3 FEED THE FUTURE CAMBODIA HARVEST II FINAL EVALUATION REPORT:ANNEXES FEED THE FUTURE MARKET SYSTEMS AND PARTNERSHIPS ACTIVITY JULY 2023 Farmers from Tasey Samaki Agricultural Cooperative, Cambodia; Photo credit: Miehlbradt, Just Results CONTENTS ANNEX A: EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK......................................................................................... 1 ANNEX B: HARVEST II STRATEGY ....................................................................................................12 ANNEX C: EVALUATION PLAN.........................................................................................................14 ANNEX D: INFORMATION SOURCES AND SAMPLING.........................................................................62 ANNEX E: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TOOLS .........................................................................90 ANNEX F:SYSTEM CHANGES TABLES..............................................................................................174 ANNEX G: EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS’ SIGNED DISCLOSURE FORMS............................................207 ANNEX H: EVALUATION TEAM MEMBER BIOS................................................................................225 1 Annex A: Evaluation Scope of Work Scope of Work Final Evaluation of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Background Feed the FutureMarket Systems and Partnerships (MSP) Activity is a $65 million global mechanism advancing learning and good practice in market systems development (MSD) and private sector engagement (PSE) within USAID (Washington and Missions), USAID implementing partners, and market actors. MSP isled by DAI alongside a consortium of partners. USAID/Cambodia has contracted MSP to conduct a final performanceevaluationof the Feed the FutureHarvest II Activity. MSP is engaging an evaluation firm to lead implementation of this evaluation through a subcontract, implemented under MSP’s oversight. The purpose of theFeed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity (Harvest II) wasto accelerate the growthof the commercial horticulture sectorin the zone of influence (ZOI) provinces, including Siem Reap, Battambang, Pursat andKampong Thom. Duringthe second yearof implementation, the programwas modified to follow a market-system facilitation approach that allowed the activity to expand their work beyond the ZOI to work withmarket actorsincluding producers and businesseslocatedoutsideof the ZOI butwith businesswithin the ZOI, in order to capture market opportunities. The program closed in July 2022; there is now a follow-on (HARVEST III) led by the same implementer with many of the same staff. The program had three sub-purposes, including Improved Capacities for Market Participation: USAID/Cambodia has concluded through our analysesthat improvedmarketparticipation is and will be critical in strengthening the commercial horticulture value chain. USAID/Cambodia identified three key areas of intervention: 1) financial and businessskills improved; 2) accessto and use of market and climatic information increased; and 3) financial opportunities increased. Improved Market Linkages: Globally, USAID’s general approach to building market linkages in the agriculture sector wasto build partnershipswith the private sectorto mitigate identified market constraints and exploit opportunitiesto ultimatelybenefitsmallholder farmers. This approach in other countrieshasbeensuccessful in building and strengthening sustainable market linkages. USAID/Cambodia identified three outputs to improve market linkages: 1) linkages between value chain actors created; 2) market incentives for private sector engagement and investment developed; and 3) market chain coordination improved. USAID has made assumptionsthat the identified key intervention areas are where USAID/Cambodia resources could have the greatest impact on improving market linkages. Improved Governance and Enabling Environment: USAID/Cambodia identified the importance of improving the governanceand enabling environment as one of the key areas of intervention to realistically and sustainably achieve the first two objectives. Shortfalls in the governance and enabling environment space can seriously compromise the performance of virtually all aspectsof agricultural value chain activities, from climate change 2 adaptation, natural resource management, input markets, on- and off-farm activities, postharvest handling, processing, warehousing, and marketing. In addition, poor implementation and interpretation of existing policies poses a different challenge to agricultural development. The Activity placed as much emphasis on identifying and developing opportunities asit does on constraints analysis and policy enhancement. Logically, enabling environment constraintswould be identified to determine where the opportunities are and how to capitalize on them andwhich will then lead to an assessment of policy and enabling environment constraints. USAID/Cambodia recognizes the importance of strengthening the advocacy and policy analysis capacity of business associations, in particular, and the private sector, in general. At the endof FY2020,the activity receivedtwo additionalsourcesof funding to expand its activities focused on livelihood development in response to the COVID-19- related economic contraction. Fundswere used to helpmitigate the economic impact of the pandemic through increased partnership grants to agribusinesses that focused on improving their competitivenesswithin the sector, increasing market access, and promoting climate-smart agriculture. USAID prioritizes women and youth participation in all of its programs. Engaging women and youth was particularly important for this Activity given the high rates of migration out of rural areas. This resulted in increased numbers of women working in and being the primary decision-makers in agricultural activities. Engaging youth hasthe potentialto revitalize theagriculture sector and decrease migration out of rural areas. This Activitywas expected to decrease the push factorsout of rural areas by creating competitive economic opportunities. Climate change could potentially be the biggest threat to Cambodian agriculture. Asthe most vulnerable country in Southeast Asia to the negative impacts of climate change, building market, institutional and household resiliencymeansbuilding the capacity of these entitiesto mitigatethe potential negative impacts of climate change. Increased variability of weatherpatterns and pests leading to lower productivity are examples of various effectsthatshould be addressed at allstages of thevalue chain and not just on the farm. This Activity was expected to mainstreamclimate change resilience and adaptation in its activities asstipulated in USAID’s policy on Climate Smart Agriculture. In addition, USAID recognizesthe importanceof thepublic sectorin private sectorinvestments. The Activity is coordinated closely with relevant Royal Government of Cambodia entities at the national, provincial, and district levels to ensure that there was government support to remove bottlenecks in private sector investment into the sector and that the value chain actors, from farmers to wholesale retailers, received the support they needed from government entities. Coordination and outreach between government, private sector, and civil society organizations (CSOs) working in the FtF ZOI, commercial horticulture, and agriculturein generalwere criticalto making thisActivity cost efficient and effective. Harvest IIleveraged existingknowledge, activities, and networksto avoid duplication of efforts. Currently, USAID alone has a number of activities in the region at smaller scales, and HARVEST II used the existing vegetable production networks, former beneficiaries, and researchin the FtF ZOIfor a rapid start up. While the main beneficiaries were focused in the FtF ZOI,the four provincessurrounding the Tonle Sap Lake, Harvest II 3 leveraged private actorsbasedout of other provincesthat provided goods and services, or interested in doing so, and/or have market linkages to the actors in the FtF ZOI. Harvest II incorporated collaborative learning and adaptive management (CLA) as part of its management approach, and coordinateswith allrelevant FtFandother programs using ongoing monitoring and evaluation activitiesthat inform learning, understanding adoptionprocesses and subsequent adaptive management based on that learning. For Harvest II, it was criticalto ensure the FtFinvestments are working synergistically to have greater results. Purpose Upon request by USAID/Cambodia DAI’s Feed the Future Market Systems and Partnerships (MSP) Activity is leading a final evaluation of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity. The purpose of this SOW is to conduct that evaluation to determinethe degree to whichHarvest IIachieved its purpose and its potential sustainable outcomes. The primary audience of the evaluation report will be the USAID/Cambodia Mission, specifically the Sustainable EconomicGrowth Office. The secondary audience will be all relevant stakeholders including the implementing partner and sub-partners, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and others. An additional audience is the global community of market development and climate sensitive programming practitioners and donorsthat may be able to draw transferable lessons to other contexts. Statement of work The Offeror will conduct a participatory evaluation to determine the degree to which Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II achieved itspurpose and itspotentialsustainable outcomes through the following four core areas of inquiry: (i) progress towards catalyzing systemic change that is sustained and scaled; (ii) how these changes have benefitted market actors (specifically male and female farmers); (iii) how Harvest II has contributed to climate change objectives; and (iv) elements of Harvest II’s grant-making approach to firms designed to prevent negative impact on the environment. In addressing these questions of inquiry, this evaluation will also explore thefactors thatsupport the achievements or failures and to capture lessonsthat may be applied to future programming. The evaluation will use a mixed-methods approach (qualitative and quantitative) described below. Evaluation Questions The evaluation will focus on four core questions / areas of inquiry: 1. What systematic changes has Harvest II made progress on and to what extent have the changes been sustained and scaled? 2. How have the systematic changes benefitted market actors, specifically male and female farmers? 4 3. Howhas Harvest II contributed to climate change objectives, aka helping farmers and actors improve resilience to climate change impacts and reduce greenhouse gas emissions? How have the commodities selected by the activity contributed to this equation? 4. What has Harvest II done to prevent negative impact on the environment when providing grants to firms? Evaluation Approach and Methodology The Offeror will proposean evaluation approach and methodology to answer the evaluation questions. The Offeror will provide the rationale behind the methods selected, why they are appropriate and how they provide rigorto answering theevaluation questions. The approach and methodsproposed by The Offeror are subject to MSP and USAID’s approval as part of the evaluation plan. Given the nature of these evaluation questions, the Offeror will propose a mixed methods approach (collecting both qualitative and quantitative data). Examplesof methodsthat could be proposed and finalized in the Evaluation Plan developed during implementation may include a beneficiary survey of farmers and firmsto assess howsystemic change has benefittedmarket actors(highly recommended to address evaluation question 2);outcome harvesting to identify key systemic changes; and 3) key informant interviews with staff and local stakeholders in the system combined with a (4) document review. The Offeror must ensure the rigor of sample design and selection for the survey. Regarding the third research question, the Offeror will rely primarily on proxy parameters to assess increased capacity to reduce GHG emissions but will explore with the evaluation subcontractor the possibility of measuring GHG reduction more directly should it be possible within the budget and timeline. The evaluation questions will be addressed over three core phases of implementation, detailed below: • Phase I: Desk Review and Evaluation Design Development • Phase II: Field work • Phase III: Analysis, Reporting, and Dissemination Phase I: Kick-off Desk Review and Evaluation Design Development Task 1: Host Kick Off with USAID/Cambodia To furtherrefine thecoreareasofinquiry aheadof theEvaluation Design, MSP and the Offeror will arrange a kickoff meeting with USAID (approximately 60-90 minutes, hosted remotely). This will be the time to introduce the Team Lead, discuss evaluation questions and evaluation design, and review key materials compiled by USAID for MSP and the Offeror. 5 Task 2: Desk Review The Offeror will conduct a thorough reviewof theHarvest II work plans, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) plans, progressreports,technicalreports, beneficiary data, andotherrelevant documents provided by USAID. The Offeror desk review will inform the development of the Evaluation Design and Workplan. USAID will make the following documents such as work plan Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) plans, progress reports, technical reports, beneficiary data, available to The Offeror, afterthe award to inform the evaluation design and planning. These documents are intended for use only by MSP and the Offeror and not to be shared with any third parties, unless otherwise instructed by USAID. The Final Report is available online. Task 3: Develop Draft Evaluation Plan The Offeror will develop an Evaluation Workplan that establishes both the evaluation methodology and design as well asthe plan to carry out the evaluation itself, as detailed in the Deliverables below. The Offeror will complete the following table (or similar) as part of its detailed design and evaluation plan. Evaluation question Data source Data collection method (including sampling methodology,where applicable) Data analysis method Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Task 4: Briefing with USAID to Discuss the Evaluation Plan After submitting the draft Evaluation Plan, The Offeror will schedule and participate in a virtual briefing meeting with USAID/Cambodia. The Offeror will prepare presentation slides to discussthe team’s understanding of the evaluation, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and to answer questions the team may have. The in-brief will serve as a space for USAID/Cambodia to provide feedback on the draft plan and help to inform adjustments needed to finalize the Evaluation Plan. 6 Task 5: Finalize Evaluation Plan The Offeror will incorporate USAID/Cambodia’s feedback from the in-brief as well as written feedback received on the draft Evaluation Plan to update and resubmit a final Evaluation Plan to USAID, which must be approved by MSP prior to The Offeror beginning any field work. Phase II: Fieldwork Task 6: Conduct Field Work and Provide Regular Updates The Offeror will initiate fieldworkactivitiesfollowingthe approval of the Evaluation Plan. It is expected that the team will be able to finish the actual field work (i. e. data collection) within four weeks or less, and then have two more weeksfor data verificationif needed. The target timeframe forfieldwork will be March-April 2023, though The Offeror will determine exact dates consultatively prior to beginning field work. The Offerorwill provide brief, weekly email briefingsto MSPwith bulletson field work progress, highlightsof which will be passed to USAID. The Offeror will be responsible for communicating any potential delays and challenges to MSP assoon as possible to allow for mitigation and prevent time lost. Phase III: Analysis, Reporting, and Dissemination Task 7: Develop Draft Evaluation Report The Offerorwill complete data analysis and submit a draftreportfollowing the completion of field work. The draft evaluation report must be consistent with the guidance provided under Evaluation Report Format below. The report must address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues The Offeror considers as having a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Task 8: Hold Evaluation Findings Validation and Recommendation Formulation Workshop The Offeror will host a virtual evaluation findings and recommendation formulation meeting after submitting a draft evaluation report and receiving initial feedback from USAID. The Offeror will prepare PowerPoint slides (with quality layout using pictures, icons,tablesor charts, and other visual aidsto enhance engagement with the keymessages) to present, discuss and validate the findings. At the end of the meeting, The Offeror will also facilitate the participants to formulate recommendations based on the findings. The Offeror will consult withMSP about the meeting content and arrangement at least two weeks prior to the meeting date and share a detailed agenda at least one week prior. 