayed one month at the border. In Senegal, the 
TROPICASEM seed company raised the problem of the high costs on the export and homologation19 of 
seeds. In Nigeria, Savannah Seeds reported the loss of nearly 40 percent of the company’s exported 
inventory to spoilage or damage in 2021 due to border control delays. 
Future activities needed to fully implement seed regulation require engaging actors at both national and 
regional stakeholders. The Evaluation Team recommends the following:
Solutions at the Member State Level: 
● The reforms enacted by the harmonized regional seed regulations must be passed and effectively 
implemented. To do this, Member States should organize awareness campaigns with the goal of 
informing seed value chain actors of the provisions of harmonized regional seed regulations (still 
poorly known) as well as organizing training sessions on the regionally agreed procedures for seed 
variety release, seed quality control, phytosanitary control, etc.
Solutions at the Regional Level: 
● The RSSCWAS/CRSPAOS secretariat must be operational, in terms of its ability to understand 
seed related matters and fully play its role, namely, "to assist the ECOWAS and UEMOA 
Commissions, as well as the CILSS Executive Secretariat, in the implementation of regional seed 
laws and regulations, in force.” 
● CORAF should advocate for ECOWAS to integrate the seed trade issue into the ongoing “West 
Africa Association for Cross Border Trade of Agro-Forestry-Pastoral – Fisheries and Food 
system” (WACTAC) for the “free movement and integrated pastoral markets in the Sahel and 
West Africa through the cross-border trade.” This would increase private sector seed company 
opportunities in expanding their import / export business throughout West Africa.
● CORAF should work to strengthen coordination mechanisms with the other bodies (UEMOA, 
CILSS, ECOWAS) for countries to show political and technical commitment to strengthen the 
Seed Regulations and Regional Seed Trade. In addition, CORAF should help build capacity in 
country-level standards of seed certification. 
● There is also a need for building human capacity of Seed Technologists, Seed Technicians and 
Agronomists within each sub-region. There is a need for training of personnel in seed science and 
technology at both technical and graduate research grades to replace the aged and retiring staff 
(trained in the 1980s and 1990s), in order to keep the sector vibrant and to support further 
advancements in the seed industries within each sub-region.
19 Inter-ECOWAS, and general national export policies require that seeds are homologated by a public agency to assure that they meet the 
necessary standards. In theory, these policies should align with the broader ECOWAS supported Seed Regulations.
39
EVALUATION QUESTION 5
5. Has the CORAF leadership used the PAIRED activity to forge deeper private-sector engagement 
in the agricultural inputs system, especially seeds? How has the private sector fulfilled the roles 
expected of it in the regional seed sector? For example, describe the viability of the private sector 
and how it is advancing the development, promotion, and sale of certified and foundation seed.
b. What vulnerabilities/weaknesses/gaps still exist within the private sector and what 
can be done to address them?
The PAIRED Activity recognized that the role of the private sector was a crucial aspect in the production 
and distribution of certified seeds in the region. Activity engagement with the private sector is necessary 
to increase the use of quality seeds and amplify the positive impacts of quality seed introduction on food 
production in the region. PAIRED’s integration of private sector actors, and particularly private seed 
companies, was intended to support upscaling of promising crop varieties and agri-input packages by:
● Establishing dissemination plots which showcased new improved varieties and created demand at 
farm level. 
● Supporting the NARIs producing increased quantities of foundation seed of promising varieties as 
a means of increasing availability for the private sector; and
● Capacity building in personnel for selected private seed companies by offering short training 
workshops in M&E, PVP, Seed Purity Standards, and the introduction of the digital FeSERWAM 
toolkit. 
The role of engaging with the private sector was shared between CORAF and the NARIs, depending on 
the level of engagement. CORAF predominantly led engagements with seed company cooperatives around 
issues of policy and training to member businesses. NARIs, serving as the implementing mechanisms for 
direct in-country support to the Innovation Platform actors, predominantly engaged directly with 
individual seed companies under varying levels of engagement such as demonstration plots and agri-input 
sales to farmers. Table 15 provides an overview of seed associations and companies which were 
interviewed during the evaluation.
Table 15: Seed associations and companies, by country
Benin Ghana Mali Niger Nigeria Senegal
ASASEMB Heritage Seed
Ariku Seed
SeedCo
Antika Seed
Faso Kaba
Camara Seed
Soprosa
FUCOPRI
ONG RAIL
AINOMA
Haarusa
SEEDAN
Premier Seed
Value Seed
Savannah Seed
SEDAP
UNIS
Tropicasem
Limagrin
The private sector support provided by the PAIRED Activity included:
● Facilitating improved business development tools and protocols to better plan for the production 
and supply of quality seed. 
● The introduction and reinforcement of partnerships between seed companies and the national 
breeding institutions in order to transfer and scale appropriate and improved seed varieties for 
adoption. 
● Partnerships in joint demonstration plots and farmer field days. 
40
● Engagement of private sector platform representatives in regional policy dialogues. 
● Support in the design and validation of seed policy executive regulation (Phytosanitary control and 
certification) and seed business management tools (seed demand forecasting tool); and 
● In limited cases, online consultations with ASIWA to revamp regional alliances and support the 
creation of a regional seed enterprise umbrella association.
While individual seed company engagements occurred in all PAIRED supported countries, in most 
instances, market linkages remained under-developed for the Innovation Platforms and their members, 
both in terms of input supply and seed production markets. In Benin, Mali, and Niger, PeBCO Betesda, 
CLCAM, La Volonté, FasoKaba, FUCOPRI, and ONG RAIL gave agri-inputs to farmers which the latter 
paid back at the market price when crops were later harvested. In Ghana and Nigeria, the private sector 
model followed an approach where private seed companies were encouraged to demonstrate their seeds 
in PAIRED Innovation Platforms, and this introduction provided the opportunity for an exchange between 
market supply and demand; however, lack of coordination between NARIs, Innovation Platforms and the 
private sector meant a loss in connecting farmers to larger seed companies for opportunities beyond agri￾input sales channels.
Data gathered on agri-input dealers illustrated that the private sector is growing and doing business in 
providing seed and agro-chemical supplies to farmers in rural communities around the Innovation 
Platforms. Nearly half of all agri-input dealers spoken to in Ghana reported a high degree of satisfaction 
with the certified seed market, with only a quarter of dealers suggesting that the market needed 
improvement. There were indications that use of quality seed was increasing in the region, particularly 
around certified maize value chains. The private seed company, SeedCo, indicated that while adoption of 
improved seed was about 50 percent in East and Central Africa, only 5-10 percent seed adoption was 
occurring in Ghana and West Africa, indicating a high potential for growth in the West African seed 
business industry. SeedCo participated in the PAIRED Activity in Ghana in the design of demonstration 
plots, field days, and promotional materials, where they show-cased their seed varieties alongside those 
of the NARIs and other certified seed companies. 
Our partnership has been effective but [we] would love to see continuation of the program 
in Ghana where adoption of improved varieties is still very low – Private Seed Company
The woman-owned seed company Faso Kaba provided a good example of how the PAIRED Activity could 
provide direct coordination and support to the private sector. Faso Kaba opened in August 2007 with the 
intention of running a high-quality seed business. Their partnership with PAIRED helped Faso Kaba access 
breeder seeds from IER, the national research institute in Mali, and facilitated introductions with the 
agriculture offices at the sub-national level. As a result of these relationships, inspections of Faso Kaba’s 
seeds occur frequently causing fewer delays, allowing Faso Kaba to respond to market conditions and 
produce more certified seeds. Insecurity in Mali, and the collapse of the market in Northern Mali, has 
reduced the demand for seed; however, Faso Kaba’s overall business operations have improved 
significantly as a result of the PAIRED Activity’s support. The agreement with PAIRED ensured Faso Kaba’s 
active involvement in the seed upscaling process in Mali through active participation in targeted Innovation 
Platforms, display on demonstration plots and the organization of open field days. Faso Kaba, in turn, has 
signed agreement letters with 30 cooperatives and has partnered with 13 farmers to run demonstration 
plots. 
41
GROWING THE PRIVATE SECTOR
While small successes were achieved under the PAIRED Activity, the lack of innovative approaches to 
engaging with the private sector left multiple challenges unaddressed for both the private sector, in 
particular, and the seed sector overall.
At the field level: viability was a seriously unaddressed element when discussing certified seeds in the private 
sector. The evaluation team observed many small-scale, private agri-input dealers with inadequate seed 
storage facilities, such that certified seeds were stored at room temperature, on the floor, or 
inappropriately in the seed shops. Low germination of seeds is a disincentive to farmers and results in a 
loss of confidence in the seed trade at large. Complaints of poor germination were reported by farmers 
who bought PAIRED-supported certified seeds, highlighting the importance of this issue. Measures should 
be taken to restore confidence by ensuring that seed viability is maintained from production fields, through 
transit to distribution locations, with the use of cold rooms and refrigerated containers at all levels along 
the seed trade.
Seed inspections remain inadequate due to the limited numbers of the MoFA Seed Inspectors, who often 
do not have the logistics necessary to undertake inspections. In the cases of Ghana and Nigeria, private 
seed companies helped facilitate the inspections process with logistical support, and inspection fee 
payments, in order to ensure inspectors were evaluating their fields at the appropriate time. Furthermore, 
seed inspection stems from the ability of farmers to grow certified seeds, helping to prevent the sale of 
fake seeds which are otherwise difficult to detect. The evaluators noted several interviews that raised 
concerns over fake seeds and/or instances of low germination. In Nigeria, to counter these fraudulent 
developments, the private Seed companies have introduced codes on seed packs which enable the buyer 
to verify the source and authenticity of a seed pack. This solution could be adopted by all seed dealers in 
the region to further increase confidence in quality seeds.
Distortions in the market, generated by the public sector’s support of agri-input subsidies, have also 
created a variety of issues which were documented in the field. Innovation Platform farmers regularly 
discussed their intention to use their own saved seed for planting in the successive season, despite having 
planted a hybrid seed. These farmers were aware that the best practice would require the purchase of 
new seed in the successive season; however, a hope, mixed with no previous experience with hybrids, 
created conditions where farmers were willing to “test” the strength of their PAIRED supported seed. 
Farmers spoke to how seed prices were too high, despite acknowledging that their yields and profits had 
increased. The expectation was clear, seeds should be free or subsidized, irrespective of the benefits of
higher quality seeds. 
At the regional level: Dependency on the State and other institutional buyers, the largest customers of seed 
companies have broader knockoff effects. The regional seed trade remains heavily impacted by these 
institutional buyers and the political management of seed accessibility. The PAIRED Activity did not look 
to address these political levers in the seed sector, despite its unique regional advocacy position. 
The player can’t also be the referee – Private Seed Company
Additionally, where large private seed companies engaged with the evaluation, they expressed substantial 
limitations and challenges to exporting their seed across ECOWAS countries. Challenges to protectionist 
national seed policies, exacerbated by customs-clearing struggles, reduced the overall certified seed 
available to address ECOWAS countries’ demand. 
Advocacy for implementing the existing policy reforms, combined with affordable financing to farmer 
associations and local enterprises to strengthen agri-input delivery systems is needed. Examples of policy 
reforms which could have been pursued include the liberalization of foundation seed production in 
countries that showed reluctance to private sector involvement. The participation of the private sector 
along with the public sector in workshops and trainings organized by the PAIRED Activity enabled the 
private sector to communicate their difficulties and give voice to their grievances, including concerns 
42
regarding intellectual propriety rights, quality assurances, free movement of goods and services, seed 
import regulations, cost homologation of varieties, etc.
Addressing capacity issues in the region is needed to improve standards in seed certification, remove 
bottlenecks in intra-regional seed trade for smooth movement of seed to meet supply and demand. 
CORAF should strengthen advocacy for governments to allocate a minimum value of public expenditure 
to agriculture, and to ensure its efficiency and effectiveness. There is also a need to encourage the public 
sector to allow for stronger private sector participation in the seed business. The agri-input strategy to 
deliver seed, fertilizer and pesticides as a package should be driven by the private sector.
43
EVALUATION QUESTION 6
6. To what extent has PAIRED and International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC)/ Enhancing 
Growth Through Regional Agricultural Input Systems (EnGRAIS) collaboration been effective in 
addressing agriculture technologies’ scale up and availability of quality inputs? What is the value 
addition of CORAF/PAIRED in this collaboration? Include an analysis of the strengths and 
weaknesses of this collaboration as well as recommendations, if any, on how to improve this 
partnership?
The International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC)/ Enhancing Growth Through Regional 
Agricultural Input Systems (EnGRAIS) Activity was developed with a main objective to improve sustainable 
agriculture productivity and inclusive growth in West Africa and to increase the regional availability and 
use of appropriate and affordable fertilizers. Given the linkages between fertilizer and seed, there was 
substantial logic in encouraging a collaboration between the PAIRED and EnGRAIS Activities.20
The first PAIRED and EnGRAIS MOU was signed in February 2018 to collaborate in bringing seed and 
fertilizer together as a package for upscaling in supporting the PAIRED Activity’s intended result to develop 
technologies to help farmers improve their production. There were well documented agreements and 
agreed upon work plans that reflect accountability between the two organizations and in the event that 
work was outsourced, a tripartite agreement was held with the third party. The partnership between the 
two organizations enabled distinct yet complementary roles in undertaking actions to achieve the results 
within the PAIRED Activity, predominantly to: 
● Develop and up-scale appropriate seed and fertilizer packages and best practices in the major 
agro-ecologies in West Africa (in collaboration with IFDC). The collaboration is specifically 
intended to support two sub-objectives:
o Updating fertilizer and seed recommendations to develop these for targeted crops 
and agro-ecological zones across West Africa; and
o Promoting market comprehensive fertilizer and seed input packages across West 
Africa.
These PAIRED results intended to link into and harmonize with the EnGRAIS Activity’s results to achieve 
“comprehensive input packages developed and disseminated in cooperation with CORAF and EnGRAIS.” 
An advantage of this collaboration was the opportunity for the two Activities to harmonize their work on 
the two main agriculture inputs in the region, seeds, and fertilizer. By making available a complete package 
of suitable agri-inputs, the partnership would use different communication strategies to reach large 
numbers of farmers with quality options for agri-input packages made of seeds, fertilizers and associated 
good agricultural practices. Key activities to this partnership included:
● Developing agri-input packages to support seed production under different agri-ecological 
conditions. 
● Setting up demonstration sites that provided farmers demonstratable differences between seed 
varieties; and
● Implementing the FeSERWAM Platform.21
20 Separate of any USAID funded relationships, CORAF and IFDC have held a long-standing relationship, dating back to the first Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) between the two partners in 2013. They have since gone on to sign two additional agreements in 2020 and 2022, marking 
their commitment to collaboration.
21 A detailed discussion of the FeSERWAM experience is provided in Evaluation Question 7.
44
The administration of the PAIRED/EnGRAIS partnership held clearly delineated roles and responsibilities: 
PAIRED was responsible for advising on promising seeds while IFDC was responsible for advising the most 
suitable fertilizer type. PAIRED and EnGRAIS held joint advisory committee meetings to develop a joint 
annual work plan, updated on a quarterly basis. The meetings of this advisory committee served as an 
avenue for presenting and discussing the achievements of both activities, developing, joint annual work 
plans, and provided a mechanism for making recommendations on improving implementation and result 
reporting. Lastly, the advisory committee served as a link between other regional programs and ongoing 
bilateral projects for the development of the fertilizer and seed sub-sectors.
While both PAIRED and ENGRAIS reported a relatively good collaboration between the two partners at 
an institutional level, successfully launching FeSERWAM, the database on high yielding and adaptable seed 
varieties, appropriate fertilizer availability, and good agricultural practices for West Africa, the Evaluation 
Team noted the collaboration was much less successful at delivering on its goal at the field level. 
An underlying assumption in the justification of the PAIRED/EnGRAIS partnership was that collaboration 
would enable more effective implementation at the country level. In all PAIRED countries, the key actors 
associated with PAIRED implementation, the NARIs, predominantly lacked any awareness of the 
PAIRED/EnGRAIS partnership; rather, IFDC’s history in the region made them familiar actors as an 
organization working on fertilizer issues in the region. One NARI in Nigeria proved to be an exception in 
this case, as that institution was clear on the fertilizer training linkages between PAIRED and EnGRAIS, 
and the provision of their own research institutions seed. At the level of the Innovation Platforms, most 
participants in the training activities and demonstration sites lacked a clear awareness of the PAIRED and 
EnGRAIS partnership. In Benin, the Innovation Platforms members repeatedly expressed their concerns 
about soil fertility and conservation challenges, and the managing NARI staff indicated that no agri-inputs 
were supplied as part of the PAIRED program.22 One of the few instances of successful field level 
implementation occurred in Senegal, where UNIS was involved in the PAIRED/EnGRAIS partnership as 
distributors of “agri-packs” to their membership. Working through a cooperative structure confirmed the 
value of the introduction of good management practices as part of the agri-pack for farmer support.
An intended goal of the PAIRED/EnGRAIS partnership was the ability of both projects to benefit from the 
experience and expertise of both organizations. However, EnGRAIS members pointed to challenges in 
working with the PAIRED Activity. The comparatively small PAIRED team struggled under their 
administrative workloads, which contributed to the team’s struggles to collaborate and plan with EnGRAIS. 
Availability conflicts and overlapping activities in calendars made joint planning and implementation difficult, 
resulting in delays in rolling out elements of the collaborative agreement in a timely manner. This capacity 
misalignment within the partnership was problematic and was further impacted by the fact that PAIRED 
Activity deliverables were varied and required extensive stakeholder engagement, whereas the EnGRAIS 
Activity was quite focused in their design and delivery of specific products. Processes within both 
organizations, as well as in their interaction with USAID, also created time allocation challenges.
The field interviews identified a number of operational challenges, including difficulties in synchronizing 
calendars, which led to implementation delays. Another noted weakness to this collaboration is that the 
two organizations have different global objectives and meet only when programing a joint activity or 
training, under special agreements that each of them contributed with a specific budget. This “silo”-ing of 
joint activities rather than a more holistic integration approach requires improved efficiency and 
coordination in the planning of annual workplans. This extends to needing to improve internal processes 
of releasing funds for joint activities by PAIRED and EnGRAIS. The funding terms between the two 
Activities are different in timing and length of funding cycles. EnGRAIS’ funding period, from February 2018 
22 The cause of no available agri-inputs was unclear to the Evaluation Team. The NARI did communicate a push to eliminating chemical inputs in 
the maize value chain in response to market demand from the processors, which possibly explains the lack of chemical fertilizer availability.
45
– February 2023, and PAIRED’s funding period, from June 2017 – June 2022, created a misalignment that 
was difficult to remedy under their joint work planned activities. 
More could have been done to align activities with the PAIRED and EnGRAIS objectives such as aligning 
marketing strategies, subsidy policies approaches, methods for seed quality control, seed price and 
availability monitoring, and the development of seed catalogues with greater country-level engagement 
and stakeholder management.
46
EVALUATION QUESTION 7
7. How efficient and sustainable are the tools and systems developed and/or maintained by CORAF 
with the support of PAIRED (i.e., West Africa Seed Information Exchange (WASIX), FeSERWAM 
platform, MITA web-based Application, etc.)? What are the strengths (usefulness, utilization) and 
weaknesses of each tool/system?
WASIX
The West Africa Seed Information Exchange (WASIX) is a digital seed demand forecasting tool. It provides 
time-sensitive data used to forecast potential and actual seed demands in support of both public sector 
decision-making and business and investment decision-making for seed companies. In short, WASIX was 
intended to collect, process, and disseminate information on seed market conditions (supply and demand), 
provide networking and market linkages, collect sub-regional harmonized seed regulation applications, and 
ultimately contribute to Regional Seed System Governance. The tool was developed under the USAID 
WASP Activity as it was of substantial interest to seed stakeholders in the facilitation of intra-regional 
seed trade. 
At the time of this evaluation, the WASIX exchange was not operational, and the portal had been 
disconnected from the CORAF website. Discussions have been underway to transfer WASIX to the 
private sector, through ASIWA, to manage. This transfer is not without political and operational conflicts. 
The process requires confirmation on the decision to host WASIX under the permanent secretariat of 
ASIWA, the administrator of the e-platform, and the cost-effectiveness of separating the e-platform from 
the permanent secretariat. There are national level concerns as well. Interviews held in Mali raised the 
issue of inherent competition between CORAF and the NARIs concerning the ownership of the new seed 
varieties being developed. The Senegalese Seed Services reported their strong support for any future 
iteration of WASIX to be managed by the private sector but impressed upon the team that CORAF was 
resisting the release of WASIX management responsibility to the private sector.
Ultimately, of the three systems created in part or in their entirety by CORAF, the Evaluation Team found 
WASIX had the farthest reach in terms of awareness and useability. Public sector actors – all NARIs and 
national seed services interviewed - reported knowledge of WASIX, ranging from personal user 
experience (mostly as contributors) to attendance in training events held by CORAF. The core issues 
appear to stem from conflicts related to the role and capacity of the private sector, a trend also 
prominently featured under the PAIRED Activity. Private seed companies reported knowing about 
WASIX, but generally ranked its importance to their business operations as relatively low. This pattern 
follows a broader trend where the public sector’s development of knowledge products has not 
harmonized adequately with private sector users, who ultimately need to take ownership of the process 
in order to increase regional seed availability. 
FESERWAM PLATFORM
The FeSERWAM online toolkit is a decision-making tool developed to facilitate agriculture stakeholders’ 
access to information regarding the best improved seed varieties, the optimal fertilizer recommendations, 
and associated good agricultural practices by agro-ecological zones in West Africa. FeSERWAM provided 
information on seed and fertilizer packages made up of best suited varieties of maize, millet, sorghum, 
peanut, cashew nut, cotton, banana, cowpea, and rice with appropriate fertilizer recommendations and 
best agricultural practices by agro-ecological zone. The set of tools were designed to be used together to 
encourage stronger productivity and higher yields of target crops. The packages were developed using 
participatory inputs from national and regional stakeholders in targeted countries, including farmers, 
private input suppliers, research institutions, and extension services. These agri-input packages were 
organized by country and crop within downloadable PDF files. The initial launch of the FeSERWAM 
47 
platform occurred on September 22, 2020. An updated version of the toolkit was released on August 25, 
2022,23 and its links were shared with national research institutions in Ghana, Mali, Senegal, Benin, Nigeria, 
and Niger. Dissemination activities included the use of radio for Ghana and Nigeria, in the form of Farm 
Radio. A total of 520 agri-input packages promoting appropriate varieties of target crops are now available 
online. Among the 376 agri-input packages ready to be downloaded or printed, 142 were developed for 
the value chains promoted by PAIRED. 
An example of successful coordination between the PAIRED and EnGRAIS partnership was the 
organization of a regional training of trainers (ToT) on the use and the management of the agri-input 
packages, and fertilizer and seed recommendation for the map of West Africa via the FeSERWAM 
platform. To supplement the ToT, an integrated communication and marketing strategy aiming to support 
the dissemination of FeSERWAM, and agri-input packages was developed, launched, and validated. The 
roadmap for the deployment of the strategy was also designed and validated. 
The FeSERWAM tool has the potential to boost agricultural productivity in the sub-region from the 
knowledge gained and application of the agro input packages. Using Google Analytics data covering Sept 
1, 2021, through July 31, 2022, the website reported 1,728 unique users of the FeSERWAM platform. 
Users of the platform had an average of 1.69 sessions with an average session lasting 3.23 minutes. Figure 
3 details the percentage distribution of users by country; oddly, the largest share of FeSERWAM users, 1 
in 5, were in the United States. Users based in all PAIRED supported countries except Niger did engage 
with FeSERWAM, and in aggregate represented 44 percent or 754 unique individual users. The 
FeSERWAM Platform was not familiar to many actors within the Innovation Platforms and among 
stakeholders from the National Agricultural Research Centers. The Private Sector or Government entities 
that supported the PAIRED program had heard of the platform, but they had not used the first iteration 
due to user interface problems. Data collected from field interviews confirmed PAIRED users in Benin, 
Ghana and Senegal as having any familiarity with FeSERWAM, although their reported engagement was 
limited except in the case of Senegal. 
Discussions held during the field visits highlighted challenges to accessibility, as the toolkit requires internet 
availability and payment to access the platform. Accessibility is limited due to unavailable and unreliable 
internet for most of the PAIRED farmers and the cost of accessing the information was prohibitively high. 
To address the issue around internet connectivity, FeSERWAM should expand its usability by developing 
additional content specific to fertilizer companies and agro-input dealers, who in turn would make available 
suitable formulations for farmers in their communities; moving from a web-based to a mobile-based 
23 All evaluation findings are associated with the first iteration of the platform. All reported data closed on July 31, 2022.
FeSERWAM Statistics
Sept 2021 – July 2022
Total Number of Users
1,728 
Avg. Sessions per User 
1.69 
 
 
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
United States
Senegal
Benin
Cote d'Ivoire
Togo
Burkina Faso
Ghana
Mali
Nigeria
France
Figure 3: FeSERWAM user distribution, percentage by country
48
platform would also increase the usability of the platform by making some information available while 
offline; supplementally, CORAF and IFDC could train agricultural extension officers, who would act as the 
agents of dissemination of information on the recommendations to farmers. On the other hand, the 
platform remains mostly unaffordable for the small farmers, and where farmer associations may be able 
to absorb the cost, limitations to internet facilities at the village level reduces the reach of the platform. 
Furthermore, at the time of the evaluation, FeSERWAM was only available in English and French, which 
precluded access to Portuguese speakers. CORAF and IFDC should consider training agricultural 
extension officers who would disseminate recommendation information to farmers. The evaluation team 
noted that the IFDC had secured additional funding for a continued three years for maintenance of the 
FeSERWAM platform, which will provide an opportunity for the platform to adapt to the needs of their 
endline users.
MITA WEB-BASED APPLICATION
The Market for Agricultural Innovations and Technologies (MITA) is a web-mobile application for 
information on improved agricultural innovations and technologies and their transactions (purchase-sale). 
It serves as a direct interaction between research users and promoters, involved in the generation or 
transfer of technologies, with a view to stimulating demand for improved technologies. As a technology 
exhibition and discovery space, it potentially serves a very important role in the virtual demonstration of 
technologies and innovations to boost scale-up and adoption. 
At the completion of the last upgrade to MITA, the PAIRED Activity organized information and 
sensitization meetings to present the new MITA 2.0 to country partners. These meetings were used to 
train stakeholders in the effective use of the platform and receive feedback about the new platform and
resulted in the drafting of a roadmap for the collective and continuous updating of the web-based seed 
demand forecasting tool. The MITA application was upgraded with 232 technologies, and now provides 
information on improved agricultural innovations and technologies and their transaction (purchase-sale). 
Respondents at one NARI reported that, although the necessary training on MITA was provided, they 
experienced difficulties populating the electronic platform due to the reluctance of researchers who did 
not want to disclose information about their technologies. One respondent suggested more appropriate 
messaging to researchers highlighting the advantages and opportunities offered by MITA, which would 
enable better visibility. The Director of Seed Services in one francophone country reported no knowledge 
of MITA, a trend that reflected the experience in all but one PAIRED country.
Like the other electronic toolkits discussed, MITA’s greatest weakness may be accessibility and use, which 
makes the tool limited to areas with internet connectivity and may not reach many of the smallholder 
farmers in West Africa, who lack cellphones and/or internet access. There is also a need for training 
agricultural extension agents and researchers to become accustomed to its use, as not one respondent 
from these stakeholder groups in any PAIRED supported country could speak to any familiarity with MITA. 
In order to ensure that credible information is added to populate the electronic toolkits, there is a need 
to set up a committee of experts to verify all data and information (clearing house system) before it is put 
on platforms for consumption. 
FUTURE ELECTONIC PLATFORM CONSIDERATIONS
Overall, the evaluators documented through interviews in the field, and substantiated by available website 
tracking metrics, to identify significant challenges faced by the PAIRED Activity to increasing the 
functionality and accessibility of these online platforms. The development of these tools by CORAF in 
collaboration with other organizations was controversial. At the country level, PAIRED implementation 
stakeholders did not have adequate information on how to use these tools as a component of 
implementation, and as such did not utilize the knowledge contained in these resources. Challenges 
49
included making fluid the information exchange, and addressing the economic viability of such platforms, 
including an appropriate integration of cost factors in developing the technology. 