7 Task 9: Finalize Evaluation Report (Second Draft and Final Report) The Offerorwill incorporatethe workshop feedback into the draft assessment report and submit a second draft Evaluation Report to MSP. MSP will consolidate feedback from USAID/Cambodia and other stakeholders asrelevant and return the draft to the Offeror. The Offeror will then address/incorporate all comments/suggestions and submit the FinalReportto MSPwithin three business daysofreceipt of comments on the second draft report. The Final Report must include all sections, annexes, and data described in the deliverables section below and meet the stated expectations for quality presentation. Task 10: Author Blog and Support Dissemination Efforts After a brainstorm call with MSP, the Offeror will draft a 750-1500 word blog that reflects on the learning from thisstudy that isrelevant for the global community of practitioners and donors engaged in market systems development and climate change mitigation programming. It will also include reflection on the evaluationmethods and process. MSPwill arrange for publicationon an industry platform such asMarketlinks, Agrilinks, or BEAM Exchange and support dissemination. The Offeror will also provide input into a simple, MSP-developed dissemination plan andwill support dissemination of the report (such asthrough social media post/shares or emails to network). Implementation timeframe Activity Estimated Timeframe Subcontract Start Date December 1, 2022 Kick off call with USAID Before December 15, 2022 Desk Review December 2022-January 2023 Draft Evaluation Plan Mid January 2023 Briefing with USAID to Discuss the Evaluation Plan Late January 2023 Final Evaluation Plan Early February 2023 Field Work including Regular Updates March-April 2023 First Draft Evaluation Report Early May 2023 Evaluation Findings Validation and Recommendation Formulation Workshop Early June 2023 Second Draft Evaluation Report Mid June 2023 Final Evaluation Report and Cleaned Data Early July 2023 Draft and Final Learning Blog Post End July 2023 Support dissemination efforts (e. g. through social media posts, industry newsletters) August 2023 8 Deliverables 1. Evaluation Plan: The Offeror will submit the proposed Evaluation Plan to MSP for review, addressing feedback as needed, before it isshared with USAID. The Evaluation Plan shall consist of approximately 15-20 pages(in Microsoft Word format for the draft and PDF and Word for the final) excluding annexes and must include: (1) the anticipated schedule for the evaluation and logistical arrangements; (2) proposed submission date of each deliverable in accordance with the stated timeline above; (3) the evaluation team members, including names of key personnel and proposed enumeration team composition, delineated by roles and responsibilities; and (4) evaluation design including: a) a detailed evaluationdesignmatrix that linksthe evaluation questions in the SOW to data sources, methods including measures to ensure gender- sensitive research, and the analysis plan; b) all data collection instruments or their main features; c) the list of potential interviewees and organizations; and d) known limitations to the evaluation design and the solutions to fulfill the limitations. Following USAID, the Offeror will submit a revised Evaluation Plan to MSP that is responsive to USAID’s comments. The Offeror will have an approved Evaluation Plan in place before proceeding with field work. 2. Briefing with USAID to Discuss the Evaluation Plan: Following the submission of the draft Evaluation Plan,MSP and the Offerorwill have a 60–90-minute meeting with USAID/Cambodia to discuss the team’s understanding of the evaluation, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and to answer questions the team may. The in-brief will help to informadjustmentsneededto finalize the Evaluation Plan. At least threebusinessdaysbefore the in-briefing,the Offeror shall share with MSP a draft agenda as well as a 10-15 slide PowerPoint presentation for review. 3. Field Work – Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection and Summary Debrief: The Offeror will initiate field work activities following the approval of the Evaluation Plan, integrating a gender-sensitive approach. It is expected that the team will be able to finish the fieldwork within four weeks and then have two more weeks for data verification if needed. Within five days of the end of field work, the Offeror shall provide MSP with a summary debrief, inWord formator as an email,that capturesthe key takeaways from the field work, 9 deviationsfromthe original plan if any, and any problems identified thatneed to be resolved, and any surprises whether positive or negative that may shape next steps. 4. Regular Email Updateson the FieldWork:The Offeror will brief MSP on progress made with the fieldwork on a weekly basis via a brief, bullet-style email. Any delaysor complicationswill be communicated to MSP as early as possible to allow for quick resolution and to minimize any disruptions to the evaluation. 5. 1 st Draft Evaluation Report: The Offeror will complete data analysis and submit a draft report following the completion of fieldwork. The draft evaluation report must be consistent with the guidance provided under Evaluation Report Format below and must include initial visual aidesincluding charts/graphs, pictures, and call out boxes. The report must address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the Offeror considers as having a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Once the draft evaluation report is submitted, MSP will coordinate the review and consolidate comments. 6. Evaluation Findings Validation and Recommendation Formulation Workshop: Following feedback from USAIDon the draft EvaluationReport,the Offeror will design (collaboratively with MSP) and lead facilitation of a participatory, half-day (2-3 hour) virtual workshop that gathers approximately 25 USAID/Cambodia andHarvest II staff to collaboratively validate the analysis, co-create recommendations, and generate feedbackto incorporate in the final draft of the evaluation report. To encourage participation and best practice from previous virtual workshops, The Offeror will prepare the agenda and meeting link, and USAID will send the email invitation directly. To use at the workshop, the Offeror will develop for MSP review a professional, high-quality PowerPoint (approximately 15-20 slides) that summarizes key findings, incorporating a gender-sensitive lens, and engages stakeholders in these key findings, as well as a workshop facilitation plan (or “Run of Show”). 7. PolishedDraftEvaluationReport:The Offeror willsubmita 2nd draftevaluationreportto MSP to review and approve following the workshop. The Offeror will incorporate feedback and findingsfrom the workshop in the second draft of the evaluation report. This version must include proposed final versionsof all visual aide referenced above underFirst DraftEvaluation Report. MSPwill coordinate with USAID to return the draft report with final comments to the Offeror. 8. Final Evaluation Report and Cleaned Data: The Offeror will address/incorporate all comments/suggestions and submit the Final Report to MSP within three days of receipt of comments from MSP and USAID on the 2 nd draft report. All data and records must be submitted in electronic formin an easily readable format, organized and documented for use by those not fully familiar withthe Harvest II evaluation. The report must utilize MSP’s Feed the Future-compliant report template. 10 The final evaluation report will be no longer than 30 pages and must include: 1) an abstract (approximately ½ page); 2) executive summary (up to 5 pages); 3) background of the local context and the activity being evaluated (1-2 pages); 4) evaluation purpose and evaluation questions (1-2 pages); 5) evaluation methodology, including measures taken to ensure gender-sensitive research, and limitations and solutions (1-2 pages); and 6) findings, conclusions, and recommendations (approximately 20 pages). 7) 3-4 brief ‘vignettes’, presented in concise (e. g. approximately ¼ page) text boxes embedded in the report, that spotlight a first person account of a stakeholder (or group of stakeholders) and help reinforce or illuminate a finding in the report. 8) visual aides throughout including charts/tables, pictures, and call out boxes For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” (https://www. usaid. gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/How-to-Note_Preparing- Evaluation-Reports. pdf) and A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 201 (https://www. usaid. gov/ads/policy/200/201mah). An optional evaluation report template is available in the Evaluation Toolkit (https://usaidlearninglab. org/library/evaluation- report-template). The annexesto the report must include: 1) Evaluation SOW 2) Detailed description of the evaluation design and methods; 3) Statements regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team, if any; 4) All data collection and analysistools used in conducting the evaluation, such as surveys, interview questions, checklists, and discussion guides; 5) All sources of information, properly identified and listed (including documents reviewed, sites visited, and key informants, assuming they gave permission to be identified); 6) Signed forms to disclose any conflicts of interest for all evaluation team members, including a statement by evaluation team membersthat atteststo a lack of conflict of interestor describesexisting conflicts of interest relative to the Activity (Harvest II) 11 being evaluated; and 7) Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the team. 9. Draft and Final Learning Blog Post:The Offerorshall develop a 750-1500 word blog post to be posted on an industry online platform such asMarketlinks,Agrilinks, or BEAM Exchange that reflects on the learning from thisstudy that isrelevant for the global community of practitioners and donors engaged in market systems development and climate change mitigation programming. It will also include reflection on the evaluationmethods and process. The specific focusof the blog shall be proposed by the Evaluation Team Lead and approved by MSP, via a brainstorm discussion. MSP will arrange for publication and support dissemination. Estimated timeframe December 2022 – August 2023 12 Annex B: Harvest II Strategy Harvest II strategy for each sector Sub￾sector Strategy Summary Vegetables • Harvest II supported vegetable value chains to meet demand in domestic markets, particularly for high quality, safe vegetables. • When the COVID-19 pandemic started, open markets closed, demand dropped, and markets fragmented. Production was not affected, and farmers were looking for reliable markets. Opportunities also opened, particularly demand for delivery services and demand for year-round and safe vegetables. Rising input prices made farmers more interested in net houses and minimizing chemical inputs. • Harvest II provided market facilitation support, working with ethical buyers to continue sourcing vegetables and supporting investment in new marketing models to meet changing demand. • Harvest II offered an online platform for the vegetable subsector and coordinated production support provided by Harvest II partners to farmers. • Harvest II focused on enabling farmers to purchase net houses, gain CamGAP certification to grow safe vegetables and diversify into new vegetable crops. • Harvest II also focused on formalizing relationships between buyers and suppliers through purchasing agreements, application of standards and input credit. • To meet the demand for year-round vegetables and increase prices, Harvest II focused on crops that allow farmers to fit three crop cycles in a year and make the most of net houses; the project also worked with SMEs to start processing vegetables. Mango • Harvest II supported the mango subsector to export to consuming countries rather than only re￾exporting countries and to capture more value add in exported products. • When COVID-19 started, exports to Viet Nam and Thailand where Cambodia exported much of its mango crop almost shut down due to border closures. Heavy rains destroyed much of the mango crop and there was no labor available for either harvesting or transporting what remained. Bigger exporters with markets in Europe survived but smaller exporters struggled. • Harvest II helped connect buyers with suppliers and supported companies that had preliminary interest from premium export markets (eg Japan) to meet the standards to export to those markets. • Harvest II worked with MAFF/GDA to put farmer training online and supported efforts to grow off-season mangos which fetch higher prices. • Harvest II worked with processors to develop new products that were easier to export during COVID-19, to diversify into new crops and to sell online. • Harvest II supported the development of the GDA Mango Action Plan with the expectation of improvements in free trade. 13 Sub￾sector Strategy Summary Longan • Harvest II supported the longan subsector to expand into new export and domestic markets for both fresh and processed longan. • Longan is a regional fruit and a secondary crop with China being the main consumer market. However, Cambodia typically exports to Thailand who processes and re-exports to China as they have a certification system recognized by China. • When COVID-19 started, borders closed and exports virtually stopped. Farmers were looking for markets. • Harvest II worked with the Cambodian government to restart at least limited exports, at the same time as working with companies to create a domestic market for fresh and processed longans. • Harvest II worked with government and buyers to enable farmers to gain CamGAP or other certifications essential for export markets and, in partnership with buyers, connected input suppliers to farmers to provide training and technical support on inputs, quality and extending the growing season. • To gain higher prices outside the main longan season, Harvest II supported processors to approach supermarkets and to develop new products appropriate for the domestic market. • Harvest II also worked with service providers to advise processors and exporters on exporting and to develop appropriate branding, packaging and logistics as well as get necessary certifications for export markets. Cashew • Harvest II aimed to expand export markets for cashew, particularly to reach consumer countries (rather than re-exporting countries), to capture more value add and to increase export of specialized products such as organic cashews. • Cashew was the most mature subsector prior to COVID-19 and thus was less affected by the pandemic than other subsectors. Harvest II supported a move from physical interaction and services to virtual ones. • Harvest II worked with buyers and input suppliers to provide training to farmers on appropriate input application to increase productivity and meet standards, as well as organic production for some farmers. • Harvest II coordinated value chain actors to pursue market opportunities, connecting suppliers, processors and exporters to specific opportunities depending on export readiness and supporting improvements in supply chain management. • Harvest II supported processors to increase export competitiveness including market identification and product development, and improving food safety, marketing, communications and logistics. • Through its grant program, Harvest II encouraged processors to invest in new products and new facilities to meet demand from new and premium markets such as those in Europe and Japan. • Harvest II connected processors to financial institutions for working and investment capital. • Harvest II supported increased activity among cashew associations and the formation of a cashew federation to work with government on developing the cashew subsector. 