Respondents during the field visits reported that these regional electronic data management platforms 
needed to be more user-friendly to enable easy registration and access to valuable data, suggesting the 
best overhauls to these platforms might require moving from web-based to mobile-based platforms, and 
empowering intermediary stakeholders who regularly engage with farmers such as agri-input suppliers and 
agricultural extension officers. A more collaborative process on the utility of these platforms is needed. 
As a regional body, CORAF should facilitate stronger collaboration with national level utilizers, NARI 
leadership, National Seed Service Directorates, and other agriculture services, with a focus on inclusion 
with the private sector, to discuss the utility of these platforms. Ultimately, the development of these 
platforms should address the needs of end-line users and not the objectives of researchers and developers.
50
RECOMMENDATIONS
The PAIRED Activity sought to improve agricultural productivity in West Africa through the delivery of 
training, technical support, coordination, and to enhance the production, distribution, and widespread use 
of certified seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides by smallholder farmers as a package (seeds, fertilizer, 
pesticides, and best practices). The Activity was implemented in six West African countries and relied 
heavily on the various NARIs to deliver the program through on-the-ground support to Innovation 
Platforms and their members. The overall performance of the PAIRED Activity did not return widespread 
upscaling of certified seeds, and the following recommendations provide starting points for further 
discussion among all relevant stakeholders:
The foundational assumption that existing Innovation Platforms could be reinforced to create seed 
upscaling opportunities should be revisited. While PAIRED did not have more than two complete seasons 
to achieve the intended results, the trends which did emerge indicate greater resources and/or investment 
need to be considered to achieve a substantial increase in seed upscaling through the application of the 
Innovation Platform approach. 
The PAIRED intervention demonstrates the implementing limitations faced at the farm level. Future 
programming must take into consideration the institutional capacity of all actors to manage financial 
systems, planning processes, implementation calendars, etc. as necessary to achieve a harmonized singular 
project. 
Should future programming continue at the farm level, CORAF must take on a greater leadership role in 
actively managing the engagements on the ground. In the absence of adequate PAIRED leadership, each 
NARI adapted to their own understanding of the PAIRED Activity. The NARIs, despite limited funding and 
a pandemic, were not supported adequately to achieve PAIRED expected results. 
Any future programming must revisit the private sector engagement strategy. The expectation that the 
private sector would be motivated to fill programmatic gaps on their own was unrealistic; the private 
sector is often growing in spite of, not because of, the public sector. Greater consideration for the 
challenges seed companies faces and stronger integration of the private sector in identifying shared 
objectives is needed to build a more cohesive private sector strategy. 
CORAF holds a particular advantage in advocating for regional seed objectives. Having made progress 
over the past decade in harmonized seed regulations, the focus now should look at the significant gaps 
which exist in the operational elements of these regulations. Future programming would benefit upscaling 
by working with national governments on their processes for customs clearing of seed. This would have 
a substantial impact in increasing the volume of intra-regional trade by private sector seed companies.
51 
ANNEX A: INTERVIEW LIST
BENIN
TYPE OF 
STAKEHOLDER
NAME POC DATE
Porto Novo
Other Stakeholder Direction Ag/ National 
Seed Service
Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 26, 2022
Cotonou
Research Institute INRAB/General 
Direction
Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 26, 2022 
Allada – Niaoulli
Research Institute Maize Specialisation 
Centre Focal Point
Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 26, 2022
Couffo
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD - Mixed Oliveira & Njobe August 29, 2022
Innovation Platform IP Departmental 
Leadership
Ndiaye & Tchorly￾Boadi
August 29, 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD - Seed 
Growers 
Ndiaye & Tchorly￾Boadi
August 29, 2022
Innovation Platform Aplahoué Branch Ndiaye & Tchorly￾Boadi
August 29, 2022
Innovation Platform Dogbo Branch Ndiaye & Tchorly￾Boadi
August 29, 2022
Innovation Platform Djakotomey Branch Ndiaye & Tchorly￾Boadi
August 29, 2022
Innovation Platform Ag. Extension Officer Oliveira & Njobe August 29, 2022
Innovation Platform Ag. Extension Officer Ndiaye & Njobe August 30, 2022
Ifangni 
Innovation Platform Agri-input Dealer Oliveira & Tchorly￾Boadi
August 29, 2022
52
Innovation Platform IP Leadership Ndiaye & Njobe August 30, 2022
Innovation Platform President Oliveira & Tchorly￾Boadi
August 30, 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD - Mix Ndiaye & Njobe August 30, 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD - Seed 
Growers 
Oliveira & Tchorly￾Boadi
August 30, 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD -
Processors (Women)
Oliveira & Tchorly￾Boadi
August 30, 2022
53 
GHANA
TYPE OF 
STAKEHOLDER
NAME POC DATE
Accra
Other Stakeholder IFDC/EnGRAIS Akromah 11 Aug 2022
Private Sector Antika Seed Akromah 29 Aug 2022
Private Sector Heritage Seeds Akromah 30 Aug 2022
Kumasi
Research Institute Director Makuch 15 Aug 2022
Research Institute Upscaling Team Akromah 15 Aug 2022
Research Institute Dissemination Team Ashiteye & Ashong 15 Aug 2022
Woraso
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – Women Akromah 15 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
Youth
Ashiteye 15 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
Men
Ashong 15 Aug 2022
Atebubu 
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – Mix Ashiteye 16 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Seed Grower Akromah & Makuch 16 Aug 2022 
Quant Instrument Input Dealers Ashiteye & Ashong 16 Aug 2022
Amantin
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – Mix Ashiteye 16 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Seed Grower Akromah 16 Aug 2022
Quant Instrument Input Dealers Ashong 16 Aug 2022
Nsoatre
54 
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – Mix Ashong 17 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
Aggregators
Ashiteye 17 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Input Dealer Akromah 17 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Seed Grower Akromah 17 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Financial Institution Makuch 17 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Ag Extension Officer Makuch 17 Aug 2022
Derma
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – Women Ashong 17 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
Men
Ashiteye 17 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Seed Grower Akromah 17 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Financial Institution Makuch 17 Aug 2022
Research Institute Coordinator (Jonas) Makuch 17 Aug 2022
Tamale
Research Institute Project Management Makuch 19 Aug 2022
Research Institute Breeder and Agronomy Akromah 19 Aug 2022
Research Institute Communications Ashiteye 19 Aug 2022
Research Institute Ag Extension Ashong 19 Aug 2022
Quant Instrument Input Dealers
Tosinape
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – Women Akromah 19 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
Youth
Ashiteye 19 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
Men
Ashong 19 Aug 2022
55 
Tantuani 
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – Women Akromah 20 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
Youth
Ashiteye 20 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
Men
Ashong 20 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Seed Grower Makuch 20 Aug 2022
Yapala
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
Mix
Akromah & Makuch 20 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Seed Grower Akromah 20 Aug 2022
Nayagnia
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
Mix
Ashiteye 22 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
Mix
Ashong 22 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Seed Grower Akromah 22 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Ag Extension Officer Makuch 22 Aug 2022
Kologo
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – Women Ashiteye 22 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – Men Ashong 22 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD – 
IP Leadership
Akromah 22 Aug 2022
Quant Instrument Input Dealers Akromah, Ashiteye, 
Ashong & Makuch
22 Aug 2022
Bolgatani
Quant Instrument Input Dealers Akromah, Ashiteye, 
Ashong & Makuch
23 Aug 2022
56 
MALI
TYPE OF 
STAKEHOLDER
NAME POC DATE
Bamako
Research Institute IER Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 15, 2022
Other Stakeholder CILSS/INSAH Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 15, 2022
Private Sector ONG FasoKaba Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 15, 2022
Other Stakeholder Direction of Agriculture, 
Deputy General 
Director
Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 16, 2022
Méguetan
Innovation Platform General Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 17, 2022
Doumba
Innovation Platform General Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 17, 2022
Sirakola
Innovation Platform General Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 17, 2022
57 
NIGER
TYPE OF 
STAKEHOLDER
NAME POC DATE
Niamey
Research Institute IRAN Focal Point Oliveira, Ndiaye & 
Tchorly-Boadi
August 19, 2022
Research Institute Communications Oliveira, Ndiaye & 
Tchorly-Boadi
August 19, 2022
Other Stakeholder MofA/Seed Direction Oliveira, Ndiaye & 
Tchorly-Boadi
August 19, 2022
Cooperative & 
Association
ONG RAIL Oliveira & Ndiaye August 19, 2022
Other Stakeholder CILSS/CRA Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 22, 2022
Private Sector AÏNOMA Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 22, 2022
Other Stakeholder National Seed 
Association - APPSN
Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 22, 2022
Cooperative & 
Association
FUCOPRI Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 23, 2022
Say
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD - 
Leadership 
Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 22, 2022 
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD - Farmer Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 22, 2022
Innovation Platform Seed Grower Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 22, 2022
58 
NIGERIA
TYPE OF 
STAKEHOLDER
NAME POC DATE
Abuja – NCRI
Research Institute Inbrief Team Akromah & Makuch 26 Aug 2022
Research Institute Coordinator Makuch 30 Aug 2022
Goronyo
Innovation Platform Chairman Akromah & Makuch 30 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Seed Grower Akromah 30 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Ag Extension Officer Makuch 30 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmer Discussion Akromah 30 Aug 2022
Abuja – IAR
Research Institute Inbrief Team Akromah & Makuch 26 Aug 2022
Research Institute Coordinator Makuch 29 Aug 2022
Jengre
Innovation Platform Executive Committee Makuch 29 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD - Male Akromah 29 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Farmers FGD -Women Akromah 29 Aug 2022
Innovation Platform Ag Extension Officer Makuch 29 Aug 2022
Abuja - All Other Stakeholders
Other Stakeholder ECOWAS - Director, 
Agriculture
Akromah & Makuch 26 Aug 2022
Association/ 
Cooperative
SEEDAN Akromah & Makuch 31 Aug 2022
Private Sector Savannah Seeds Makuch 31 Aug 2022
Remote Private Sector SeedCo Nigeria Akromah 31 Aug 2022
Remote Private Sector Premier Seed Akromah 31 Aug 2022
59 
Remote Other Stakeholder NPPO Akromah 1 Sept 2022
Remote Other Stakeholder National Seed Council Akromah 1 Sept 2022
SENEGAL
TYPE OF 
STAKEHOLDER
NAME POC DATE
Dakar
PAIRED Staff PAIRED Evaluation 
Launch 
FULL Evaluation Team August 8, 2022
CORAF Acting Executive FULL Evaluation Team August 8, 2022
Research Institute ISRA/BAME Focal Point Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 10, 2022
Other Stakeholder IFDC/EnGrais Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 11, 2022
Cooperative / 
Association
SEDAP Makuch & Njobe August 11, 2022
Cooperative / 
Association
UNIS Makuch & Njobe August 11, 2022
Private Sector TROPICASEM Oliveira, Ndiaye & 
Tchorly-Boadi
August 11, 2022
Other Stakeholder AFSTA/WA Oliveira, Ndiaye & 
Tchorly-Boadi
August 11, 2022
Other Stakeholder MofA/Seed Division 
DISEM
Oliveira, Ndiaye, 
Njobe, Tchorly-Boadi
August 12, 2022
60 
ANNEX B: INNOVATION PLATFORM COMPOSITION
BENIN
INRAB-ASSISTED INNOVATION PLATFORMS
Couffo
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 3 
Chairman 1 Mr. Bonaventure Tohouegnon
Secretary 1 Mr. Casimir Gbokede C.
Treasurer 1 Ms. Pauline Atoui
Other
10 Danhoub Fidèle, Agbelehounco Gamélé Bernard, 
Mayé Appoline, Gbokede Ruffine, Tode Elisabeth, 
Sodegla Robert, Dioussou Sidonie, Victor Ninivi, 
Dayou Barthélémy, Richard HEKPAZO
Farmers 326 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 190 
Women 136 
Youth 52 
Certified Seed Grower(s) 5 Mr. Sodegla Robert, Mr. Dayou Barthélémy, Mr. 
ADJAHOSSOU Comlan, Mr. Casimir Gbokede C., 
Mr. NOUMONVI Gilbert
Input Dealer(s) 1 Ms. Dioussou Sidonie
Financial Institution 2 PeBCO Bethesda, CLCAM
Ag Extension Officer 3 Plant protection services, Agricultural extension 
services, Seed inspection services
Other (please specify) 3 LA VOLONTE (Agri-inputs supplier), INRAB, locally 
elected official,
61 
Ifangni
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 3 
Chairman 1 Mr. Mouzy Jean
Secretary 1 Mr. Jean Baptiste Noudeviwa
Treasurer 1 Ms. Anne Gassa
Other 2 Mr. Achiwadjou Adouchédé, Mr. Samuel Babalolou
Farmers 101 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 46 
Women 55 
Youth 3 
Certified Seed Grower(s) 3 Mecara Noudeviwa, Valentin Roko, Mouzy Jane
Input Dealer(s) 0 
Financial Institution 0 
Ag Extension Officer 1 Agence Territoriale de Développement Agricole
Other (please specify) 2 Agriculture Focal Point of the Mayor of Ifangni, 
INRAB, 
62 
GHANA
CRI-ASSISTED INNOVATION PLATFORMS
Woraso
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 6 
Chairman 1 Osei Kwabena
Secretary 1 Stephen Adda
Treasurer 1 Grace Sarpong
Coordinator 1 Osei Kwabena
Other(Organizers) 2 Kwame Abosi & Ama Sika
Other(Vice-Chairman) 1 Daniel Kwasi Owusu
Farmers 40 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 20 
Women 12 
Youth 8 (F 3, M 5)
Certified Seed Grower(s) 1 Osei Kwabena 
Input Dealer(s) 1 George Owusu
Financial Institution 2 Opportunity Bank (Rep-Adwoa Tiwaa) and J.O. 
Micro-finance (Amos Antwi)
Ag Extension Officer 1 Francis Tetteh
Other (Tractor operators) 3 Abdullai Boamah, Ayuba Berchie & Atta 
Ntiamoah
Other (Traders) 2 Collins Owusu & Akua Boatemaa
Atebubu
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 6 
63 
Chairman 1 Yusif Bunbas
Secretary 1 Robert Suglo
Treasurer 1 Sadia Musah
Coordinator 1 Joseph Donkor
Other (Organizers) 2 George Boadan & Paulina Okyere
Farmers 30 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 15 
Women 8 
Youth 7(F 2, M 5)
Certified Seed Grower(s) 1 Yusif Bunbas
Input Dealer(s) 2 Issah Mohammed & Yusif Bunbas
Financial Institution 1 Brong-Ahafo Catholic Cooperative for Social and 
Religious Advancement (BACCSOD) (Rep￾Emmanuel Balebo)
Ag Extension Officer 1 Lawrence Adomako
Other (Tractor owners) 3 Nana Kofi, Samuel Owusu and Yusif Bunbas
Other (Traders) 2 Kwaku Mintah & Issah Mohammed 
Amantin
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 5 
Chairman 1 Amoh Ayisi
Secretary 1 Combat Shadrack
Treasurer 1 Asana Mohammed
Coordinator 1 Shadrack Combat
Other (Vice-Chairman) 1 Georgina Konabe
Other (Organizer) 1 Habib Mohammed
64 
Farmers 22 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 14 
Women 6 
Youth 2 (M 2)
Certified Seed Grower(s) 2 Ibrahim Tanko & Baba Seidu
Input Dealer(s) 1 Baba Seidu
Financial Institution 2 Amantin-Kasei Community Bank (Rep-Stephen 
Sarfo) & Success for People Micro-Finance (Rep￾Samuel Owusu Wiafe
Ag Extension Officer 1 Adjei Gershong
Other (Tractor owners) 5 Moses Laar, Daniel Nawang, Baba Seidu, Ibrahim 
Tanko & Amoh Ayisi
Other (Traders) 1 Susana Combat & Habib Mohammed
Nsoatre
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 5 
Chairman 1 Johnson Kyere
Secretary 1 Gabriel Asare
Treasurer 1 Mary Asantewaa
Coordinator 1 Kweku Kyeremeh
Other (Organizer) 1 Stephen Krobea Asante
Farmers 20 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 13 
Women 1 
Youth 7 (F 2, M 5)
Certified Seed Grower(s) 1 Johnson Kyere
Input Dealer(s) 1 Ebenezer Asante
65 
Financial Institution 1 Nsoatreman Rural Bank (Rep- Lawrence Amuah)
Ag Extension Officer 1 Daniel Fosu
Other (Traders) 5 Akosua Owusuaa, Habiba Tenee, Mary 
Asantewaa, Janet Asieduwaa & Elizabeth Achiaa 
Derma
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 5 
Chairman 1 Isaiah Nsiah Asare Bediako
Secretary 1 Stephen Adjei Sarkodie
Treasurer 1 Christiana Dapaah
Coordinator 1 Michael Obeng Mensah
Other(Organizer) 1 Kwabena Adu
Farmers 30 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 15 
Women 10 
Youth 5 (M 5)
Certified Seed Grower(s) 1 Isaiah Nsiah Asare Bediako 
Input Dealer(s) 1 Samuel Oduro
Financial Institution 1 Derma Area Rural Bank (Rep-Akalangdi 
Akalangdi Hero)
Ag Extension Officer 1 Samuel Owusu
Other (Traders) Augustine Boateng, Mariama Fuseini & Isaiah 
Nsiah Asare Bediako
Adidwan
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 4 
66 
Chairman 1 Kwabena Sarfo
Secretary 1 Samuel K. Boakye
Treasurer 1 Grace Abebrese
Coordinator 1 Kwabena Sarfo
Other (Organizer) 1 Akua Akoto
Farmers 35 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 15 
Women 18 
Youth 2 (M 2)
Certified Seed Grower(s) N/A
Input Dealer(s) 1 Kwabena Sarfo
Financial Institution N/A
Ag Extension Officer 1 Aheto Winfred Simon 
Other (Tractor operator) 1 Kwame Zakari
Other (Trader) 1 Salifu Seidu
Ahyiayem
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 7 
Chairperson 1 Mary Alamisi Azongo
Secretary 1 Yaa Awini
Treasurer 1 Charity Ampomah
Coordinator 1 Mary Alamisi Azongo
Other (Assistant Secretary ) 1 Mary Benewaa
Other (Vice Chairperson ) 1 Collins
Other (Organizers) 2 Joseph Haruna & Bismark Adjei Opoku 
67 
Farmers 30 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 6 
Women 13 
Youth 11 (F 6, M5)
Certified Seed Grower(s) 1 Mary Alamisi Azongo
Input Dealer(s) 1 Francis Tawiah
Financial Institution 1 GCB
Ag Extension Officer 1 Adam Salisu
Other (Tractor owners) 2 Frimpong Manu & Bismark Adjei Opoku
Other (Trader) 2 Achiaa Memoria & Theresa
Kontonso
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 7 
Chairman 1 Yaw Amoako
Secretary 1 Isaac Nuolayeng
Treasurer 1 Mary Osman
Coordinator 1 Mary Osman
Other (Assist. Secretary) 1 Owusu Kennedy
Other (Organizer) 1 Kwaku Dapaah
Other (Vice-Chairman) 1 Baba Abass
Farmers 21 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 17 
Women 4 
Youth - 
Certified Seed Grower(s) N/A
68 
Input Dealer(s) 1 Yaw Amoako
Financial Institution 1 Teachers’ Credit Union (Rep-Ophelia Adu)
Ag Extension Officer 1 Bruno Kavaarpuo
Other (Tractor owner) 2 Saule Adams & Baba Abass 
Other (Traders) 2 Saule Adams & Baba Abass 
Nyamebekyere
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 5 
Chairman 1 David Asamoah
Secretary 1 Daniel K. Atta 
Treasurer 1 Faustina Sampson
Coordinator 1 Daniel K. Atta
Other (Assist. Treasurer) 1 Joyce Pokuaa
Other (Organizer) 1 Kwame Jolipor
Farmers 30 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 12 
Women 13 
Youth 5 (F 2, M 3)
Certified Seed Grower(s) 1 David Asamoah
Input Dealer(s) 1 Gabriel Henneh
Financial Institution 1 Brong-Ahafo Catholic Cooperative for Social and 
Religious Advancement (BACCSOD) (Rep￾Emmanuel Asubonteng)
Ag Extension Officer 1 Andrew Sobah
Other (Tractor owner) 1 Gabriel Henneh
Nkrankyire
69 
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 5 
Chairman 1 George Kyeremeh
Secretary 1 Azure Musah Latif
Treasurer 1 Vivian Nkrumah
Coordinator 1 Amadu Musah
Other (Organizer) 1 Mary Opoku
Farmers 30 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 11 
Women 9 
Youth 10 (M 6, F 4)
Certified Seed Grower(s) - N/A
Input Dealer(s) 1 Samuel Oduro
Financial Institution 1 Derma Rural Bank (Rep-Akalangdi Akalangdi 
Hero)
Ag Extension Officer 1 Samuel Owusu
Other (Traders) 2 Augustine Boateng
70 
GHANA
SARI-ASSISTED INNOVATION PLATFORMS
Upper East
Nayagnia
Total 
Numbe
r 
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Gerard A. Morgan
Secretary 1 Cosmos Asaabu
Treasurer 1 Abuga Millicent
Coordinator 1 Oho Avogo
Other 1 Pualima Kaba (Assistant Secretary)
Farmers 30 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 9 
Women 8 
Youth 7 
Certified Seed Grower(s) 1 Gerard A. Morgan
Input Dealer(s) 1 Members of Peasant Farmers Association
Financial Institution 1 Nara Rural Bank
Ag Extension Officer 1 Elijah Bobby
Kologo
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Clement A. Afuo
Secretary 1 Patrick Anawine
71 
Treasurer 1 Alugba Awea
Coordinator 1 Atanga Nbire
Other
3 Carlous Aposiko (Vice Chair), Amaliba 
Anyokibalinga (Vice Treasurer), Ida Achatowe (Vice 
Secretary)
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 10 
Women 9 
Youth 4 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
1 Clement A. Afuo
Input Dealer(s) 0 
Financial Institution 0 VSLA (Nara Rural Bank is also available)
Ag Extension Officer 1 Joseph Alosisa
Kalbeong
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Yussif Adayaara
Secretary 1 Apaadike Emmanuel
Treasurer 1 Ateyine Azumah
Coordinator 1 Simon Apuko
Other 1 Akunsaaya Atangamah (Vice chairperson)
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 12 
Women 9 
Youth 2 
72 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
0 
Input Dealer(s) 2 
Financial Institution 0 VSLA
Ag Extension Officer 1 Michael Akaburi
Yibongo
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Benjamin Asogeyolko
Secretary 1 Stephen Akolgo
Treasurer &
Women’s Organizer
1 Azaarebono Nyaaba
Coordinator 1 Nyaaba Atule
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 7 
Women 12 
Youth 3 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
1 Aligiya Solomon
Input Dealer(s) 1 Gilbert Atambire Anizam
Financial Institution 0 VSLA
Ag Extension Officer 1 Asigre John Anaba
Other (please specify) 
Tractor operator
1 Moses Akenzia Asuure
Upper West
Naha
73 
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Yakubu Arihimara (Chairperson)
Secretary 1 Issahaku Sansew 
Treasurer 1 Rahi Abdul Latif 
Coordinator 1 Fuseini Alimata
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 7 
Women 19 
Youth 0 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
0 
Input Dealer(s) 0 
Financial Institution 0 VSLA
Ag Extension Officer 1 Mahama Nafisah 
Tendoma
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Kakariba Yuorido 
Secretary 1 James Yuorido
Treasurer 1 Tounkun Zudoli 
Coordinator 1 Pualina Batire 
Farmers 
Men 7 DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Women 18 
74 
Youth 0 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
1 Kakariba Yuorido
Input Dealer(s) 0 
Financial Institution 0 VSLA
Ag Extension Officer 1 Wanye Abubakari 
Other (please specify) 1 Kakariba James (Tractor operator)
Dakyie
Total 
Number
30 
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Kaatoore Alexander 
Secretary 1 Zabogu Denis
Treasurer 1 Nyerewie Alice
Coordinator 1 Yelekyene Rebecca
Other
2 Bangmuribu John Bosco (Vice chairman),
Eunice Zabogu (Assistant coordinator/organizer)
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 4 
Women 14 
Youth 4 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
0 
Input Dealer(s) 1 Badengu Ningbogi
Financial Institution 0 VSLA
Ag Extension Officer 1 Richard Ankobo Chireh
75 
Other (please specify) 1 Vitus Kanye (Tractor operator)
Wogu
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Pienaar Adisatu
Secretary 1 Maga Peter
Treasurer 1 Agnes Kan-oge
Other
3 Mary Gayuoni (Organizer)
Naronaa Yaro (Assistant treasurer) 
Yarama Anbanbaha (Disciplinary secretary)
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 8 
Women 12 
Youth 2 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
0 
Input Dealer(s) 1 Nafiu Gaayuoni
Financial Institution 0 VSLA
Ag Extension Officer 1 Shittu Ibrahim 
Other (please specify) 3 Maga peter (Tractor owner)
Massalina Alhassan (Marketer)
Pienaar Adisatu (Rice processor)
Savannah
Tosinape
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
76 
Chairman 1 Yidana Kwaku
Secretary 1 Nyedini Mohammed
Treasurer 1 Saibu Maria
Coordinator 1 Adam Hudu
Other 1 Ewura Mariama (Women organizer)
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 9 
Women 5 
Youth 7 
Certified Seed Grower(s) 0 
Input Dealer(s) 0 
Financial Institution 0 VSLA
Ag Extension Officer 1 Yahaya Sulemana
Other (please specify) 
(Tractor operators)
4 Issah Adam, Abukari Napari, Haruna Kweku, 
Iddrisu Awudu
Tantuani
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Alhassan Bawa
Secretary 1 Abudu Smaila
Treasurer 1 Zakaria Ibrahim
Coordinator 1 Hawa Mohammed
Farmers 
Men 8 DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Women 7 
77 
Youth 7 
Certified Seed Grower(s) 0 
Input Dealer(s) 1 Zakaria Ibrahim 
Financial Institution 0 VSLA
Ag Extension Officer 1 Seidu A Rauf Osman
Other (please specify) 4 Alhassan Mohammed (Tractor operator)
Salifu Adisah (Processor) 
Zakaria Sanatu (Processor) 
Rabi Zakaria (Aggregator)
Yapala
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Abdul Raman Yakubu
Secretary 1 Suhuyini Yussif
Treasurer 1 Fuseini Amina
Coordinator 1 Salifu Abdul Majeed
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 10 
Women 6 
Youth 5 
Certified Seed Grower(s) 0 
Input Dealer(s) 1 Ramatu Yakubu
Financial Institution 0 VSLA
Ag Extension Officer 1 Seidu A Rauf Osman
78 
Other (please specify) 4 Ibrahim Abdul Manan (Tractor operator) 
Alimatu Dawuni (Processor)
Yussif Memunatu (Processor)
Abibata Abu (Aggregator)
Japalpe
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Yahaya Ninchuboare
Secretary 1 Adam Nabila
Treasurer 1 Abass Memunatu
Coordinator 1 Salifu Ibrahim
Other
2 Fatawu Mahama (Vice chairman) 
Alhassan Rukaya (Women organizer)
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 10 
Women 13 
Youth 0 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
0 
Input Dealer(s) 0 
Financial Institution 0 VSLA
Ag Extension Officer 1 Ziblim Mohammed 
Other (please specify) 2 Issaka Wumbei (Tractor operator)
Adam Nabila (Tractor operator)
79 
MALI
IER - ASSISTED INNOVATION PLATFORMS
Meguentan / Benkedi
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 3 
Chairman 1 Mamadou Fadel Traoré
Secretary 1 Tièmogo Fané
Treasurer 1 Salif Traoré
Other
12 Kafouné Coulibaly, Keffa Diarra, Segua Ballo, 
Adama Traoré, Diamako Diarra, Bafing 