14 Annex C: Evaluation Plan 1. Introduction This document outlines the plan for a final evaluation of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity, which was implemented between April 2017 – July 2022. The purpose of Harvest II was to accelerate the growth of the commercial horticulture sector in four Zone of Influence (ZOI) provinces by increasing value chain competitiveness and removing obstacles to market access. This project aimed for this growth to increase sustainable economic opportunities in the horticulture sector. Initially the project focused on a buyer-led approach to developing the sector. During the second year of implementation, the project layered a market system facilitation approach onto the buyer-led approach, allowing the activity to expand their work beyond the ZOI and to partner with a greater range of market actors in order to capture additional market opportunities. At this time, the project also focused its efforts on four subsectors within the horticulture subsector: mango, longan, cashew and vegetables. The subsequent project (HARVEST III) is currently in its first year of implementation. Feed the Future Market Systems and Partnerships (MSP) Activity is an $80 million global mechanism to advance learning and good practice in market systems development (MSD) and private sector engagement (PSE) within USAID (Washington and Missions), USAID implementing partners, and market actors. MSP has been requested by USAID/Cambodia to conduct a final evaluation of the Harvest II activity to determine the degree to which Harvest II achieved its purpose and its potential sustainable outcomes. This document outlines the plan for the final evaluation and contains the following sections: • Section 1 describes the purpose of the evaluation focusing on its utility to key stakeholders. • Section 2 outlines the conceptual approach for the evaluation overall and for each of the four evaluation questions. • Section 3 explains the management of the evaluation including the evaluation team members and key management practices. • Section 4 describes the methodology for the evaluation including the field research, analysis, reporting and communication, as well as limitations of the evaluation. • Section 5 presents the evaluation workplan including the schedule and logistical arrangements. Annexes include a list of Harvest II documents being reviewed, a summary of the workshops held with Harvest II staff to design the evaluation, a summary of the Harvest II strategy per subsector and details of the sampling for the field research. The research instruments and field research schedule for the evaluation are provided in a separate document. 15 2. Purpose of the Evaluation MSP, through the subcontractor Just Results, will conduct a participatory evaluation using an ‘utilization focused approach’ (Patton, 2008) which is based on the conviction that an evaluation should be judged by the extent to which it is useful for its intended users. As outlined by Patton “…the systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of the programs to make judgments about the program, improve the program effectiveness, and/or inform decisions about future programming. Utilization focused program evaluation (as opposed to program evaluation in general) is evaluation done for and with specific, intended primary users for specific, intended uses” (Patton Q. , 1997). The evaluation team will seek to understand to what extent Harvest II achieved its immediate purpose, but also to identify and explore the nature of systemic changes, specifically, if the horticulture market system is more competitive, inclusive, and resilient. The evaluation will also explore factors that supported achievements or failures and capture lessons learned in the four core areas: 1. Progress towards catalyzing systemic changes that are sustained and scaled; 2. How these changes have benefitted market actors (specifically male and female farmers); 3. How Harvest II has contributed to climate change objectives; and 4. Elements of Harvest II’s grant-making approach to firms designed to prevent negative impacts on the environment. The primary audience of the evaluation report will be the USAID/Cambodia Mission, specifically the Sustainable Economic Growth Office. The secondary audience will be the Harvest III team, who may apply relevant findings and lessons learned to the effective implementation of the new project. The third audience will be other relevant stakeholders including the implementing sub-partners (EMC and iDE) and relevant government agencies. An additional audience is the global community of market development and climate sensitive programming practitioners and donors that may be able to draw transferable lessons to other contexts. 3 Evaluation Approach 3. 1 Evaluation Principles The key principles that have informed the approach to the evaluation follow. • Impartiality and independence: The members of the evaluation team are independent of Harvest II and its stakeholders and have no vested interest in the findings of the evaluation. • User involvement: In adopting an “utilization focused approach” the Harvest II final evaluation report and workshop will be tailored to the needs of its intended users. The evaluation team will hold discussions with USAID Cambodia, MSP, and the Harvest III team during the evaluation to 16 ensure that their needs are being addressed and that the evaluation report will enable them to improve performance and learn lessons. • Methodological pragmatism and efficiency:The evaluation methods proposed are practical and focused on obtaining the data needed to answer the evaluation questions and provide useful recommendations to USAID, MSP and Harvest III. Field research will use good practices while accepting that evaluations take place in resource and time-constrained contexts. • Developmental appropriateness: The evaluation team comprises of Cambodian and international professionals with long-standing experience in agriculture, market systems development, environmental stewardship and climate change mitigation and adaptation. The team is committed to respecting the cultural norms of Cambodian people and to proactively seeking and reflecting the perspectives of women, men, and youth. 3. 2 Overall Approach The evaluation will seek to determine the extent to which Harvest II achieved its purpose, with a focus on the four evaluation questions outlined by USAID/Cambodia and detailed below. The approach to the evaluation will happen according to the following steps: 1. Contextual analysis of the horticulture sector in Cambodia. This will aim to provide the evaluation team with an overall understanding of the size, structure, characteristics, and drivers of change in the sector when Harvest II started and over the life of the project. It will also explore the context in which climate change and environmental issues take place in the sector. 2. Review the activities and results of the project focused on its intendedpurpose and the four evaluation questions supported by a mixed-methods approach of data collection. (see section 2. 3). 3. Analysis of the findings from step 2 to draw out lessons learned and recommendations for USAID/Cambodia, and, in particular, for the Harvest III activity which is now underway. 17 Figure 1 shows the three goals that Harvest II had for the horticulture sector: improving competitiveness, inclusion, and resilience. The four evaluation questions relate to these three goals, as explained below. For each question, the evaluation will explore the scale, sustainability and depth of changes found in the market system, particularly the four targeted subsectors: vegetables, mango, longan and cashew. The evaluation team will synthesize findings for each question to identify lessons and recommendations for achieving progress towards a more competitive, inclusive and resilient horticulture sector in Cambodia that benefits farmers and other market actors sustainably, at scale and with increasing depth. Assessing Contribution: Economic systems are always changing. The Harvest II final report notes that, “Harvest II operated at a time of accelerating change in the horticulture market system, with numerous market disruptions introduced by COVID-19 in its final two years. ” In addition, there were a number of other projects and government efforts focused on horticulture operating at the same time as Harvest II . Therefore, it is appropriate to assume that the changes that occurred in the horticulture market system in Cambodia from 2017-2022 were caused by multiple factors, some of which may have been influenced by the Harvest II activities. Consistent with themes in USAID’s Complexity-Aware Monitoring Discussion Note (updated 2021) and USAID’s Guidelines for Monitoring, Evaluating and Learning in MSD (2016), to understand to what extent Harvest II contributed to changes observed in the horticulture sector, the evaluation team will employ a theory-based approach to assessing causality complemented by a strong focus on triangulating participant opinion. This starts with the analysis of the context of the horticultural sector including reconstructing, as much as possible, the state of the sector in 2017 to provide a baseline against which to assess changes. Across the four evaluation questions, the evaluation team will assess to what extent outcomes Harvest II aimed to catalyze are evident in the field and the reasons they came or did not come to fruition. This is complemented by triangulating findings from a bottom-up perspective leading from interventions to outcomes, and a top-down perspective leading from major trends in the four crop subsectors to more specific expected changes. Data sources, data collection and analysis methods: Table 1 summarizes the data sources, collection methods and analysis methods for the evaluation questions. More detail on these is provided in Section 4. Annex D provides details on sampling and respondents. To adequately address the four evaluation questions, the evaluation will cover a wide range of information related to the four subsectors that Harvest II targeted. To ensure efficiency and respect of respondents’ time, qualitative information gathering will be customized to types of respondents and specific respondents, 18 to focus on the specific functions they perform in the value chain or to support service markets and the Harvest II promoted activities in which they were involved. The evaluation team will also use early interviews to pinpoint the most important trends, causal factors and project activities. These findings will then help to shape the scope and focus of qualitative information gathering to follow. Employing these approaches will enable the evaluation team to cover the wide range of information required while keeping implementation of the evaluation manageable and efficient. 19 Table 1. Overview of evaluation methodology, evaluation methods and data sources Evaluation question Data sources Data collection methods Data analysis method 1. What system changes has Harvest II made progress on and to what extent have the changes been sustained and scaled? • Secondary sources on sector context and history and project documents • Harvest team staff • USAID oversight staff • Farmers • Market actors (buyers, ACs, processors, wholesalers, exporters, input suppliers, service providers) • Government officials • Other policy advisors • Secondary sources review • In-depth interviews • Key informant interviews • Focus group discussions with farmers • Survey with farmers • Descriptive analysis focused on system change dimensions • Diagnostic analysis focused on causality and Harvest II contribution • Predictive analysis to assess sustainability • Statistical analysis to support understanding of scale 2. How have system changes benefitted market actors, specifically male and female farmers? • Secondary sources and project documents • Farmers • Market actors (buyers, agriculture cooperatives, processors, wholesalers, exporters) • Findings from Question 1 • In-depth interviews • Focus group discussions with farmers • Survey with farmers • Descriptive analysis focused on describing benefits • Diagnostic analysis focused on linking market system improvements, behavior changes, performance changes and benefits • Statistical analysis on survey data • Inclusion and women/youth economic empowerment analysis 20 Evaluation question Data sources Data collection methods Data analysis method 3. How has Harvest II contributed to climate change objectives, aka helping farmers and actors improve resilience to climate change impacts and reduce greenhouse gas emissions? How have the commodities selected by the activity contributed to this equation? • Secondary sources on alternative adaptation measures, greenhouse gas emissions and horticulture crop comparisons; project documents • Harvest team staff • USAID oversight staff • Farmers • Market actors (buyers, ACs, processors, wholesalers, exporters, input suppliers) • Government officials • Other policy advisors • Secondary sources review • In-depth interviews • Key informant interviews • Focus group discussions with farmers • Survey with farmers • Descriptive analysis focused on changes in behaviors • Diagnostic analysis focused on linking changes in behaviors with climate change adaptation and mitigation • Predictive analysis to assess sustainability • Statistical analysis to support understanding of scale 4. What has Harvest II done to prevent negative impact on the environment when providing grants to firms? • Secondary sources on effectiveness of environmental stewardship practices; project documents • Harvest team staff • USAID oversight staff • Farmers • Market actors (buyers, ACs, processors, wholesalers, exporters, input suppliers) • Secondary sources review • In-depth interviews • Key informant interviews • Focus group discussions with farmers • Survey with farmers • Descriptive analysis focused on changes in firms’ and farmers’ practices • Diagnostic analysis focused on contribution of Harvest II measures to changed practices • Predictive analysis to assess sustainability • Statistical analysis to support understanding of scale 21 3. 