Coulibaly, Diarraba Diarra, Ibrahim Traoré, 
Daouda Fané, Konimba Diarra, Soiba 
Diarra, Salimata Coulibaly
Farmers 77 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 49 
Women 28 
Youth
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
3 Mamadou Fadel Traoré, Salif Traoré, Diarraba 
Diarra 
Input Dealer(s) 1 Mamadou Fadel Traoré
Financial Institution 1 Kafo jiginew
Ag Extension Officer 1 Sous-Secteur Agriculture Meguetan 
(Koulikoro)
Other (please specify) 2 ONG MALIMARK, IER Sotuba
Doumba / Gnetagaton
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 3 
80 
Chairman 1 Adama Bah Traoré
Secretary 1 Mory Diarra
Treasurer 1 N’golo Diarra 
Other
14 Sigua Traoré, Baba Diarra, Adama Coulibaly, 
Mama Coulibaly, Ba Sekou Diarra, Mariame 
Coulibaly, Dramane Diarra, Koninba Traoré, 
Djibril Coulibaly, Dadio Diarra, Aiché 
Traoré, Seydou Coulibaly, Deamane Coulibaly, 
Aminata Camara
Farmers 198 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 113 
Women 85 
Youth
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
5 Adama Bah Traoré, Adama Coumibaly, Djibril 
Coulibaly, Mama Coulibaly, Dadio Diarra
Input Dealer(s) 1 Mama Coulibaly
Financial Institution 2 Baobab, Kafo Jiginew
Ag Extension Officer 1 Sous-Secteur Agriculture Doumba (Koulikoro)
Other (please specify) 3 ONG MALIMARK, IER, locally elected official
Sirakorola / Sirakorolaton
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 3 
Chairman 1 Moriba Traoré
Secretary 1 Neh Coulibaly
Treasurer 1 Mamadou Coulibaly
Other
8 Lamine Coulibaly, Konze Traoré, Bah 
Coulibaly, Koninba Diarra, Ali Coulibaly, 
Tiècoura Diarra, Souleymane Camara, Mama 
Kéou Dienta
81 
Farmers 72 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 55 
Women 17 
Youth
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
4 Moriba Traoré, Mamadou Coulibaly, Lamine 
Coulibaly, Bah Coulibaly
Input Dealer(s) 2 Mamadou Coulibaly,Koninba Diarra
Financial Institution 1 RMCR
Ag Extension Officer 1 Sous-secteur Agriculture Sirakorola
Other (please specify) 2 ONG MALIMARK, IER
Siramana
Total 
Number
Name Coopérative DOUNKAFA
IP Executive Leaders 6 
Chairman 1 NGOLO SANGARE
Secretary 1 MODOGO Bengaly
Treasurer 1 CHAKA 
Other 3 YAYA S BENGALI, BIRAM DJOUMOUTENE, 
OUMAR DIABITE
Farmers 251 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 201 
Women 50 
Youth 200 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
0 
Input Dealer(s) 0 
Financial Institution 3 KAFO, SORO YIRIWA SO, BNDA
82 
Ag Extension Officer 1 Direction Régional de l’Agriculture (DRA)
Other (please specify) 0 
Loutana
Total 
Number
Name : Coopérative FOKABEN
IP Executive Leaders 15 
Chairman 1 DiarrahTRAORE
Secretary 1 Mariam TRAORE
Treasurer 1 KamagaTRAORE
Other
12 Mariam DIAMOUTENE, Mariam
TRAORE, Bintou BERTHE, Chita
BENGALY, Bintou K. BERTHE, Mandia
GNISSAMA, Madougou 
SANGARE, Korotoumou 
BOLOZOGOLA, Mama DIAMOUTENE, 
Kadia SANGARE, Koniba TRAORE, Bintou 
BERTHE
Farmers 330
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 0 
Women 330 
Youth 250 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
0 
Input Dealer(s) 0 
Financial Institution 2 BNDA, KAFAO DJIGUINE
Ag Extension Officer 1 Direction Régional de l’Agriculture (DRA)
Other (please specify) 0 
Niena
Total 
Number
Name Coopérative des Femmes 
Rizicultures de Nièna (COFERN
83 
IP Executive Leaders 3 
Chairman 1 Rokia DIALLO
Secretary 1 Biba DIARRA
Treasurer 1 Fatoumata SANGARE
Other 0 
Farmers 556 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 0 
Women 556 
Youth 252 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
0 
Input Dealer(s) 1 
Financial Institution 2 BNDA, KAFAO DJIGUINE
Ag Extension Officer 1 Direction Régional de l’Agriculture (DRA)
Other (please specify) 0 
Doumanaba / PMA Doumanaba
Total 
Number
Name Plateforme Multi-acteurs (PMA)
IP Executive Leaders 3 
Chairman 1 Cletchou BERTHE
Secretary 1 Korotoumou BERTHE
Treasurer 1 Fanta SANOGO
Other 0 
Farmers 98 DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES Men 20 
84 
Women 78 
Youth 0 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
0 
Input Dealer(s) 0 
Financial Institution 1 KAFO DJIGUINE
Ag Extension Officer 1 Direction Régional de l’Agriculture de Sikasso
Other (please specify) 0 
Kolokani
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 3 
Chairman 1 Abel mory Diarra
Secretary 1 Fakoro Cissé
Treasurer 1 Nétian Coulibaly
Other 1 Daba Koné
Farmers 169 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 92 
Women 77 
Youth 7 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
1 Natiné COULIBALY
Input Dealer(s) 2 Seydou Adama Traoré, Lassina Touré
Financial Institution 1 Kafo jiginew
Ag Extension Officer 1 Direction Régional de l’Agriculture (DRA)
Other (please specify) 1 locally elected official
85 
Dioila
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 6 
Chairman 1 Tièkoura Dembélé
Secretary 1 Abdou Sangaré 
Treasurer 1 Aminata Sanogo
Other 3 Aminata Sanogo, Sadibou Diakité, Mamou 
Coulibaly
Farmers 623 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 443 
Women 180 
Youth 11 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
5 Abdou sangaré, Madou Diallo, Djeneba Coulibaly, Sitan 
Coulibaly et Aminata Diarra, Sadibou Diakité 
Input Dealer(s) 5 Ousmane Diakité, Daouda Traoré, Oumar 
Coulibaly, Yaya Diakité et Souleymane Sagaré
Financial Institution 1 Kafo jiginew
Ag Extension Officer 1 Secteur d’agriculture
Other (please specify) 2 Union locale des producteurs de céréales 
«ULPC», Locally-elected official
Signe
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 6 
Chairman 1 Bakadjan Coulibaly
Secretary 1 Salia Coulibaly, 
Treasurer 1 Kadia Dembélé
86 
Other 3 Assim Coulibaly, Drissa Koné, Adama 
Diabaté
Farmers 457 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 307 
Women 150 
Youth 10 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
2 Salia coulibaly, abou Koné
Input Dealer(s) 1 Drissa Koné
Financial Institution 1 Soroyiriwa
Ag Extension Officer 1 Secteur d’agriculture de Koutiala
Other (please specify) 1 MALIMARK
87 
NIGER
INRAN-ASSISTED INNOVATION PLATFORMS
Say
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 3 
Chairman 1 Mr. Hassane Sanda
Secretary 1 Mr. Hamadou Boubacar
Treasurer 1 Ms. Abdou Aïssa Amadou
Other 3 Mr. Amadou Garba, Marou Sanda
Farmers 200 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 144 
Women 56 
Youth 23 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
3 Ibrahim Abdoulaye, Amadou Sanda, Idrissa 
Boubacar 
Input Dealer(s) 1 FUCOPRI
Financial Institution 1 FUCOPRI
Ag Extension Officer 1 Ministry of agriculture Extension services
Other (please specify) 0 
Wacha
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 3 
Chairman 1 Laouali Abba
Secretary 1 Zeinadou Dan Malam
Treasurer 1 Mariama Harou 
Other 3 Siradji Habou, Sani Sale, Souweyba Hassan
88 
Farmers 300 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 180 
Women 120 
Youth 33 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
4 Sani Abou, Salissou Malam Karami, Babayé Mai 
Kano, Rabi Elh Salé
Input Dealer(s) 2 CADEL, ONG RAIL
Financial Institution 2 YARDA, ASUSU Sa
Ag Extension Officer 1 Ministry of agriculture Extension services
Other (please specify) 0 
Konni
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 3 
Chairman 1 
Secretary 1 
Treasurer 1 
Other 3 
Farmers 150 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 120 
Women 30 
Youth 17 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
1 ONG RAIL
Input Dealer(s) 1 ONG RAIL
Financial Institution 2 CAPITAL FINANCE, ASUSU Sa
Ag Extension Officer 1 Ministry of agriculture Extension services
Other (please specify) 0 
89 
Djirataoua
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders 3 
Chairman 1 
Secretary 1 
Treasurer 1 
Other 3 
Farmers 300 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARMER 
NAMES
Men 255 
Women 45 
Youth 33 
Certified Seed 
Grower(s)
1 ONG RAIL
Input Dealer(s) 1 ONG RAIL
Financial Institution 3 YARDA, ASUSU Sa, CAPITAL FINANCE
Ag Extension Officer 1 Ministry of agriculture Extension services
Other (please specify) 0 
90 
NIGERIA
NCRI - ASSISTED INNOVATION PLATFORMS
Bukan-Sidy
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Joshua Jonathan
Secretary 1 Habila Alaku
Treasurer 1 Regina Joseph
Other
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 1250 
Women 2138 
Youth 40 
Certified Seed Grower(s) 10 
Input Dealer(s) 6 
Financial Institution 3 
Ag Extension Officer 10 
Other (please specify) 
Goronyo
Total 
Number
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Ibrahim Abubakar
Secretary 1 Abdullahi Jafaru
Treasurer 1 Lawal Muhammed Mafara
Other 1 Rabi Adebayo
91 
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 266 
Women 80 
Youth 95 
Certified Seed Grower(s) 10 
Input Dealer(s) 15 
Financial Institution 2 
Ag Extension Officer 5 
Other (please specify) 
Processors 50 
Millers 10 
Marketers 10 
Transporters 5 
Uptakers 5 
92 
NIGERIA
IAR-ASSISTED INNOVATION PLATFORMS
Gumau
Total 
Numbe
r 
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Danlami Galadima
Secretary 1 Bello Umar
Treasurer 1 Ibrahim Shuaibu
Financial Secretary 1 Mrs. Ramatu Abdullahi
PRO 1 Salisu A. Umar
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 60 
Women 60 
Youth 22 
Certified Seed Grower(s) N/A SEEDCO, Premier Seed
Input Dealer(s) 2 Abubakar Ahmad Babanta, Hassan Gumau 
Ventures
Financial Institution 1 Bank of Agriculture
Ag Extension Officer 1 Yunusa Abdullahi Aliyu
Other (please specify) 
Jengre
Total 
Numbe
r 
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 01 Bello Zailani
Asst. Chairman 01 Abdullahi Ahmad
93 
Secretary 01 Muhammad Garba
Asst. Secretary 01 Nuhu Nabaka
Treasurer 01 Lawai Alwar’u
Financial Secretay 01 Hannatu Kabiru
PRO 01 Abdurrahman 
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 45 
Women 25 
Youth 15 
Certified Seed Grower(s) N/A SEEDCO, Premier Seed
Input Dealer(s) 02 Abubakar Ahmad Babanta, Hassan Gumau 
Ventures
Financial Institution 01 Bank of Agriculture
Ag Extension Officer 01 Mrs Bambis Matep Godfrey
Other (please specify) 
Rogo
Total 
Numbe
r 
Name
IP Executive Leaders
Chairman 1 Mustapha Ismail
Deputy Chairman 1 Kabiru Ado Rogo
Secretary 1 Bilya Ahmad
Treasurer 1 Yahaya Hayatu
Farmers 
DO NOT LIST INDIVIDUAL FARM NAMES
Men 350 
Women 50 
Youth 120 
94
Certified Seed Grower(s) N/A SEEDCO and Premier seeds
Input Dealer(s) 1 Alh Lawal Mustapha ado, Auwalu Popoola
Financial Institution 1 Bank of Agriculture
Ag Extension Officer 1 Idris S. Ado Rogo
Other (please specify)
95 
ANNEX C: EVALUATION FIELD WORK CALENDAR
Aug 2022
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 
Full Team arrives in 
Senegal
Senegal - Dakar
Team Harmonizing 
Senegal – Dakar
Team Harmonizing
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 
OFF Senegal - Dakar
USAID & CORAF Inbrief 
Presentation
Senegal - Dakar
Finalize Tools
Senegal - Dakar
(Richard & Barbara 
travel Ghana)
Senegal – Dakar
Ghana – Accra (Katrina 
travels Ghana)
Senegal - Dakar 
Ghana – Accra
Mali Team Travel
Ghana – Accra
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 
OFF Mali - Bamako 
 
Ghana – Kumasi
Mali - Bamako 
 
Ghana – Kumasi
Mali - Bamako 
 
Ghana – Kumasi 
Niger Team Travel
Ghana – Tamale
Niger - Niamey 
 
Ghana – Tamale 
Niger - Niamey 
 
Ghana – Tamale 
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 
OFF Niger - Say Niger - Wacha Niger - Niamey Benin Team Travel Benin – Porto-Novo Benin – Porto-Novo
96 
Ghana – Tamale Ghana – Accra Nigeria Team Travel Nigeria - Abuja Nigeria – Abuja Nigeria – Abuja
28 29 30 31 1 2 3 
OFF Benin – Aplahoué
Nigeria - Abuja
Benin – Ifangni
Nigeria - Abuja
Benin – Porto-Novo
Nigeria - Abuja
All Teams Finish 
Data Collection
97 
ANNEX D: PAIRED INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TRACKING TABLE
Disaggregation Baseline
Fy18 Fy19 Fy20 Fy21 Fy22 Total
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target 
Achieved
IR1: CORAF CAPACITY STRENGTHENED FOR EFFECTIVE COORDINATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN WEST (AND CENTRAL) AFRICA
INDICATOR 1.1: PERCENT OF USG-ASSISTED ORGANIZATIONS WITH IMPROVED PERFORMANCE CBLD-9 (FTF INDICATOR)
Total (%) 0% 100% 100% 13% 13% 49% 17% 91% 81% 100% - 74% 46% 62% 
Numerator (N) Total number of 
organizations with improved 
performance
0 1 1 1 1 26 9 70 62 21 - 119 73 
Denominator (D) Total number of 
USG-assisted organizations 
receiving organizational capacity 
development support
0 1 1 8 8 53 8 77 79 21 - 160 96 
Research 
institutions 
Total (%) 0% 100% 100% 13% 13% 50% 113% 88% 113% 100% - 64% 61% 95% 
N 0 1 1 1 1 4 9 7 9 8 - 21 20 
D 0 1 1 8 8 8 8 8 9 8 - 33 26 
Cooperatives Total (%) 0% NA - 0% - 50% 0% 92% 46% 100% - 79% 29% 37% 
N 0 NA - 0 - 6 0 22 11 2 - 30 11 
D 0 NA - 0 - 12 0 24 24 2 - 38 24 
Producer 
Group
Total (%) 0% NA - 0% - 50% 0% 92% 100% 100% - 82% 55% 67% 
N 0 NA - 0 - 6 0 22 24 8 - 36 24 
98 
D 0 NA - 0 - 12 0 24 24 8 - 44 24 
NGO
Total (%) 0% NA - 0% - 43% 0% 86% 43% 0% - 64% 21% 33% 
N 0 NA - 0 - 3 0 6 3 0 - 9 3 
D 0 NA - 0 - 7 0 7 7 0 - 14 7 
Governments 
Agencies
Total (%) 0% NA - 0% - 50% 0% 92% 125% 100% - 74% 56% 76% 
N 0 NA - 0 - 6 0 11 15 3 - 20 15 
D 0 NA - 0 - 12 0 12 15 3 - 27 15 
Others 
Total (%) 0% NA - 0% - 50% 0% 100% 0% 0% - 75% 0% 0% 
N 0 NA - 0 - 1 0 2 0 0 - 3 0 
D 0 NA - 0 - 2 0 2 0 0 - 4 0 
INDICATOR 1.1.1. NEW STRATEGIC PLAN (2018-2027) AND OPERATIONAL PLAN (2018 - 2022) DEVELOPED AND APPROVED
Strategic Plan (2018-2027) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0% 
Operational Plan (2018 - 2022) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0% 
INDICATOR 1.2.1 PERCENTAGE OF 
FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORTS 
RECEIVING SATISFACTORY REVIEW
0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 
Numerator = number of Audit 
report receiving satisfactory 
review
0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 10 9 
99 
Denominator = number of Audit 
reports carried out 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 10 9 
INDICATOR 1.3.1. PERCENT OF ACHIEVING CORAF OUTCOME LEVEL TARGETS FOR ITS OPERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OPERATIONAL PLAN 2018-2022 
Outputs 
Total (%) 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 38% 38% 50% 75% 63% 75% 35% 38% 7% 
N 0 0 0 2 0 3 3 4 6 5 6 14 15 
D 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 40 40 
Outcomes 
Total (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 22% 22% 56% 33% 56% 16% 27% 71% 
N 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 5 3 5 7 12 
D 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 45 45 
INDICATOR 1.4.1. NUMBER OF 
COUNTRIES FOR WHICH ECOWAS 
POLICIES ARE GAZETTED AND 
FULLY IMPLEMENTED WITH 
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OF 
PAIRED
0 5 0 8 0 10 0 16 8 16 8 55 16 29% 
IR2: INNOVATIVE SCALING FRAMEWORK FOR AGRI-INPUT T&IS ESTABLISHED IN WEST AFRICA
INDICATOR 2.1. NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN USG FOOD SECURITY PROGRAMS - EG.3-2 
Sex of 
individuals 
participating 
(no double 
counting) 
Total 0 0 0 537 0 5200 3628 4750 11319 2190 1893 12677 16840 133% 
Male 0 0 0 468 0 3120 1377 2850 7952 1314 1232 7752 10561 136% 
Female 0 0 0 69 0 2080 2251 1900 3367 876 661 4925 6279 127% 
Age Category 
of individuals 
Total 0 0 0 537 0 5200 3628 4750 11319 2190 1893 12677 16840 133% 
100 
participating 
(no double 
counting) 
15-29 0 0 0 107 0 1040 692 950 1924 438 384 2535 3000 118% 
30+ 0 0 0 430 0 4160 2936 3800 9395 1752 1509 10142 13840 136% 
People in government 0 0 0 372 0 2080 1025 1525 1132 626 284 4603 2441 53% 
People in private sector firms 0 0 0 165 0 2600 2250 375 340 260 95 3400 2685 79% 
People in civil society 0 0 0 0 0 520 353 475 453 219 305 1214 1111 92% 
Producers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2375 9394 1085 1209 3460 10603 306% 
INDICATOR 2.1.1. NUMBER OF 
FUNCTIONAL INNOVATION 
PLATFORMS USED FOR T&IS 
UPSCALING
0 NA - 0 0 12 32 12 26 12 26 36 84 233% 
INDICATOR 2.1.2. NUMBER OF 
INNOVATION PLATFORMS 
ACTION PLANS DEVELOPED AND 
IMPLEMENTED 
0 NA - 0 0 12 12 12 26 12 26 36 64 178% 
INDICATOR 2.1.3. NUMBER OF AGRO-ECOLOGY BASED SEED AND FERTILIZER INFORMATION TOOLKIT MADE AVAILABLE 
Maize 0 NA - 0 0 15 51 6 31 6 8 27 90 333% 
Rice 0 NA - 0 0 10 52 8 88 8 32 26 172 662% 
Millet 0 NA - 0 0 15 21 6 31 6 4 27 56 207% 
Sorghum 0 NA - 0 0 15 18 6 18 6 3 27 39 144% 
INDICATOR 2.1.4 NUMBER OF HECTARES UNDER IMPROVED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OR TECHNOLOGIES WITH USG ASSISTANCE E.G.,3.2-25 
Type of 
Hectare: Crop 
land
 NA - NA - 500 128 4000 5247 4000 0 8500 5375 63% 
101 
Sex of 
Participant (no 
double￾counting) 
Male 0 NA - NA - 400 0 3200 3935 3200 0 6800 3935 58% 
Female 0 NA - NA - 100 0 800 1312 800 0 1700 1312 77% 
Age of 
Participant (no 
double￾counting) 
Total 0 NA - NA - 500 0 4000 5247 4000 0 8500 5247 62% 
15-29 0 NA - NA - 100 0 800 787 800 0 1700 787 46% 
30+ 0 NA - NA - 400 0 3200 4460 3200 0 6800 4460 66% 
Management 
Practice or 
Tech Type 
(double 
counting 
allowed)
Total 0 NA - NA - 500 0 4000 5247 4000 0 8500 5247 62% 
Soil-Related 
Fertility and 
Conservation
0 NA - 0 0 250 0 2000 0 2000 0 4250 0 0% 
Climate 
Adaptation/ 
Climate Risk 
Management
0 NA - 0 0 250 0 2000 0 2000 0 4250 0 0% 
Commodity
MAIZE 0 NA - NA - 200 0 1600 2139 1600 0 3400 2139 63% 
RICE 0 NA - NA - 75 0 600 914 600 0 1275 914 72% 
MILLET 0 NA - NA - 75 0 600 700 600 0 1275 700 55% 
SORGHUM 0 NA - NA - 150 0 1200 1494 1200 0 2550 1494 59% 
Indicator 2.2.1. Number of institutions 
that are promoting climate information 
or implementing risk-reducing actions 
to improve resilience to climate change
0 NA - NA - 8 0 12 0 12 16 32 16 50% 
IR3: USE OF QUALITY AGRI-INPUTS IN WA INCREASED
102 
INDICATOR 3.1.VOLUME OF QUALITY SEED PRODUCED IN THE REGION (MAIZE, SORGHUM, MILLET, RICE)
Maize
Breeder 0 NA - NA - 50 - 50 116 50 558 150 674 449% 
Foundation 0 NA - NA - 900 - 900 3482 900 4326 2700 7807 289% 
Certified 0 NA - NA - 18000 65641 18000 117790 18000 119305 54000 302737 561% 
Millet
Breeder 0 NA - NA - 20 - 20 14 20 12 60 26 44% 
Foundation 0 NA - NA - 1200 - 1200 819 1200 6081 3600 6900 192% 
Certified 0 NA - NA - 13000 1913 13000 11788 13000 5563 39000 19264 49% 
Rice
Breeder 0 NA - NA - 40 - 40 186 40 149 120 335 279% 
Foundation 0 NA - NA - 1500 - 1500 5204 1500 5560 4500 10763 239% 
Certified 0 NA - NA - 65000 71560 65000 122060 65000 105940 195000 299559 154% 
Sorghum 
Breeder 0 NA - NA - 30 - 30 20 30 22 90 42 46% 
Foundation 0 NA - NA - 1500 - 1500 668 1500 1217 4500 1885 42% 
Certified 0 NA - NA - 20000 4836 20000 24962 20000 26981 60000 56779 95% 
INDICATOR 3.2. VOLUME OF INTRA-REGIONAL QUALITY SEED TRADE (MAIZE; SORGHUM/MILLET, RICE)
Maize
Breeder 0 NA - NA - 3 0 3 0 3 0 8 0 0% 
Foundation 0 NA - NA - 45 0 45 0 45 0 135 0 0% 
Certified 0 NA - NA - 1800 5600 1800 1631 1800 18157 5400 25388 470% 
Rice
Breeder 0 NA - NA - 2 0 2 0 2 0 6 0 0% 
Foundation 0 NA - NA - 75 0 75 0 75 0 225 0 0% 
103 
Certified 0 NA - NA - 6500 15 6500 5909 6500 304 19500 6228 32% 
Millet
Breeder NA - NA - 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 0% 
Foundation 0 NA - NA - 60 0 60 0 60 0 180 0 0% 
Certified 0 NA - NA - 1300 100 1300 13 1300 98 3900 211 5% 
Sorghum 
Breeder 0 NA - NA - 2 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 0% 
Foundation 0 NA - NA - 75 0 75 0 75 0 225 0 0% 
Certified 0 NA - NA - 2000 72 2000 3 2000 9 6000 84 1% 
INDICATOR 3.1.1. NUMBER OF 
NEW SEED COMPANIES SUPPLYING 
QUALITY SEED IN WEST AFRICA
0 NA - NA - 8 0 5 132 5 217 18 349 1939% 
INDICATOR 3.1.2. NUMBER OF INFORMATION TOOLKIT ON FOOD SAFETY AND TRADE STANDARDS COMPILED FOR LARGE SCALE DISSEMINATION
Stage 1 0 NA - NA - 16 0 16 0 0 0 32 0 0% 
Stage 2 0 NA - NA - 16 1 16 1 1 1 33 3 9% 
Stage 3 0 NA - NA - 8 1 16 2 0 0 24 3 13% 
INDICATOR 3.1.3. NUMBER OF 
PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS 
FORMED AS A RESULT OF USG 
ASSISTANCE
0 NA - NA - 16 29 16 15 0 0 32 44 138% 
INDICATOR 3.2.1. EASE IN DOING AGRI-INPUTS BUSINESS INDEX IN THE REGION
Quality of regulatory system 0 0 - 0 - 4 - 4 3.8 4 3.9 12 7.7 64% 
104
Starting a seed business (Time and 
Cost)- Not cumulative 0 0 - 0 - 3 - 4 3 4 3 11 6 55%
Length of variety release process,-
Not cumulative 0 0 - 0 - 3 - 4 3.5 4 3.3 11 6.8 62%
Adequacy of seed inspectors,- Not 
cumulative 0 0 - 0 - 3 - 3 2.9 4 3.2 10 6.1 61%
Getting access to early generation 
seed, - Not cumulative 0 0 - 0 - 4 - 4 2.7 4 2.8 12 5.5 46%
Getting access to import/export 
permit - Not cumulative 0 0 - 0 - 3 - 3 4.1 4 4.3 10 8.4 84%
105
ANNEX E: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES
PAIRED Implementing Partner - CORAF Staff
Program Management and Organizational Development
1. How would you describe the partnership between the PAIRED Program and CORAF?
2. Please describe the areas of capacity building support CORAF has received from PAIRED activities. 
How have the PAIRED capacity building activities helped you improve the capacity at CORAF? Which 
activities did you find were most useful? What activities do you believe should have been included?
3. How has the PAIRED Program influenced your management and organizational practices within the 
broader CORAF organization?
4. What are the institutional arrangements (structures, frameworks, systems, processes, and dedicated 
resources) that CORAF has put in place to ensure the deepening of partnerships at the funding/donor 
levels and the project implementation level, which will provide for continued implementation and 
sustainability of CORAF? 
5. To what extent has the PAIRED program influenced how CORAF reinforces gender and youth 
integration into the design of CORAF’s organizational plan and/or activities?
National and/or Regional Seed Regulation 
6. Has PAIRED achieved success in advancing the ECOWAS Seed Regulations with USAID support? What 
remains necessary to advance the ECOWAS Seed Regulations? 
7. What could be considered as success in advancing the ECOWAS Seed Regulations? 
8. What could be done to improve the effectiveness of the collaboration and coordination in advancing 
and strengthening the seed system? What future support would be needed to achieve a fully implemented 
seed regulation across the region?
Agri-Input Technologies and Innovations 
9. How effective are the tools and systems developed and/or maintained by CORAF with the support of 
PAIRED (i.e. WASIX, FeSERWAM, MITA, etc.)? 
10. How do you envision the future of the CORAF supported digital platforms, 5 and 10 years into the 
future? What limitations exist to fulfilling this vision?
Private Sector Engagement
11. How do you identify approaches to engaging the private sector?
12. Has the PAIRED Program contribute to the CORAF strategy on engaging the private sector in the 
region in the past 5 years.
106
PAIRED Implementing Partner Staff
Program Management and Organizational Development
1. How would you describe the partnership between USAID and the PAIRED Program?
2. What aspects of the coordinating, collaboration mechanisms and communication channels worked well 
to facilitate the effective participation of the various stakeholders on the PAIRED Program (i.e., NARIs, 
Private Sector, etc.)? Why do you think these worked well? 
3. What are the institutional arrangements (structures, frameworks, systems, processes, and dedicated 
resources) that your organization has put in place to ensure the deepening of partnerships, and continued 
implementation and sustainability of the PAIRED Program outcomes after the current funding for the 
project is finished? 
4. How have the PAIRED capacity building activities helped increase the upscaling of seeds in the region? 
Which activities did you find most useful? What activities do you believe should have been included?
5. What were the top challenges your organization faced under the PAIRED project?
6. How are the lessons learned from the PAIRED Program being recorded and responded to? What are 
examples of your organizations responding to or using lessons from PAIRED?
7. To what extent has the PAIRED program influenced the various PAIRED partners and sub-awardees to 
reinforce gender and youth integration into PAIRED activities? Please provide examples.
National and/or Regional Seed Regulation 
8. Has PAIRED achieved success in advancing the ECOWAS Seed Regulations with USAID support? 
Provide specific examples of success achieved by PAIRED?