3 Approaches to Evaluation Questions Question 1: What system changes has Harvest II made progress on and to what extent have the changes been sustained and scaled? The evaluation team will focus on understanding what changes have occurred in the horticulture market system, the extent of those changes and to what extent and how Harvest II has contributed to them. The evaluation team will be looking for changes that are systematic (recurring consistently in different provinces and among certain types of market actors) and/or systemic (representing a change in the norms and patterns that define ‘how things are done’ in the sector and/or affecting major drivers of investment and expansion of commercial horticulture, inclusion and resilience). The findings will distinguish between systematic and systemic changes, while recognizing there are inter-relationships. The approach to assessment is based on A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change (Miehlbradt et al. , 2020). This approach has similarities to Outcome Harvesting in that it focuses on identifying and assessing outcomes defined broadly as behavior changes. A Pragmatic Approach focuses on changes in market systems such as widespread adoption of new business models, new relationships among market actors or changes in policies or cultural norms. Like Outcome Harvesting, A Pragmatic Approach seeks to assess what outcomes – or system changes – have happened and why. Similarly, A Pragmatic Approach is appropriate in complex and dynamic situations, i. e. market systems. Using A Pragmatic Approach, evaluators will structure their inquiry as follows: 1. The first step is to delineate the boundaries of the market system(s) on which the project worked, and to understand the changes the project expected to make in these systems and how the project expected that they influenced these changes. This involves working with the project team to outline what main system and supporting systems (including supporting functions and rules) they targeted (if not already clear) and to adapt or reconstruct their theory of change to reflect their current understanding as needed. Then, the project team outlines the specific changes they think happened or expected to happen. These changes typically reflect the goals of making the market system more competitive, inclusive and resilient. Finally, the evaluation team outlines key indicators to assess each change (if the project has not done this already), including those that would allow the team to assess sustainability, scale, and depth of change (e. g. significance of change). 2. The second step is to assess to what extent these expected changes actually happened by gathering information on the designated indicators. Information on the indicators is gathered from different market system actors and key informants, as well as secondary sources where relevant, and then triangulated. 3. The third step (which typically happens at the same time as the second step) is to gather information on causality using two lenses: the intervention lens and the helicopter lens. The ‘intervention lens’ focuses on changes introduced by specific interventions and traces changes from project activities to outcomes using the project’s theories of change for individual interventions and 22 components. The ‘helicopter lens’ provides a whole system view and identifies key changes in the sector and what is driving them. 4. The last step is to synthesize information on the extent and nature of changes that occurred in the sector and to triangulate findings related to the causes of those changes from the two lenses (intervention and helicopter). The drivers of change identified from the helicopter lens are compared with those identified using the intervention lens to understand the project’s contribution to change as well as those of other key drivers identified. Because A Pragmatic Approach focuses on a project’s theory of change, it is important that it explicitly includes an approach to identifying and exploring unexpected changes as well. This is included in step 2, where the evaluation team asks market actors and key informants open-ended questions, such as “In what other ways do you operate differently than you did five years ago? Why?” and “What other changes have happened in the horticulture sector in the last five years? Why?” Where these questions uncover significant unexpected changes, the causes of these are then explored in step 3. Applying this approach to Harvest II, the evaluation team reconstructed the project’s theory of change for the overall horticulture sector and the supporting functions and rules that the project targeted. The evaluation team also gathered information on how this overall theory of change differed for the four subsectors targeted. Then the evaluation team translated this theory of change into dimensions of system change that the project aimed to influence and which its internal assessments indicate did change. This process relied on: • A review of Harvest II documents; and • Participatory workshops with the Harvest team where the evaluation team used facilitated discussion and diagrams on a virtual whiteboard to understand the project’s theory of change. The discussion also covered how it evolved in each subsector over time, particularly before and during/after COVID-19 as the most significant inflection point during the project period. The boundaries of the market systems that Harvest II aimed to influence are outlined in Figure 2. In the center are the horticulture value chains the project focused on, specifically the mango, longan, cashew and vegetable subsectors. While Harvest II also had some activities in other subsectors, these will not be included in the evaluation. Note that some value chains are more or less complex than the simplified chain presented in the diagram. On the left and right sides of the diagram are key changes Harvest II focused on facilitating within the value chains. On the top half of the circle are key supporting functions that the project aimed to facilitate with the expectation that these would be sustainably and effectively provided to a growing number of market actors over time. On the bottom half of the circle are the key aspects of value chain governance and formal rules which the project aimed to improve. The market system is also bounded geographically by the four target provinces Battambang, Kampong Thom, Pursat and Siem Reap but also includes market actors outside these boundaries. Farmers were also reached outside of these provinces; where there are significant clusters, these have been included in the evaluation. The stakeholders within the market system include: farmers, buyers, collectors, agricultural cooperatives, input suppliers, processors, wholesalers, exporters, service providers and government agencies. 23 Figure 2. The boundaries of the horticulture market system that Harvest II aimed to influence Figure 3 depicts the Harvest II theory of change, explaining how Harvest II expected to influence the horticulture market system. The theory of change summarizes the expectations of the Harvest II team on how the project activities contributed to influencing the behaviors of market actors and farmers and the benefits they gained from participation in the horticulture sector. 24 Figure 3. Harvest II Theory of Change Diagram "Figure 3: Illustration of the Harvest II theory of change, outlining its anticipated impact on the horticulture market system. The lower part of the diagram highlights project activities, followed by their correlation with changes in the horticulture market system, culminating in the associated benefits." 25 Harvest II aimed for improvements in the horticultural market system to be sustainable and to expand over time. Figure 4 provides a summary of how Harvest II expected incentives to be realigned to drive this sustainability and expansion. To elaborate more thoroughly the system changes to which Harvest II aimed to contribute and consider how to assess them, the evaluation team constructed Table 2 that shows the dimensions of change to be assessed, the expected change in each dimension and indicators to assess the changes. The dimensions are organized according to each of the three goals for market systems development - competitiveness, inclusion and resilience – and how they contribute to change, acknowledging that there is overlap among these where one dimension may contribute to more than one goal. The first column summarizes what Harvest II aimed to influence in the horticulture market system. The second and third column summarize how they expected each dimension to change. The last three columns provide indicators to assess scale, sustainability and depth of the changes for each dimension. Information gathering will include a breadth of stakeholders to understand the scale of changes, and deep dives into specific examples of change to understand the sustainability and depth of changes. The field research will gather information to refine the starting system state and describe the current system state. For those dimensions where changes are evident, the field research will gather evidence on the scale, sustainability and depth of change, in addition to the reasons for change, as explained above. Note that the boundaries of the market system, the theory of change and the dimensions of system change presented may be refined further during the early stages of the evaluation as relevant new information emerges from interviews with Harvest II staff. These changes will then be incorporated into information gathering plans and instruments. 26 Table 2. Dimensions of system change to assess Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Expected system state 2022 Indicators Scale Sustainability Depth Goal: Competitiveness Buyer – supplier coordination Buyers and farmers have informal relationships, limited interaction and low trust, resulting in poor coordination to meet market demand. Buyers and farmers have formal relationships, trust, multifaceted interaction and close coordination on products and planning to meet market demand. Approximate proportion of buyers in horticulture coordinating closely with their suppliers. Buyers’ and suppliers’ continuation of new behaviors, satisfaction with new models and recognition of incentives to coordinate. Elements and models of coordination (e. g. contract farming, purchase agreements). Ability to meet market demand, including new and premium opportunities The sector norm of buying/selling primarily fresh (no value add) commodities in spot markets and exporting only to re-exporting countries constrains exporters and wholesalers from responding to changes in demand and premium opportunities. Value chain actors are increasingly focused on understanding demand, product development and higher quality, differentiated products. This focus enables wholesalers, processors and exporters to serve domestic and international niche and premium markets and to respond to changes in market demand. Approximate proportion of firms moving from transacting in commodities to meeting market demand with differentiated products; approximate proportion of farmers to are working with buyers to meet specific market demands. Firms’ and farmers’ continuation of new behaviors, satisfaction with new models and recognition of incentives to understand demand, develop new products and focus on higher quality, differentiated products. Types and rate of new products entering the market; firms’ independent actions to find new markets and understand demand; farmers actions and performance in improving quality and meeting product specifications. Value chain efficiency Significant post-harvest waste, inefficient transactions and lack of specialized services result in high costs. Reduced waste, more streamlined relationships and transactions, and more efficient services, such as logistics, result in lower costs. Approximate proportion of supply chains with reduced waste and lower costs; Rate of growth in use of specialized services. Firms’ and farmers’ satisfaction with new models and use of services; evidence of increasing investment in specialized services. Changes in waste and costs in supply chains; change in number and type of specialized services available. 27 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Expected system state 2022 Indicators Scale Sustainability Depth Standards Few farmers or firms are certified for any standards; only a few standards in use. Increasing number of farmers are certified in CamGAP; increasing number of firms have quality certifications; more standards demanded by buyers are in use. Approximate proportion of farmers and firms with a quality certification. Costs and accessibility of certification (as a measure of how many it could reach). Farmers’ and firms’ satisfaction with the costs, accessibility andbenefits of certification; evidence of increasing demand for certification. Recognition of the benefits of certification among value chain actors; diversity of certification services available. Availability and appropriateness of finance MFIs and FIs have little interest and few products tailored for horticulture farmers and firms; minimal supply chain financing is available. MFIs and FIs are starting to cater to the horticulture sector with appropriate products; increased supply chain financing is available. Approximate proportion of farmers and firms that have accessed formal financing in the last three years. MFIs’ and FIs’ interest and investment in the horticulture sector. Range of financing methods and products available to horticulture firms and farmers. Availability and appropriateness of specialized services for firms There is limited availability and use of specialized services in horticulture. New services are available, such as market identification and linkage, marketing, packaging, product development, certification, traceability systems and logistics. Usage is increasing. Change in number of firms providing specialized services to the horticulture sector; Approximate proportion of firms using services. Costs and accessibility of services. Firms’ satisfaction with the costs, accessibility and benefits of new services and continuity of use; Service providers’ interest and investment in the horticulture sector. Types and diversity of services available. Extent of service providers’ product development/ tailoring for the horticulture sector. 28 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Expected system state 2022 Indicators Scale Sustainability Depth Agricultural policies There are few dedicated policies, action plans and laws and a lack of coordination among government agencies with a role in the horticulture sector resulting in uncertainty and lack of transparency. The government has a clear, coordinated strategy with progress on policies, action plans and laws aligned with the private sector’s vision. Key stakeholders have increased access to data and understanding of technical issues. Coverage of new or updated horticulture focused policies, action plans and laws. Extent of approval and implementation of new policies, action plans and laws; government actors’ investment of time in the horticulture sector. Changes in coordination among government agencies with a role in horticulture; appropriateness of new policies, action plans and laws. Public-private coordination There is limited and/or ineffective coordination between the public and private sectors in horticulture. There is increased interest in public-private coordination; new platforms have been established for coordination. Approximate proportion of relevant public and private sector actors actively involved in coordination. Public and private actors’ satisfaction with changes in coordination; financial and organizational sustainability of new platforms. Topic coverage of new coordination and platforms. Innovation Many farmers tend not to try new crops, varieties, inputs and production technologies. Buyers, wholesalers, processors, exporters rarely change their business models or develop new products. More farmers are trying new crops, varieties, inputs, production technologies and cropping patterns. Buyers, wholesalers, processors and exporters are developing new products and actively adjusting their business models. Approximate proportion of farmers that tried something new last season; approximate proportion of firms that developed a new product and/or adjusted their business model in the last year. Value chain actors’ recognition of the importance of innovation, willingness to innovate and perceptions about the barriers to innovation. Variety of innovations among farmers and firms; extent to which farmers and firms are embedding innovation in their business models. 29 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Expected system state 2022 Indicators Scale Sustainability Depth Information flows Farmers and firms have limited information on market demand, new opportunities and new products and services. Information is increasingly embedded in transactions along value chains and service providers are innovating new models for information provision. Approximate proportion of value chain actors that have access to more information than they used to. Value chain actors’ and service providers’ satisfaction with and business models for the provision of information. Types of information available; diversity of models for the provision of information. Goal: Inclusion Buyer-supplier relationships Buyers and suppliers transact in spot markets with distrust. Buyers and suppliers consider and treat each other as trusted business partners. Proportion of buyers and suppliers in long term, trusting relationships. Buyer-supplier perceptions of their relationships. Depth and nature of trust in buyer-supplier relationships. Power Power relationships are asymmetrical. There is a lack of trust and familiarity between unknown value chain actors. Power is shared among suppliers, buyers and other value chain actors. Suppliers and workers have a voice in value chain governance. Approximate proportion of value chain actors that feel power is shared; Approximate proportion of suppliers and workers that feel they have an effective voice in value chain governance. Recognition of the value of power sharing among value chain actors; mechanisms that facilitate power sharing and discourage power grabs; financial & organizational sustainability of platforms for suppliers and workers to influence value chain governance. Changes in the nature of power and voice in value chains. Informal norms in commercial relationships ‘Cheating’ and lack of transparency is a common part of commercial relationships. Informal norms in commercial relationships are shifting towards upholding equity and ethics. Approximate proportion of value chain actors that feel they are in long￾term, ethical commercial relationships. Recognition of the value of ethics in commercial relationships. Change in how commercial relationships are managed. 30 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Expected system state 2022 Indicators Scale Sustainability Depth Networks Commercial networks are relatively static. Commercial networks are expanding and including more small farmers and marginalized people. Approximate proportion of buyers that have expanded their commercial networks in the last year. Satisfaction of buyers with expanded networks; perceptions of buyers on expansion. Nature of expansion and who is and is not included. Gender equity To be added after additional information is gathered from the Harvest II team. Women are gaining more access to productive resources and opportunities in all functions in the value chain; women are increasingly in leadership positions in the sector. Approximate proportion of women in the sector who feel their access to resources and opportunities is increasing; approximate proportion of value chain leaders who are women. Value chain actors’ attitudes towards women in the sector; continuing barriers to women’s access and leadership in the sector. Changes in perceptions and typical roles of women in the sector; Diversity of roles women are taking. Youth inclusion To be added after additional information is gathered from the Harvest II team. Youth are playing an increasingly prominent role in solving challenges in horticulture through innovation and new business models. Approximate proportion of innovators in horticulture who are youth. Perception of youth in horticulture about future opportunities in the sector. Types of roles that youth are playing in the horticulture sector. 31 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Expected system state 2022 Indicators Scale Sustainability Depth Goal: Resilience Connectivity Farmers interact with many buyers in shallow relationships; Firms have only a few links to markets and service providers. Farmers and buyers are increasingly entering more dedicated, longer-term relationships; Firms are increasing their number of links to markets and service providers. Approximate proportion of farmers in long term relationships with buyers; Approximate proportion of firms increasing their links to markets and service providers. Satisfaction with new relationships; capacity of firms to generate new connections with markets and service providers. Nature of relationships between buyers and farmers; diversity of relationships that firms are gaining. Diversity The Cambodian horticulture sectorhas limited types of products, firms and markets. The Cambodian horticulture sector has an increasing diversity of products, firms and markets. The prevalence of innovation in products, business models and reaching new markets. Investment in new products, new types of firms and reaching new markets. Types of products, firms and markets. Conservation of natural resources Many farmers and firms do not systematically conserve natural resources. Buyers increasingly facilitate training and access to production technologies for suppliers to conserve natural resources. Farmers increasingly use practices and technologies that conserve soil and water. Approximate proportion of buyers that provide and farmers that use practices and technologies that conserve soil and/or water. Satisfaction with new practices and technologies; recognition of the value of conserving soil and water. Types of actions and technologies adopted to conserve soil and water. 32 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Expected system state 2022 Indicators Scale Sustainability Depth Adaptation to climate change Many farmers have limited ability to adapt to climate change. Buyers increasingly provide or facilitate access to information, training and production technologies that help farmers adapt to climate change. Farmers increasingly use climate￾smart practices and technologies. Approximate proportion of buyers that provide and farmer that use climate-smart practices and technologies. Satisfaction with new practices and technologies; accessibility of new technologies and information on practices. Diversity and appropriateness of technologies and practices to enable farmers to adapt to climate change. Environmental stewardship Firms do not systematically consider negative effects on the environment. Firms increasingly follow good environmental practices. Approximate proportion of firms that integrate at least one good environmental practice. Satisfaction with new practices; capacity to adopt new practices and sustain practices. Types of environmental practices firms are adopting. 33 The information on expected changes has been analyzed based on the document review and workshops with the Harvest II team and cross-checked against key industry systemic change frameworks to ensure it robustly incorporates key aspects of competitiveness, inclusion and resilience. The industry frameworks used are: • USAID (2018) Market Systems Resilience: A Framework for Measurement • USAID (2017) Agricultural Market Systems Behavior Change Wheel • USAID (2016) Disrupting System Dynamics: A Framework for Understanding Systemic Changes • USAID (2016) The 5Rs Framework in the Program Cycle Because system change is a process, the evaluation team will not only assess the extent to which systemic changes have already occurred but also early signs of more systemic changes that may occur over time. These signs will include, for example: • The extent to which new practices or ways of working promoted by the project have been sustained by individual market actors who adopted them. • The breadth and proportion of potential market actors who have adopted new practices or ways of working promoted by the project (particularly looking for changes occurring systematically in different locations or contexts). • The extent to which new practices and ways of working adopted by firms, farmers and other stakeholders reinforce each other, increasing incentives and support for more widespread change. • The extent to which firms, farmers and other market actors in the horticulture sector who did not interact directly with the project are aware of and interested in new practices and ways of working promoted by the project. The boundaries of the market system, the theory of change and the dimensions table are based on generalities across the four targeted subsectors. However, differences in the maturity of the subsectors and how they were affected by the onset of COVID-19 shaped the nuances of the project’s strategy in each subsector and, thus, the partnerships and activities that Harvest II carried out in each subsector. The evaluation team has taken these differences into account in the evaluation sampling and will customize research instruments and data analysis to focus on the Harvest II strategy and key activities in each subsector. Annex 3 contains a summary of the strategies per subsector highlighting the differences among them. Activities in support of the business enabling environment will be assessed on two tracks: (1) as foundational to the overall system, including linkage and connection activities conducted by Harvest II to strengthen the system’s connective tissue and alignment (for example, government and private sector alignment), and (2) as per the effects of specific policy initiatives in areas such a contract farming, certification, plant protection, and others on the system. 34 Question 2: How have system changes benefitted market actors, specifically male and female farmers? The evaluation will investigate how farmers and other value chain actors have benefited from improvements facilitated by Harvest II. Male and Female Farmers The improvements that Harvest II has facilitated which are likely to benefit farmers include: • Access to new production technologies (such as net houses) and services (such as information apps); • Business and financial skills training and services; • CamGAP training, technical support on quality improvements and certification; • Strengthened relationships and improved coordination with buyers; • Consistent access to markets via contract farming and purchase agreements; and • Increased advocacy and public-private dialogue. The evaluation will particularly focus on the improvements in the sector that are expected to have been systemic, as outlined in the previous question. The evaluation will examine the types of benefits that farmers have experienced as a result of the improvements above considering: • Scale: What proportion of farmers have experienced various types of benefits? • Sustainability: Are farmers likely to continue experiencing benefits? • Depth: Have farmers experienced multiple benefits, including not only financial benefits but also elements of empowerment? The approach to assessing contribution will be based on the project’s theory of change (customized for each subsector) as well as participant opinion. In line with the Harvest II theory of change diagram, the evaluation will trace how specific improvements, which Harvest II facilitated, affected farmers’ behaviors and performance and how this, in turn, resulted in benefits (or negative impacts) for farmers. To understand why some farmers changed their behaviors and performance and why some did not, the evaluation will compare the experiences of farmers who interacted with Harvest partner firms and who have adopted new practices with those who interacted with Harvest partner firms but have not adopted new practices. To understand if and how behavior and performance changes and benefits are spreading to more farmers, the evaluation will also gather data from male and female farmers who did not interact with Harvest partner firms but have copied practice changes of farmers who interacted with Harvest partner firms. Comparing these different groups will help to illuminate which farmers are benefiting from Harvest II influenced improvements and which are not, how and why male and female farmers are benefiting and how systemic changes may impact farmers over time. Unpacking the causal links between Harvest II influenced 35 improvements in the market system and benefits for farmers will provide valuable lessons learned for increasing the benefits that male and female farmers experience. Note that while the evaluation will consider male and female farmers’ financial benefits, it will not quantify the amount of financial benefits because the results provided by Harvest II focused on quantifying benefits, and the evaluation can make a greater contribution by providing a more holistic understanding of the benefits that male and female farmers are gaining. In addition, the requirements of sufficient longitudinal data with a comparison group to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the amount of financial benefits are beyond the scope of the evaluation. The particular parameters of behavior/performance changes and benefits that the evaluation will examine have been identified through the document review, workshop sessions with the Harvest II team and the input of the evaluation team agricultural specialist. Elements of economic empowerment that may be influenced by the Harvest II facilitated improvements in the market system have been added, referencing the Feed the Future Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (2012) and The WEAMS framework: women’s empowerment and market systems concepts (Jones, 2016) . These are relevant for female as well as youth farmers. The specific parameters of behavior and performance changes, and benefits are outlined in Figure 5. The evaluation team will also ask male and female farmers if they have experienced any other benefits or negative impacts. 