9. What activities under PAIRED have been effective in increasing collaboration and coordination in 
strengthening the seed system? What are examples of PAIRED success in advancing and strengthening the 
seed system?
10. What more could be done to improve the effectiveness of the collaboration and coordination in 
advancing and strengthening the seed system?
11. What are the implications of donors not funding this regulation under future programs?
Agri-Input Technologies and Innovations 
12. To what extent has PAIRED been effective in addressing agri-input technologies scale up and increasing 
the availability of quality inputs? Please provide examples.
13. How successful was the PAIRED partnership with the IARCs and NARI’s in scaling up seed input for 
farmers in the region? 
14. How effective was the use of the Innovation Platforms in upscaling agri-input technologies across the 
region? Please provide examples.
15. What challenges and limitations did PAIRED face in implementing through the Innovation Platforms. 
Please provide examples.
16. Describe the WASIX, FeSERWAM, MITA systems’ functionality and accessibility by the various 
stakeholders in the ECOWAS Region? How effective were these systems in upscaling agri-input 
technologies across the region? Please provide examples.
17. What challenges has PAIRED faced in increasing the functionality and accessibility of these systems?
18. Overall, what is the viability of the approach PAIRED has taken to scale up agriculture technologies 
and to build supply and/or meet agri-business companies and farmer demand for improved seeds?
107
Private Sector Engagement
19. How has the PAIRED activity forged deeper private- sector engagement in the agri-inputs system, 
especially seeds?
20. How has the private sector fulfilled the roles expected of it in the regional seed sector?
21. How viable is the private sector in expanding the availability of higher quality seeds?
22. How is the private sector advancing the development, promotion, and sale of certified and foundation 
seeds?
23. What vulnerabilities / weaknesses/gaps still exist within the private sector?
24. Which of the approaches to dissemination of seeds and fertilizer can be considered as innovative and 
hence could be upscaled?
108
PAIRED National Centers of Specialization Staff
Program Management and Organizational Development
1. How would you describe the partnership between your research institution and the PAIRED Program? 
Has CORAF, with support from PAIRED, established criteria to strengthen the partnership? 
2. How have the PAIRED activities helped you improve the capacity of your institution? Which activities 
did you find most useful?
3. What aspects of the coordinating and collaboration mechanisms worked well to facilitate the effective 
participation of your institution and the Innovation Platforms under PAIRED? Please provide examples. 
4. To what extent has PAIRED contributed to sustaining (or strengthening) your organizational capacity 
as National Center of Specialization?
5. From your perspective, what have been the limitations of the PAIRED program implementation?
6. How are the lessons learnt from the PAIRED Program being recorded and responded to? Please provide 
examples on how your research institution applied lessons from PAIRED.
National and/or Regional Seed Regulation 
7. What activities under PAIRED have been effective in increasing collaboration and coordination in 
strengthening the seed system? What are examples of PAIRED success in advancing and strengthening the 
seed system?
8. What more could be done to improve the effectiveness of the collaboration and coordination in 
advancing and strengthening the seed system?
Agri-Input Technologies and Innovations 
9. To what extent have PAIRED activities been effective in addressing agri-input technologies scale up and 
increasing the availability of quality inputs? Please provide examples.
10. Which are the PAIRED interventions that have contributed to efficiency and effectiveness in your 
Institute’s performance in upscaling improved seeds (Breeder and Foundation to the Private Sector)?
11. How effective are the tools and systems developed and/or maintained by CORAF with the support of 
PAIRED (i.e WASIX, FeSERWAM, MITA, etc.)? Please describe your experience with these digital 
platforms.
12. Please describe the partnership between your research institution and the Innovation Platforms. How 
effective was the use of the Innovation Platforms in upscaling agri-input technologies across the region? 
Please provide examples.
13. What challenges and limitations did your research institution face in implementing through the 
Innovation Platforms. Please provide examples.
14. Has this approach been effective at increasing seed production and dissemination in the region? 
15. Overall, what is the viability of the approach PAIRED has taken to scale up agriculture technologies 
and to increase the volume of quality seed production in the region?
16. What challenges and opportunities exist to further increasing the volume of quality seed production 
in the region?
Private Sector Engagement
17. How is your Research Institution engaging with the private sector?
109
18. How would you describe your relationship with the private sector in expanding the availability of 
quality, certified seeds?
19. After the completion of the PAIRED project, do you anticipate your Research Institution further 
integrating with private sector actors?
110
PAIRED Innovation Platform
Program Management and Organizational Development
1. Please tell us a bit about your Innovation Platform. How long have you been operational? Who are your 
members? What is your history? What are the activities/services your innovation platform engages in? 
2. Is there a governance structure for your Innovation Platform? Who are the leaders and how are 
decisions made? 
3. How would you describe the partnership between your Innovation Platform and the National Research 
Institution?
4. What aspects of the coordinating, collaboration mechanisms and communication channels worked well 
to facilitate the effective partnership with the National Research Institution?
5. How have the PAIRED capacity building activities helped you improve the capacity of your Innovation 
Platform? Which activities did you find most useful? What additional activities would you have liked to 
have included?
6. What platform arrangements (governance framework, systems, processes, resources, impact metrics) 
are in place to ensure the efficiency, continued existence, and sustainability of the Innovation Platforms 
beyond the funding from PAIRED. How well are they working?
7. What activities have been most beneficial for women and youth within the PAIRED supported activities? 
Does you Innovation Platform have other mechanisms through which women and youth are supported. 
Please describe.
Agri-Input Technologies and Innovations 
8. Describe what your Innovation Platform has accomplished in the past 4 years. Provide examples.
9. To what extent has your Innovation Platforms been successful in increasing the volume and quality of 
seeds in your community?
10. In which ways has the Research Institute been beneficial to your platform?
11. How has your Innovation Platform engaged with the tools and systems developed and/or maintained 
by CORAF with the support of PAIRED (i.e WASIX, FeSERWAM, MITA, etc.)? How have your members 
engaged with these digital platforms to increase agri-inputs in your community? Please provide examples.
12. What were the top challenges your Innovation Platform faced under the PAIRED project?
13. What types of non-PAIRED support does the Research Institute provide to your Platform?
14. Do the relevant Innovation Platform members anticipate continuing with the certified seed production 
activities after the PAIRED program?
15. What are the lessons learnt from the PAIRED Program? How are you documenting these lessons for 
future learning?
Private Sector Engagement
16. How is your Innovation Platform engaging with the private sector?
17. How would you describe your relationship with the private sector in expanding the availability of 
higher quality seeds?
18. How is the private sector advancing the development, promotion, and sale of certified and foundation 
seed through your Innovation Platform?
111
19. After the completion of the PAIRED project, do you anticipate your Innovation Platform further 
integrating with private sector actors?
112
PAIRED Private Sector
Program Management and Organizational Development
1. Please tell us a bit about your business. How long have you been operational? What do you sell? Who 
are your customers? What is your history? Do you provide any services in addition to sales?
2. How would you describe the partnership between your business and the Innovation Platform?
3. Have you participated in any PAIRED capacity building activities and how have they helped you improve 
the way you do business? Which activities did you find were most useful? 
4. How has the PAIRED Program contributed to your business services and financial growth? Please 
provide some specific examples of what has changed for the better.
5. What aspects of the coordinating and collaboration mechanisms worked well to facilitate your 
participation in Innovation Platform activities? Why do you think these worked well?
6. Please share your experience on the ease of doing agri input business in your community.
Evaluator, please consider prompts:
1. Time and cost of starting a seed business
2. Length of variety release process
3. Adequacy of seed inspectors
4. Getting access to Early Generation seed
5. Existence of Plant Variety Protection system or Breeders’ Rights
7. How would you describe the engagement of women and youth at your business, as an owner/ worker/ 
customer? What opportunities exist for women and youth in agri-input business activities? Please provide 
examples.
Agri-Input Technologies and Innovations 
8. How has the PAIRED program helped to improve your (Private sector) capacity to increase production 
or availability of Foundation and Certified seeds for farmers? What activities have you found most 
beneficial? Please provide examples.
9. What quantity (volumes) of Certified and/or Foundation seed has your business been able to produce 
(on yearly basis) under the PAIRED program?
10. To what extent do you feel there has been an increase in the volume of intra-regional quality seed 
trade? Please provide examples.
11. What are the barriers and opportunities to increasing the volume of intra-regional quality seed trade?
12. Would your business be able to sustain production of seed to meet farmer demand post-2022?
13. How has your business engaged with the tools and systems developed and/or maintained by CORAF 
with the support of PAIRED (i.e., WASIX, FeSERWAM, MITA, etc.)? How have you engaged with these 
digital platforms to increase agri-inputs in your community? Please provide examples.
14. What are the most significant challenges your business faces to increasing quality agri-inputs, and 
specifically quality, certified seeds, to your customers?
113 
ANNEX F: EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PELVPNC9SU66urn0XslpSecquUwLN8D_/edit?usp=share_link&o
uid=116312056423658128430&rtpof=true&sd=true
114 
ANNEX G: EVALUATION MATRIX
EVALUATION QUESTION QUESTION OBJECTIVE CORRESPONDING
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
DATA COLLECTION
STRATEGY
DATA SOURCE
1. How successful has the PAIRED activity been, in meeting its planned targets?
a. If certain activity components have not been 
successful, please explain why (in areas of the 
program’s assumptions, programmatic 
implementation, gender/youth integration into the seed or fertilizer sector, private sector 
partnership, staffing, etc.). 
b. Which areas of performance require CORAF 
and USAID’s remedial attention?
iii. Determine how successful the PAIRED 
activity has met its planned targets and how 
all reported indicators validate PAIRED’s 
role in achieving the results. 
v. Identify internal and external factors that 
have affected the implementation of the 
Activity. Assess the extent to which the assumptions outlined by CORAF, and 
USAID are appropriate and have been 
addressed.
The full AMELP list of 12 performance 
indicators24 Document review
Key informant 
interviews
PAIRED activity quarterly and 
annual reports; supplemental 
activity reports 
PAIRED staff; Local and regional 
CORAF officials; PAIRED local 
or regional partners
2. What recommendations are there for 
strengthening, improving and building upon 
(scale-up) program successes of PAIRED’s components and sub-activities post-2022? What 
is the viability of the approach PAIRED has taken 
to scale up agriculture technologies and to build 
supply and/or meet agri-business companies and farmer demand for improved seeds? 
iv. Document any successes, best practices, 
lessons learned, unintended consequences 
and challenges the Activity encountered, in 
order to inform future programming. 
x. Identify the key results and insights gained 
that should inform future food security 
endeavors in the region.
The full AMELP list of 12 performance 
indicators1
Document review
Key informant 
interviews
Quantitative survey
Gender/Youth focus 
group discussions
Direct observations
PAIRED staff; Local and regional 
CORAF staff; PAIRED local or 
regional partners
PAIRED Activity demand side 
stakeholders; Private sector 
actors; Input suppliers; Agri- business actors
Evaluation team field notes 
from within country of evidence 
of functional demand
24 Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs; Number of functional Innovation Platforms used for T&Is upscaling; Number of innovation platforms action plans developed and implemented; Number of Agro-ecology 
based Seed and fertilizer information toolkit made available; Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with USG assistance; Number of institutions that are promoting climate information or implementing 
risk-reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change; Volume of quality seed produced in the region; Volume of intra-regional quality seed trade; Number of new seed companies supplying quality seed in West Africa; Number of 
information toolkit on food safety and trade standards compiled for large scale dissemination; Number of Private Public Partnerships formed as a result of USG assistance; Ease in doing Agri-inputs business index in the region
115
3. Is CORAF/PAIRED’s leadership in 
strengthening the seed system and advancing the 
ECOWAS Seed Regulations regarded as effective 
(or integral to scaling-up seed input success) by their counterparts such as the International Agriculture Research Centers, and NARIs, or 
others? 
a. Are the institutional structures/ relationships 
now in place, for example, within partnership 
institutions such as the NARIs, or are they being 
developed to sustain the relationships and investments that are being made by PAIRED? 
vi. Ascertain the extent to which the Activity 
helped to advance collaborative and 
participatory management practices for key 
stakeholders including: seed producers, seed distributors, agri-business operators, farmer organizations, National Seed 
Committees, etc.
Number of functional Innovation Platforms 
used for T&Is upscaling
Number of institutions that are promoting 
climate information or implementing risk- reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change
Number of new seed companies supplying 
quality seed in West Africa
Number of Private Public Partnerships formed 
as a result of USG assistance
Ease in doing Agri-inputs business index in the 
region
Document review
Key informant 
interviews
Direct observations
PAIRED activity quarterly and 
annual reports; supplemental 
activity reports 
PAIRED staff; PAIRED partner 
institutions, research centers 
and NARIs.
4. Have CORAF and ECOWAS achieved success 
in advancing the ECOWAS Seed Regulations with USAID support? If not, please describe and justify 
what is left to do and what could be considered 
as success. What are the implications of donors 
not funding this regulation under future 
programs? 
vii. Ascertain the extent to which CORAF 
and the PAIRED team has used the Activity 
to forge strategic partnerships among key 
regional partners and stakeholders working 
to achieve comparable results regionally
Number of Agro-ecology based Seed and fertilizer information toolkit made available
Number of hectares under improved 
management practices or technologies with 
USG assistance
Volume of quality seed produced in the region
Volume of intra-regional quality seed trade
Number of new seed companies supplying 
quality seed in West Africa
Document review
Key informant 
interviews
PAIRED activity quarterly and 
annual reports; supplemental 
activity reports 
PAIRED staff; PAIRED local or 
regional CORAF and ECOWAS 
staff; other National or line 
Ministry partners
5. Has the CORAF leadership used the PAIRED 
activity to forge deeper private-sector 
engagement in the agricultural inputs system, 
especially seeds? How has the private sector 
fulfilled the roles expected of it in the regional 
seed sector? For example, describe the viability of the private sector and how it is advancing the 
development, promotion and sale of certified and 
foundation seed. 
a. What vulnerabilities/ weaknesses/ gaps still 
exist within the private sector and what can be 
done to address them? 
viii. Determine the extent to which the 
activity’s local capacity development 
initiatives managed to develop and 
strengthen the capacity of the key 
stakeholders and assess the sustainability of 
the approach.