36 Figure 5: Parameters of behavior and performance changes and benefits 37 Assessment of this question will place a particular emphasis on inclusion. Data will be collected from female and male farmers and disaggregated to analyze the differences between male and female farmers in t he behavior changes, performance changes and benefits. The analysis will seek to identify the reasons for differences, paying particular attention to the persistence or emergence of barriers to women’s participation, access, behavior changes, performance changes and benefits. Where possible, data will also be gathered from youth farmers and disaggregated, although the samples of youth farmers may not be large enough to draw definitive conclusions. Other value chain actors The evaluation will also investigate the types of benefits that other value chain actors are experiencing as a result of partnership with Harvest II. As the experiences of firms are likely to be more diverse than farmers, the evaluation will take a more open-ended approach to assessing benefits for firms. It will consider respondents’ opinions on the changes in the amounts, regularity, reliability, stability and seasonality of revenues linking these to particular changes in the behaviors and performance of firms. It will also explore other types of benefits such as reductions in risk due to diversification and increases in capacity to cope with future shocks and stresses. As this is a lower priority than investigating benefits for farmers, information gathering will focus mainly on partner firms but will also include firms that did not interact with Harvest II but may have benefited from systemic changes when possible. As with farmers, assessment of this question will emphasize inclusion. Data will be collected from female and male owners or managers of firms and comparisons made to the extent possible. Analysis will consider the roles that women are playing in the value chains and the extent to which women occupy leadership roles, paying particular attention to barriers that have been overcome or that persist. Similarly, youth inclusion will be assessed to the extent possible. Question 3: How has Harvest II contributed to climate change objectives, aka helping farmers and actors improve resilience to climate change impacts and reduce greenhouse gas emissions? How have the commodities selected by the activity contributed to this equation? Cambodia has supported global efforts against climate change. The country adopted and ratified the Paris Agreement, submitting an ambitious Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). In addition, Cambodia’s NDC prioritized adaptation actions subdivided by sector and the corresponding lead ministry. The horticulture sector has been designated as a priority for adaptation actions under the responsibilit y of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF). Increasingly severe floods and droughts as the result of climate change have impacted Cambodia’s horticulture by 20% of total cultivated area (MAFF, 2020). Additionally, Cambodia is one of the countries most affected by climate variability which leads to climate vulnerability and associated risks, especially for agricultural crops. 38 The evaluation team has broken down this question into three parts, each with particular sub-questions as follows. How has Harvest II contributed to helping farmers and other value chain actors improve resilience to climate change impacts? • How have the practices, technologies, services, information, and new business models promoted or facilitated by Harvest II helped farmers, processors and other value chain actors to become more resilient to climate change? • Were there other practices, technologies, services, or information that might have (also) been useful to improving farmers, processors or other value chain actors’ resilience to climate change? The evaluation will assess the extent to which farmers, other value chain actors and the horticulture market system can better adapt to climate change impacts. In particular, this includes the use of: • Water-efficient technologies: net houses, drip irrigation, harvesting rainfall run-off; • Services: farmer training (e. g. on CamGAP), technical advice, weather and climate information for crop planning and management; and • Climate-smart practices such as diversification, year-round cropping, proper planning for planting, crop rotation, crop varieties selection, improved fertilizer practices, integrated pest management, land preparation, mounding, soil management, soil mulching, pruning, organic farming, and soil enhancement. The evaluation will examine the climate change adaptation practices, technologies, services, information, and business models promoted or facilitated by the project. It will explore: • Scale: the approximate proportion of farmers and other value chain actors that adopted climate change adaptation measures; • Sustainability: why and how farmers and other value chain actors adopted adaptation measures and their satisfaction with them; the likelihood that technologies, services, and information related to climate change adaptation will continue to be available; and • Depth: the breadth of measures adopted and how effective they are likely to be. The evaluation will compare the practices, technologies, services and information promoted by the project with others suitable for Cambodia. The evaluation will also consider the extent to which the horticulture market system (or the specific subsector targeted) is more resilient to climate change impacts. Harvest II aimed to introduce climate￾oriented thinking in the horticulture sector so that all market actors consider climate and environmental issues, and recognize that there is a market for produce grown safely and responsibly. While Question 1 considers resilience more broadly, investigation for this question will only focus on resilience to climate change impacts. It will consider the extent to which dimensions of market systems resilience outlined in 39 Question 1 contribute specifically to resilience to climate change impacts. The particular dimensions to be investigated are: buyer/supplier coordination, relationships, information flows, diversity and conservation of natural resources. How has Harvest II contributed to helping farmers and other value chain actors reduce greenhouse gases? As reducing greenhouse gases was not an objective of the project, a theory-based approach to evaluation is not possible. Instead, the evaluation will focus on the following questions: • Did Harvest II implement any measures to explicitly encourage value chain actors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? If so, what measures? Did value chain actors change their practices? Were new practices sustained? Were new practices likely to have decreased greenhouse gases? • Did any practices, investments or activities promoted or facilitated by Harvest II unintentionally increase or decrease greenhouse gas emissions? If so, how? • What approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in horticulture exist that are present in or relevant to horticulture in Cambodia? To what extent could Harvest II have practically and reasonably encouraged value chain actors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions using these approaches? What could Harvest II practically and reasonably have done to mitigate any increases in greenhouse gas emissions caused by practices, investments or activities the project promoted or facilitated? The approach to investigating these questions will start with a contextual analysis focused on identifying the most significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions in horticulture in Cambodia, practices in horticulture that mitigate climate emissions and approaches that are relevant to addressing climate change mitigation in horticulture in the Cambodian context. Based on the findings of this analysis, the evaluation team will gather information from firms and farmers to investigate changes that may have either increased greenhouse gas emissions or mitigated them. These could include, for example: • Firms o Investments in expansion o Energy sources and usage efficiency o Transportation o Expansion of the cold chain o Packaging • Farmers o Energy sources and usage efficiency o Land use (expansion, intercropping) o Wastage o Water conservation o Soil conservation 40 Note that the Harvest II approach to business enabling environment (BEE) was not designed to support climate change adaptation or mitigation. Nevertheless, the assessment will examine the extent to which Harvest II’s work with government on policies, certification and any other areas supported progress towards climate change objectives. How have the commodities selected contributed to climate change adaptation or mitigation? Climate change adaptation and mitigation were not criteria used to assess which subsectors Harvest II targeted. Therefore, as above, a theory-based approach to evaluation is not appropriate for this question. Instead, the evaluation will focus on the following questions: • Are farmers switching from other crops to targeted crops? If so, what is the effect on climate change adaptation and mitigation? • Are farmers diversifying their crops to include targeted crops? If so, what is the effect on climate change adaptation and mitigation? • Are targeted crops associated with deforestation? How does this compare with other crops? If targeted crops are associated with deforestation, what did Harvest II do to ensure promoting these crops did not lead to deforestation? How effective were these measures? Exploration of these questions will rely on gathering information: • From farmers on the changes they have made in their crop portfolios and land use; • From secondary sources and key informants comparing the extent to which targeted and non￾targeted horticultural crops support climate change adaptation and mitigation, for example considering speed of growth and tolerance to heat and variable weather; and • From the Harvest team on how they addressed any concerns regarding deforestation, if relevant to target crops and locations. Question 4: What has Harvest II done to prevent negative impact on the environment when providing grants to firms? The evaluation’s approach to this question will be guided by the following sub-questions: • What specific measures did Harvest II take to prevent negative impacts on the environment when providing grants to firms? • Were these appropriate measures, i. e. were the practice changes that Harvest II promoted among firms and farmers likely to be effective in preventing or mitigating negative environmental impacts? Why or why not? • What was the scale, sustainability and depth of firms’ and farmers’ adoption of these practices? Why? 41 Using the grants principles and procedures as a starting point to address this question, the evaluation will assess what the project did in relation to what it could have practically done to prevent, minimize and mitigate negative environmental impacts in grants and partnership management. The evaluation will also gather information from grantees on their adoption and sustainable use of new practices that prevent negative impact on the environment, as well as information from key informants and farmers on the success of those practices on the ground. To focus the investigation on environmental issues, the evaluation team will review Harvest II’s Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) and EMMPs for grants to firms where the details of firms’ environmental risks and mitigation plans are outlined. The evaluation team will also review the project’s Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan (PERSUAP) as well as environmental training guides and materials provided to grantees. This review will enable the evaluation team to understand the practices Harvest II promoted to prevent or mitigate negative environmental impacts. Data collected in the field will help to shed light on the extent to which firms and Harvest II staff implemented these plans, any negative impacts that were identified and how they were addressed. Firms will be asked both about the grant period itself and the period afterwards to assess if awareness of negative environmental impacts and mitigation tactics increased as a result of being a USAID sub-grantee, and has been incorporated into the firms’ overall practices, exploring the reasons for sustainability or lack thereof. The evaluation will also investigate the depth of adoption, particularly looking at the breadth of effective practices firms and farmers have adopted and the extent to which these have become a fundamental part of their business models. The specific practices that the evaluation will assess will be drawn from the EMMPs and the training materials on environmental issues and food safety to ensure that they correspond to those that Harvest II promoted. These practices will be assessed in light of relevant practices for firms and farmers to prevent or mitigate negative environmental impacts. To assess breadth and sustainability of changes in practices, questions on environmental practices have been integrated into all information gathering with value chain actors. 42 4 Evaluation Management 4.1 Evaluation Team Table 3. Evaluation Team Members Name Role Responsibilities Experience Alexandra Miehlbradt (Aly) Team Leader Lead the team and overall evaluation delivery; provide expertise in market system development, innovative qualitative tools; convene technical experts; travel to the field; oversee data collection tools development, workshops, learning products development and quality control; lead development of all reports. 25+ years in inclusive economic development, particularly market systems development in Asia, Africa, the Pacific and Central America. She advised several market systems development (MSD) programs. She is a leader in the global effort to improve monitoring and results measurement and the effective use of information in MSD. Makararavy Ty (Ravy) National Evaluation Advisor Lead the evaluation preparation in Cambodia; contribute to evaluation methodology and design; coordinate the national team during the data collection; ensure quality of training and data gathering; contribute to data analysis, findings, and recommendations in the report. 10+ years of experience in private sector development. She is an expert in monitoring and evaluation, and she worked on projects such as agriculture and climate change. She is a specialist in results measurement and market development analysis. Sílvio Aquino Team Facilitator Client communications and team strategizing; provide regular briefings to the client; organize implementation team and ensure clear communication among the team focused on delivering high-quality reports; quality control. International cooperation and public policy specialist with 10+ years of experience in sustainable economic development, program management, social impact, formulation and implementation of public policy, strategy, institutional coordination, operations, and partnerships. Lara Goldmark Enabling Environment Specialist Support with expert advice on business enabling environment; provide input to evaluation methodology; provide technical input to the reports. Founder and CEO of Just Results. 30+ years in monitoring and evaluation (MEL) with a focus on market systems development and improving the business enabling environment through digitization. 43 Name Role Responsibilities Experience Sokhannaro Hep Climate Change and Environment Specialist Support with expert advice on climate change and environment; provide input to evaluation methodology; provide technical input to the reports. 20 years of experience as specialist in environmental research and assessments, natural resource management, climate change, environmental assessment, carbon finance, conservation, ecosystem services, indigenous and rural communities. Tola Prom National Agriculture Specialist Support with expert advice on agriculture; provide input to evaluation methodology; provide technical input to the reports. Considerable expertise in the agriculture and aquaculture sectors of Cambodia. Extensive experience in donor funded monitoring and evaluation of agriculture related programs, economics and econometrics, statistics, and statistical analysis. Riguen Thorn National Fieldwork Manager Coordinate the team of enumerators to provide high-level qualitative and quantitative data collection; train and orient enumerators; oversee tools verification; support travels as needed; contribute with data analysis. Experienced in quantitative and qualitative research with rural people in Cambodia, quantitative and qualitative data analysis, tools development, mobile phone/tablet usage to collect quantitative data. Euvodie Pierre Research Analyst Technical data analysis; support primary research lead and other team members; create engaging graphics and data visualization content. Experienced in field research, sustainable agricultural development, and interpretation/translation. Hamza Denguezli Research Analyst Skillful at project management and digital transformation. Experienced in elaborating content, conducting interviews for data collection, and finalizing process maps of administrative procedures. 44 Figure 6. Team organogram Table 4. Data collection team No. Survey team name Role Remark 1 Ms. Chum Sorphea Field supervisor Quantitative data collection- Survey 2 Ms. Ung Sreymach Enumerator 3 Ms. Seng Sreyno Enumerator 4 Mr. Thorn Rasmey Enumerator 5 Ms. Hour Dalin Facilitator/Notetaker Qualitative data collection- FGD 45 No. Survey team name Role Remark 6 Ms. Chuoun Putthysa Facilitator/Notetaker 4.2 Evaluation Management Practices Table 5. Evaluation Management Practices Area Best Practices Applied Ethical research practices • Evaluation team will comply with quality standards ADS 201. • Project enumerators and interviewers will seek verbal and/or written consent from all interviewees during the data collection process. • Evaluation team will maintain high standards in methods, quality, and data security . • Gender and cultural sensitivity will be always upheld and applied throughout the evaluation. • Any data collected that allows for personal identification will require consent from the data holder before collection and information will be treated confidentially within Just Results. • All data will be handled in such a manner as to protect identity of respondents to safeguard against situations where their comments could potentially have a negative impact on their security or community status. • Reports will not contain information that allows for personal identification of any contributor with the evaluation, unless clear consent is given, including for acknowledgments and authorship. • Data collected and disclosed as part of the evaluation results and raw data will not contain information to the level that allows for identification of individuals. • Individuals interviewed will be treated fairly and all contributions will be treated with the same weight based solely on their technical relevance to the evaluation. • Just Results will respect and make the use of evaluation contributor’s time in the most efficient way possible by having clear objectives, agenda, guidelines and/or questions for each data collection session and interactions with teams. Quality control • All documentation and reports shared outside the evaluation team will be quality checked by the Evaluation Team Leader prior to submission to ensure appropriate standards are met. 46 Area Best Practices Applied • Data gathered in the fieldwork will be collected, coded and analyzed using software (e. g. Qualtrics and Dedoose) to the extent possible to ensure accuracy from the source and standard quality throughout. • Notes and other data gathered in which software are not appropriate to be used will have standard structure to ensure they reflect accuracy and standard quality throughout. • The National Evaluation Advisor and National Fieldwork Manager will oversee closely all the data collected during the fieldwork to ensure high quality and unbiased information is collected. • Specifications will be developed to guide data analysis. All quantitative and qualitative data processing and visualization will be spot checked by a member of the evaluation team who was not involved in the initial development of it to identify and correct any errors. Workplace health and safety COVID-19 • Just Results does not require vaccination or proof of vaccination, but encourages all staff and consultants to get vaccinated. • All the evaluation team is required to have masks available for personal use when interacting face-to-face with evaluation contributors during fieldwork and ask the contributor early in the first in-person interaction whether they prefer to conduct the interaction with or without masks. If the contributor asks for the use of a mask, the evaluation team will promptly do so. • Any member of the team who feels unsafe due to COVID-19 has the right to withdraw from the field. • In the case an evaluation team member tests positive or is exposed to someone who tested positive, a self-quarantine is mandatory. 5 Methodology 5. 1 Phase I: Desk Review and Evaluation Design Development Inception MSP’s buy-in began in September 2022. The initial activity was to select a research sub-contractor to lead the evaluation, through a competitive selection process. Just Results was selected, andthe evaluation team and MSP conducted two kick-off meetings virtually in December 2022, one with USAID and one with the Harvest III team. The meetings covered introductions, the purpose and focus of the evaluation, the 47 proposed approach to the evaluation, an overview of the expected methodology, the schedule and expected interaction between the evaluation team and the Harvest III team. Preparation for the Evaluation To inform the design of the evaluation as well as provide initial information for the evaluation itself, the evaluation team conducted a desk review of documents from Harvest II. This included project annual and final reports, project performance targets and indicator data, findings from internal studies, the mid-term evaluation, annual workplans, the MEL plan, the gender action and youth engagement plans, and environmental plans (a full list is provided in Annex A). The evaluation team also conducted several workshops with Harvest II team members to understand the project in more detail. This included reviewing the boundaries of the market system Harvest II targeted, the project Theory of Change (ToC), specific objectives and activities particularly related to the evaluation questions, the contribution of each subsector to the overall objectives, how the HARVEST II team adapted the project over time, particularly in response to COVID-19, and project stakeholders. • 1st workshop: January 10th, 2023, for 2 hours to discuss the project strategy before COVID-19 and the ToC of the project. • 2nd workshop: Jan 12th-13th, 2023, composed of 4 one-hour sessions, each dedicated to a specific subsector: vegetable, mango, longan and cashew nut. • 3rd workshop: January 19th, 2023, for 2 hours to validate the evaluation team’s understanding of the project and get feedback on the draft evaluation plan. Participants for each workshop can be found in Annex B. 5. 2 Phase 2: Field Work Contextual Analysis To understand the horticulture sector in Cambodia, the team will use the following methods in addition to gleaning information from the activities mentioned above. • Review secondary source information including reports from government and other projects and relevant academic studies. (Annex A includes a plan for the contextual analysis secondary source research including key questions, information needs and potential sources of information). • Conduct selected key-informant interviews (KIIs) with respondents knowledgeable about the horticulture sector and its development. 12 KIIs are planned with key experts from the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fishery (MAFF), Provincial Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fishery (PDAFF) in Battambang, Siem Reap and Kampong Thom, General Department of Agriculture, AIMS project under the Ministry of Commerce (MOC), an environmental expert in horticulture from Ministry of Environment (MOE), HEKs, CHAIN, USAID, IDE, EMC, SEGO, the BEE Specialist ofHarvest II, and the MEL Specialist ofHarvest II. (See Annex B). 48 • Utilize the expertise of the evaluation team specialists who have experience in the sector over the last decade. Field Research on Project Activities and Results To assess the extent to which the purpose of Harvest II was achieved and address the four evaluation questions, the evaluation team will use a mixed-methods approach. Thorough primary research utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods will be supplemented by secondary research where relevant. The research will gather both quantitative and qualitative information. Specific research methods are as follows. • In-depth-interviews (IDIs) with Harvest II partners and other market actors involved in horticulture will be conducted to understand in detail system changes, benefits for market actors from Harvest II facilitated improvements in the system, climate change adaptation and environmental stewardship. These interviews will also explore causality using the ‘intervention lens’ and ‘helicopter lens’ described above. The respondents have been chosen to represent the range of activities on which Harvest II worked with partners, while putting more emphasis on the project’s major activities. For manageability, the location of market actors has also been considered. There will be a total of 64 IDIs with market actors covering a majority of the market actors with whom Harvest II had significant interaction as well as some that may have been reached indirectly. 33 IDIs will be with firms, such as buyers, processors and input suppliers, operating in the subsectors and with which Harvest II partnered. 4 will be with agriculture cooperatives and 13 will be with service providers (financial institutions, fintech, logistics, marketing and export facilitation companies) with which Harvest II partnered. 14 market actors with whom Harvest II did not partner but may have been influenced by behaviors of other market actors or system changes more broadly will be interviewed, provided they can be found. See Annex D for details. • Key Informant Interviews with 5 government agencies will shed light on the results of Harvest II in the development of policies, action plans and laws, as well as the promotion of public-private dialogue (in addition to the contextual information discussed above). There will be KIIs with people from 7 other agencies covering Harvest II subcontractors, other projects, USAID and Harvest III. See Annex D for details. • Focus-Group Discussions (FGDs) with male and female farmers who have been reached directly or indirectly by Harvest II in three subsectors: mango, longan, and cashews will provide insights on system changes and the benefits that they have experienced from system improvements facilitated by Harvest II as well as practices and technologies related to climate change adaptation and environmental stewardship. Each FGD will be composed of 4-6 farmers. The evaluation team will conduct 20 FGDs across 5 provinces: Battambang, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, Preah Vihear and Pailin. Thus, the FGDs will involve approximately 100 farmers. For the mango and longan subsectors, there will be 4 FGDs with suppliers who have interacted with Harvest II partners and 2 with 49 suppliers who have not. For cashew, there will be 6 FGDs with suppliers who have interacted with Harvest II partners and 2 who have not, reflecting the greater number of cashew farmers that Harvest II reached. Respondents will be chosen from the lists provided by Harvest II taking into consideration location, availability and involvement with Harvest II partners, so that the FGDs adequately represent the range of activities conducted while focusing more on the project’s major activities. The FGDs with farmers reached through Harvest II partners will be divided by gender in order to understand the differing perspective of male and female farmers. When possible, the FGDs with farmers not reached through Harvest II partners will also be divided by gender. Details of the sampling and locations for the FGDs are provided in Annex D. • A Survey with approximately 350 vegetable producers will be conducted to understand their changes in practice and performance as well as impacts on their livelihoods and other benefits. The survey will also provide some information to understand system changes, particularly scale. The sample is constructed to compare different groups of farmers related to their interaction with Harvest II promoted activities and their adoption of new practices. Thus, the sample population is categorized into three: 1. 200 samples will be selected from the Harvest II Indicator 2B data set which covers all farmers involved in activities promoted by Harvest II and who have adopted at least one practice change. The sample will be chosen in a two-step process. The first step is the selection of locations (province, district, commune and village) based on the data provided by Harvest II. The villages with the highest concentration of direct beneficiaries will be chosen, ensuring that these villages also cover the various activities facilitated by Harvest II in which farmers were involved. The second step is randomly selecting farmers to be interviewed from the list provided by Harvest II. The respondents will be located using the information included in the Harvest II list. The evaluation team will also prepare a reserve list of farmers randomly selected from the Harvest II list. This list will be given to enumerators so that they can substitute another farmer when a farmer on the original list cannot be found or chooses not to participate. Selecting the locations purposively will bias the sample towards areas with a greater concentration of farmers reached by Harvest II, which may lead to findings indicating more system changes than are present on average across all locations reached by Harvest II. This will be taken into consideration in the analysis. 2. 100 samples of farmers who were involved in activities promoted by Harvest II but who have not adopted any new practices. These will be selected from Harvest II Indicator 15 data set. The sampling uses the same location-based approach as the one for farmers who have adopted a new practice described above. 3. 50 samples of farmers who were not directly involved in activities promoted by Harvest II but who have received information or been influenced by farmers who were involved and changed their practices (referred to as copying farmers). Snowball sampling will be applied to find copying farmers by asking farmers who adopted new practices. While every effort will be made to find farmers who have been influenced by those directly involved in 50 activities promoted by Harvest II, this sample may be smaller if a sufficient number of indirectly reached farmers cannot be found. The evaluation team’s calculation of the optimal sample size for farmers reached by the project based on the population size as reported by Harvest II is 247. The team will plan to interview 300 farmers reached by Harvest II so that the actual sample will be sufficient even if there are challenges during the field data collection. See Annex D for details of the sample size calculation. The number of samples in the first two categories reflect the greater proportion of farmers involved in Harvest II promoted activities who adopted new practices (as per the Harvest II data sets). The larger sample of farmers who have adopted new practices will also provide more data to analyze the changes and causal links set out in the Harvest II theory of change. The sample of copying farmers is smaller reflecting the difficulty of finding these farmers based on past experience, but the sample is expected to be sufficient to provide an illustrative understanding of the processes by which farmers not involved with project promoted activities change behaviors and experience benefits. The sample of farmers is weighted based on the number of beneficiaries in each target province. See details of the sampling in Annex D. The difference in methodology between mango, longan and cashew on the one hand and vegetables on the other reflects differences in the subsectors and the farmers involved in Harvest II promoted activities. Mango, longan and cashew are primarily export crops and the farmers reached in these subsectors are larger than the vegetable farmers reached. It is expected that their experiences will be more homogenous than vegetable farmers, and they are located in clusters. Thus, FGDs are a good choice of methodology to gather information from them. Vegetable farmers are smaller, more diverse, and more spread out. Thus, a survey is a more appropriate methodology to gather information from them. Table 6. Proposed samples per subsector