Number of functional Innovation Platforms 
used for T&Is upscaling
Volume of intra-regional quality seed trade
Number of new seed companies supplying 
quality seed in West Africa
Number of Private Public Partnerships formed 
as a result of USG assistance
Ease in doing Agri-inputs business index in the 
region.
Document review
Key informant 
interviews
Quantitative survey
Input suppliers focus 
group discussions
Direct observations
PAIRED staff; Local and regional 
CORAF staff; PAIRED local or 
regional partners
PAIRED Activity stakeholders; 
Private sector actors; Input suppliers; Agri-business actors
Evaluation team field notes 
from within country of evidence 
of agricultural input systems.
116
6. To what extent has PAIRED and 
IFDC/EnGRAIS collaboration been effective in 
addressing agriculture technologies scale up and availability of quality inputs? What is the value 
addition of CORAF/PAIRED in this collaboration? 
Include an analysis of the strengths and 
weaknesses of this collaboration as well as 
recommendations, if any, on how to improve this 
partnership. 
i. Document the depth of PAIRED’s success 
in scaling producer access to the CORAF 
documented portfolio of technologies and 
practices that have been proven ready for 
wide-scale use across the region.
ii. Review the PAIRED adopted Innovation 
Platforms scaling approach and assess its appropriateness for achieving the program’s 
stated results. Assess CORAF’s success in 
leading change in scaling using the model. 
Describe what worked and what did not.
Number of functional Innovation Platforms 
used for T&Is upscaling
Number of Agro-ecology based Seed and fertilizer information toolkit made available
Number of hectares under improved 
management practices or technologies with 
USG assistance
Volume of quality seed produced in the region.
Document review
Key informant 
interviews
PAIRED activity quarterly and 
annual reports; supplemental 
activity reports 
PAIRED staff; Local and regional 
CORAF staff 
7. How efficient and sustainable are the tools and 
systems developed and/or maintained by CORAF 
with the support of PAIRED (i.e WASIX, FeSERWAM, MITA, etc.)? What are the strengths 
(usefulness, utilization) and weaknesses of each 
tool/system? 
ix. Identify any strategic results that are 
ready for scale up or that may influence 
follow-on design.
Number of innovation platforms action plans 
developed and implemented
Number of Agro-ecology based Seed and fertilizer information toolkit made available
Number of institutions that are promoting 
climate information or implementing risk- reducing actions to improve resilience to climate change
Volume of quality seed produced in the region
Volume of intra-regional quality seed trade
Number of new seed companies supplying 
quality seed in West Africa
Document review
Key informant 
interviews
Direct observations
PAIRED activity quarterly and 
annual reports; supplemental 
activity reports 
PAIRED staff; Local and regional 
CORAF staff/ system users 
Evaluation team field notes on 
accessibility and utilization of 
tools and systems
117
ANNEX H: EXPERT PROFILES
Katrina Makuch: Ms. Katrina Makuch has led multiple evaluations for USAID and other donors across 
sub-Saharan Africa, with over 16 years of overseas experience leading monitoring and evaluation (M&E) 
activities including strategic planning, performance and adaptive management, baseline development, 
midterm, and final evaluations. She has extensive experience with quantitative methodologies, including 
randomized control trials and quasi-experimental design, with a focus on providing rigorous, empirical 
evaluation approaches for data-driven results analysis. She has conducted substantial field work, including 
primary data collection for over a dozen evaluations across Africa and Asia. She is a seasoned capacity 
building specialist providing support to various US government agencies, host country national 
governments, US and foreign militaries, NGOs, and local community leaders. 
Her previous evaluations have included both performance and impact evaluations. She provided technical 
guidance and oversight for the design and implementation the USAID/Egypt FAS project, which focused 
on a market systems development approach, specifically targeting 8 value chains in Upper Egypt. In 2019 
and again in 2020, she led the FAS Project Outcome Study design and implementation, having interviewed 
farmers and cooperative/association management in direct and participatory community-based 
observation, ultimately looking to determine the impact FAS interventions had on overall incomes. She 
has gone on to design, implement and lead over a dozen evaluations, primarily focused on local economic 
and enterprise development across Africa, Asia, MENA, and Eastern Europe. 
Richard Akromah, PhD: Richard Akromah is a Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization 
Specialist with a PhD in Agricultural Botany from the University of Reading, United Kingdom (1999) on a 
World Bank Scholarship. He joined the Crops Research Institute of Ghana in 1985 and worked as a Plant 
Genetic Resources Specialist for 16 years. He holds a Distinction Certificate of Associateship of IRRI 
(International Rice Research Institute) in rice genetics. He joined the Kwame Nkrumah University of 
Science and Technology in August 2001 as a Lecturer in Genetics, Plant Breeding and Plant Biotechnology 
and was promoted to Senior Lecturer in September 2003 and then to Associate Professor in 2008 and 
Professor of Crop Science in October 2013. 
He served as Provost of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, KNUST for 3 years. A recent 
landmark achievement is the winning of the Bill and Melinda Gates’ Foundation grant of USD 2.67 million 
to train 30 young graduates at the Masters Level in Cultivar Development, which has benefitted Nationals 
from five countries (Ghana, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger) In May/June, 2016, he was contracted 
by the USAID- West Africa Office, in a Team with four others, to conduct the Midterm Evaluation of the 
West Africa Seed Program (a Nine million dollar project in 7 West African Countries). In January 2017, 
he made a presentation on the CORAF/WECARD of the ECOWAS, at a Learning Event, to the 
USAID/West Africa Staff in Accra. He also serves on the Board of Adventist Development and Relief 
Agency (ADRA), Ghana. 
Jorge Oliveira: Mr. Oliveira obtained his master’s degree at the Higher Institute of Agronomy in Lisbon 
(Portugal). As a Senior Agriculture Policy Adviser successfully participated in the elaboration of different 
community assessment for various countries in the West African region, working with International 
regional Organizations such as ECOWAS, UEMOA, CILSS, CORAF ROPPA. He contributed to the USAID 
and Presidential initiatives in Food Security and Agriculture, (Feed the Future), including the recent 
Regional Global Food Security Strategy. Mr. Oliveira was nominated Director of Agriculture at the 
Ministry of Rural Development from Guinea Bissau for a period of two year (1990-1992) and General 
Director of AGHYMET/CILSS from 1992 to 1999. In 2003, integrated on the USAID/West Africa Regional 
Mission in Bamako, he participated in all the negotiations with the CILSS/ECOWAS to prepare the support 
to the elaboration of the ECOWAS Agriculture Regional Policy, while managing the Strategic Objective 
Agreement for Permanent Interstate Committee to Prevent Drought in the Sahel (CILSS) and the West 
Africa Seed Program with CORAF. Mr. Oliveira has over 40 years of work experience in Agronomy￾Agricultural Development and Policy. During the course of his career, he won more than 15 Awards from 
118
USAID-West Africa and the USA Government. He is Commander of “Ordem do Rio Branco” from the 
Government of Brazil.
Sounka Ndiaye: Mr. Ndiaye holds a master’s degree in planning and development economics, and a 
Statistics study Diploma. From November 2, 1978, through October 13, 1992, he worked with the 
National Statistics Office in Dakar (Senegal). From October 15, 1992, through January 9, 2015, he worked 
with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Dakar (Senegal) as Economist 
(1992-1999) and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Officer (1999-to 2015). As M&E Officer, he served as 
principal advisor to USAID/Senegal management, its partners, and customers on systems for monitoring, 
evaluating, and reporting on USAID development outcomes and impact. As part of this career, he has a 
strong track record in (a) strategic planning; (b) monitoring, evaluation, reporting, and analysis; (c) program 
administration and implementation; and (d) facilitation of monitoring workshops. He has extensive work 
experience with a wide range of local and international PVOs/ NGOs entrusted with the implementation 
of activities relating to economic growth, education, governance, health, peace, and local capacity building.
119
ANNEX I: DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
USAID Disclosure of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest for External
Evaluation Team Members
PAGE 1
120
CONTINUED 
If yes answered above, I 
disclose the following facts: 
Real or potential conflicts of interest 
may include, but are not limited to: 
4. Current or previous work 
experience or seeking 
employment with the USAID 
operating unit managing the 
evaluation or the implementing 
organization(s) whose 
activity(s) are being evaluated.
5. Current or previous work 
experience with an 
organization that may be seen 
as an industry competitor with 
the implementing 
organization(s) whose 
activity(s) are being evaluated.
6. Preconceived ideas toward
individuals, groups, 
organizations, or objectives of 
the particular activities and 
organizations being evaluated 
that could bias the evaluation.
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will 
update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary 
information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or 
disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose 
other than that for which it was furnished. 
Date Nov 11, 2022
Signature 
121 
USAID Disclosure of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest for External 
Evaluation Team Members
Name Professor Richard Akromah 
Title Agribusiness and Input Sector Development Expert 
Organization Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology 
Evaluation Position Team Leader
Team member
Evaluation Award Number 
(Contract or other instrument)
Project No. 624-P-14-00004 
USAID Activity(s) 
Evaluated (Include activity 
name(s), implementer name(s) 
and award number(s), if 
applicable)
The Partnership for Agriculture Research, Education and 
Development (PAIRED) Activity, implemented by the West and 
Central African Council for Agricultural Research and 
Development (CORAF)
I have real or 
potential conflicts of 
interest to disclose. 
Yes 
No 
If yes answered above, I 
disclose the following facts: 
Real or potential conflicts of interest 
may include, but are not limited to: 
1. Close family member who is 
an employee of the USAID 
operating unit managing the 
activity(s) being evaluated or
the implementing 
organization(s) whose 
activity(s) are being evaluated.
2. Financial interest that is 
direct, or is significant though 
indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose 
activities are being evaluated 
or in the outcome of the 
evaluation. 
122
3. Current or previous direct or 
significant though indirect 
experience with the activity(s) 
being evaluated, including 
involvement in the activity 
design or previous iterations 
of the activity.
CONTINUED 
If yes answered above, I 
disclose the following facts: 
Real or potential conflicts of interest 
may include, but are not limited to: 
4. Current or previous work 
experience or seeking 
employment with the USAID 
operating unit managing the 
evaluation or the 
implementing organization(s) 
whose activity(s) are being 
evaluated.
5. Current or previous work 
experience with an 
organization that may be seen 
as an industry competitor with 
the implementing 
organization(s) whose 
activity(s) are being evaluated.
6. Preconceived ideas toward
individuals, groups, 
organizations, or objectives of 
the particular activities and 
organizations being evaluated 
that could bias the evaluation.
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will 
update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary 
information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or 
disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose 
other than that for which it was furnished.
Date 07 September, 2022 
Signature 
123 
USAID Disclosure of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest for External 
Evaluation Team Members
Name Jorge Oliveira 
Title Agric Research and Technologies Upscale Expert
Organization Freelance 
Evaluation Position Team Leader
Team member
Evaluation Award Number 
(Contract or other instrument)
USAID Activity(s) 
Evaluated (Include activity 
name(s), implementer name(s) 
and award number(s), if 
applicable)
The Partnership for Agriculture Research, 
Education and Development (PAIRED)
I have real or 
potential conflicts of 
interest to disclose. 
Yes 
No 
If yes answered above, I 
disclose the following facts: 
Real or potential conflicts of interest 
may include, but are not limited to: 
1. Close family member who is 
an employee of the USAID 
operating unit managing the 
activity(s) being evaluated or 
the implementing 
organization(s) whose 
activity(s) are being evaluated.
2. Financial interest that is 
direct, or is significant though 
indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose 
activities are being evaluated 
or in the outcome of the 
evaluation. 
3. Current or previous direct or 
significant though indirect 
experience with the activity(s) 
being evaluated, including 
124
involvement in the activity 
design or previous iterations 
of the activity.
CONTINUED 
If yes answered above, I 
disclose the following facts: 
Real or potential conflicts of interest 
may include, but are not limited to: 
4. Current or previous work 
experience or seeking 
employment with the USAID 
operating unit managing the 
evaluation or the 
implementing organization(s) 
whose activity(s) are being 
evaluated.
5. Current or previous work 
experience with an 
organization that may be seen 
as an industry competitor with 
the implementing 
organization(s) whose 
activity(s) are being evaluated.
6. Preconceived ideas toward 
individuals, groups, 
organizations, or objectives of 
the particular activities and 
organizations being evaluated 
that could bias the evaluation.
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will 
update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary 
information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or 
disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose 
other than that for which it was furnished.
Date June 8, 2022 
Signature 
125 
USAID Disclosure of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest for External 
Evaluation Team Members
Name NDIAYE SOUNKA
Title AGRIC EVALUATION EXPERT
Organization Free Lance
Evaluation Position Team Leader
Team member
Evaluation Award Number 
(Contract or other instrument)
USAID Activity(s) 
Evaluated (Include activity 
name(s), implementer name(s) 
and award number(s), if 
applicable)
The Partnership for Agriculture Research, Education and
Development (PAIRED);
(CORAF).
CA # AID-624-A-17-00002
I have real or 
potential conflicts of 
interest to disclose. 
Yes 
No 
If yes answered above, I 
disclose the following facts: 
Real or potential conflicts of 
interest may include, but are not 
limited to: 
1. Close family member who is 
an employee of the USAID 
operating unit managing the 
activity(s) being evaluated or 
the implementing 
organization(s) whose 
activity(s) are being evaluated.
2. Financial interest that is 
direct, or is significant though 
indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose 
activities are being evaluated 
or in the outcome of the 
evaluation. 
3. Current or previous direct or 
significant though indirect 
experience with the activity(s) 
126
being evaluated, including 
involvement in the activity 
design or previous iterations 
of the activity.
CONTINUED 
If yes answered above, I 
disclose the following facts: 
Real or potential conflicts of 
interest may include, but are not 
limited to: 
4. Current or previous work 
experience or seeking 
employment with the USAID 
operating unit managing the 
evaluation or the 
implementing organization(s) 
whose activity(s) are being 
evaluated.
5. Current or previous work 
experience with an 
organization that may be seen 
as an industry competitor 
with the implementing 
organization(s) whose 
activity(s) are being 
evaluated.
6. Preconceived ideas toward 
individuals, groups, 
organizations, or objectives 
of the particular activities and 
organizations being evaluated 
that could bias the evaluation.
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will 
update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary 
information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or 
disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose 
other than that for which it was furnished.
Date 
Signature