Subsector / Type of Stakeholder Qualitative Quantitative Location IDI/KII FGD Farmer Survey Mango value chain actors 10 6 - Battambang, Siem Reap, Phnom Penh Cashew nut value chain actors 15 8 - Kampong Thom, Siem Reap, Preah Vihear, Phnom Penh Longan value chain actors 8 6 - Battambang, Pailin, Phnom Penh Vegetables value chain actors 16 350 Kandal, Battambang, Pursat, Kampong Thom, Siem Reap 51 Subsector / Type of Stakeholder Qualitative Quantitative Location IDI/KII FGD Farmer Survey Service Providers (Finance, Logistics, Marketing, etc.) 15 Phnom Penh Government 5 Battambang, Kampong Thom, Siem Reap, Phnom Penh Donors/Projects 7 Phnom Penh Total 76 20 350 Gender sensitive research and analysis: Data collection processes will be gender-sensitive, purposively seeking out the perspectives of both males and females among farmers, other market actors and other stakeholders. Enumerators will employ gender-sensitive techniques to ensure that women are represented in IDIs, FGDs and the survey and that the setting and approach during information gathering encourages women to participate actively and frankly. Quantitative data will be disaggregated by sex. Analysis will explicitly consider gender as a variable when analyzing adoption of new practices, models and ways of working, barriers to adoption and changes in the subsectors more broadly. The data collection will also capture the perspectives of youth, when possible, specifically where they are involved in horticulture and in the activities catalyzed by Harvest II. Similar techniques will be used to ensure that youth participate actively and frankly in information gathering. It is essential that the primary data gathered is high quality, interview lengths are reasonable and the overall data gathering process is manageable. The evaluation team will maintain some flexibility during the field data collection to achieve these aims. The findings of early in-depth interviews will be used to narrow the scope of later interviews and focus group discussions where possible. The evaluation team will work with the FGD facilitator to progressively focus FGDs to illuminate the most useful and prominent issues, based on the findings of previous FGDs. The survey will be structured so that enumerators skip questions that will be irrelevant to a particular respondent. If there is difficulty finding some types of respondents, particularly those who were indirectly reached by Harvest II, the evaluation team will weigh the options of looking further against spending more time on getting information from available respondents. The evaluation team will discuss progress regularly during the field research and adjust as necessary to maximize the quality and utility of the data gathered, keeping MSP and USAID appraised of any significant changes to the evaluation plan. 52 Annex D provides details of the sampling, including numbers of samples per category and locations, as well as the specific respondents for the IDIs and KIIs. The research instruments and field research schedule are provided in a separate document. 5. 3 Phase 3: Analysis and Validation Analysis The evaluation team will conduct both quantitative and qualitative analyses designed to illuminate the extent to which Harvest II contributed to the horticulture sector becoming more competitive, inclusive and resilient and to address the four evaluation questions. The analysis of contextual information will be descriptive, outlining the characteristics of the horticulture sector and the four targeted subsectors, as well as describing how these have changed from 2017 to 2022. For the four evaluation questions, the evaluation team will conduct both descriptive analysis to illuminate what has happened, as well as diagnostic analysis to explain why it has happened. The descriptive and diagnostic analyses will draw on both qualitative and quantitative primary data, as well as secondary data for selected questions. Statistical analysis will be used to understand the scale of changes while predictive analysis will be used to assess sustainability. Inclusion will be analyzed by comparing changes for women and men, as well as youth when possible, and by analyzing selected indicators of empowerment. Specific tools that will be used follow: • Coding of IDI, KII and FGD notes will be conducted using the Dedoose software package, to support analysis of the qualitative information gathered. • Quantitative data gathering will use the Qualtrics software package. The analysis will include statistical analysis and visualizations using a variety of tools including Excel, Qualtrics, R, etc. • A code book, constructed based on several dimensions: per evaluation question, per subsector, per source of data, and per level or type of systems change as described in Table 2. The code book will allow the evaluation team to produce different views of the data as well as combine all results into a graphic “heat map” showing in which areas change was strongest, in which areas change was less marked, and draw overall conclusions. Validation of Findings and Development of Recommendations The initial analysis and draft report preparation will be followed by a workshop with USAID/Cambodia and Harvest III staff to generate feedback on the report, collaboratively validate the findings of the evaluation, and co-create recommendations for Harvest III, USAID, and the market systems development community more broadly. The evaluation team will design this workshop collaboratively with MSP and in consultation with USAID/Cambodia,during late April and early May so that invitations and an agenda can be sent out in early May. If useful, a save the date invitation can be sent out in early April to ensure key participants are available to join. 53 Key aspects of the workshop are outlined below. These will be revised and expanded during the workshop design process. Participants: (approximately 25 people expected) • USAID/Cambodia staff • Harvest III staff • MSP staff relevant to the evaluation • Just Results evaluation team. The evaluation team will also consider if other stakeholders should be invited to the workshop and make a recommendation to MSP and USAID with justification by mid-April. It will be important to limit the number of participants so that the group can have a detailed discussion that results in concrete recommendations. Participant Preparations: All workshop participants will be given the draft evaluation report at least two weeks in in advance, together with a description of the workshop including the purpose, agenda and key questions. Workshop participants will be expected to consider their answers to the key questions and feedback on the draft report before the workshop so that they are well prepared to contribute to the workshop deliberations. Draft agenda: 1. Welcome, introductions and purpose of the workshop 2. Presentation, discussion and validation of the findings of the evaluation a. Per evaluation question b. Synthesis of the group’s conclusions on the findings 3. Co-creation of recommendations on: 1. Promoting desired systemic changes 2. Maximizing benefits for male and female farmers, and other market actors 3. Enabling farmers and other market actors to adapt to and mitigate climate change 4. Preventing negative impacts on the environment Summary of recommendations 4. Discussion of other feedback on the evaluation report 5. Wrap-up and closing Venue: Online (A fully virtual workshop is easier to facilitate than a hybrid virtual and in-person workshop. However, a hybrid option can be considered during the design.) Time: Three hours 54 To facilitate the discussion, the evaluation team will prepare a high-quality PowerPoint presentation of approximately 15-20 slides that summarizes the findings of the evaluation, incorporating a gender-sensitive lens, and engages the workshop participants in the findings. Communication and Reporting The reporting of the evaluation findings will involve the following: • The first draft report will be prepared following the field research and analysis. It will explain the extent to which Harvest II contributed to the horticulture sector becoming more competitive, inclusive and resilient, addressing the four evaluation questions and exploring the scale, sustainability and depth of observed changes. It will include draft visual aids. It will not yet include recommendations as these will be developed during the workshop with USAID/Cambodia and Harvest III staff. • The second draft report will incorporate the feedback and conclusions from the validation and recommendations workshop. It will incorporate proposed final versions of all visual aids. • The final report will address feedback on the second draft report and be presented as a high quality product complying with the specifications described in the RFP, the How-To-Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports and A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapters 201. In addition to the evaluation report, the evaluation team will prepare a Learning blog of 750-1500 words that summarizes the learning from the evaluation applicable to the broader market systems development field, reflecting on the evaluation methods and process. The evaluation team will also support MSP in disseminating lessons from the evaluation, for example through social media posts and industry newsletters. 5.4 Limitations Table 7 outlines the limitations of the evaluation, justification for these and measures the evaluation team will take to mitigate them if appropriate. 55 Table 7. Limitations of the evaluation Limitations Justification Mitigation measures if appropriate Lack of baseline and systematic monitoring information on the status of the horticulture sector when the project began in 2017 and changes since then. This information is not available from the Harvest team. The breadth of information required is not easily accessible from secondary sources. The evaluation team will reconstruct the baseline situation of the horticulture market system and the changes that have happened since 2017 to the extent possible based on secondary research, KIIs and IDIs. The evaluation only covers the four targeted subsectors and does not include other crops in which Harvest II worked. The focus on targeted subsectors is necessary to keep the evaluation practical. The targeted subsectors represent most of Harvest II’s work, particularly recently. N/A Respondents are unlikely to be able to clearly differentiate changes experienced by the end of the Harvest II project from changes experiences to date. Therefore, the evaluation may capture some changes experienced since the end of the project. As the evaluation focuses on understanding system change and benefits as well as climate change and environmental practices that evolve over time, the passage of time since Harvest II ended may actually be an advantage. It will allow the evaluation to get a perspective on how changes influenced by Harvest II continue to evolve, either expanding or diminishing since the project was completed. The evaluation team will endeavor to gather information on the timeframes for change to provide as much clarity as possible on the contribution of Harvest II to observed changes. The method to assess the contribution of Harvest II to benefits for male and female farmers and other market actors does not include quantitative longitudinal data and rigorous control groups. The methodology required to quantify financial benefits for farmers or other market actors resulting from Harvest II activities is not practical within the scope of the evaluation given available data. However, the project itself has delivered considerable quantitative data. The evaluation will complement the quantitative data provided by Harvest II with a more holistic examination of benefits that farmers and other market actors have experienced as well as a theory￾based assessment of contribution that will illuminate specific causal links useful for identifying ways to 56 Limitations Justification Mitigation measures if appropriate increase benefits for farmers and other market actors. Parts of evaluation question 3 address objectives that are not included in the project design, specifically reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. As the project does not have a theory of change for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, this aspect of the evaluation will not use a theory-based analysis. The evaluation will assess unintentional positive and negative results related to climate change mitigation and investigate measures the project could reasonably and practically have taken to mitigate greenhouse gases. The evaluation does not quantify changes in greenhouse gas emissions influenced by the project. There is insufficient data available to quantify changes in greenhouse gas emissions influenced by the project. The evaluation will aim to pinpoint sources of greenhouse gas emissions in horticulture value chains and explore how changes in the sector influenced by Harvest II likely increased or mitigated greenhouse gas emissions. Time and resources present limitations on methodology and the scope of the evaluation. Time and resource limitations were given. The evaluation team has endeavored to design an evaluation that maximizes the utility of available resources by ensuring sources of information and research methods can inform multiple questions and to focus the evaluation on the more prominent activities of the project. 57 6 Workplan 6.1 Schedule Table 8. Schedule Phase Deliverable Submission / Completion date I. Desk Review and Evaluation Design Development Kick off calls with USAID and HARVEST II legacy staff December 14 and 15, 2022 Desk Review December 2022 and January 2023 Draft Evaluation Plan End January 2023 Briefing with USAID to discuss Evaluation Plan End January 2023 Final Evaluation Plan Mid-February 2023 II. Fieldwork Conduction of fieldwork to gather data and provide regular updates February 20 – March 31, 2023 (Detailed schedule of fieldwork below) III. Analysis, Reporting and Dissemination First draft Evaluation Report Late May 2023 Workshop for validation of evaluation findings and formulation of recommendations Mid-June 2023 Second draft Evaluation Report Late June 2023 Final Evaluation Report (with cleaned data) Early August 2023 Draft and final Learning Blog Post August 2023 Support dissemination efforts (through social media and newsletters) August 2023 58 An overview of the field work schedule is provided below. Table 9. Fieldwork detailed schedule Activities Timeframe Location 1 IDIs 20 February - 31 March 2023 Phnom Penh, Battambang, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom 2 Data collection tools training 01 March 2023 Phnom Penh 3 Data collection tools piloting – farmer survey 02 March 2023 Vegetable: Kampong Thom Tree crop: Battambang 4 Data collection tools finalizing 02 March 2023 Phnom Penh 5 Survey and FGDs 03-31 March 2023 Battambang, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, Pursat, Preah Vihear, Pailin, Kampong Cham 59 Table 10. Delivery plan Weeks 22-Dec 23-Jan 23-Feb 23-Mar 23-Apr 23-May 23-Jun 23-Jul 23-Aug Phase Deliverable Delivery date 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 I. Desk Review and Evaluation Design Development Desk Review December 2022 and January 2023 Draft Evaluation Plan Late January 2023 Briefing with USAID to discuss Evaluation Plan Early February 2023 Final Evaluation Plan Mid February 2023 II. Fieldwork IDIs February 20 to March 31, 2023 Data collection tools training March 01, 2023 Data collection tools piloting – farmer survey March 02, 2023 Data collection tools finalizing March 04, 2023 Survey and FGDs March 03 to 31, 2023 III. Analysis, Reporting and Dissemination First draft Evaluation Report Late May 2023 Workshop for validation of evaluation findings and formulation of recommendations Mid-June 2023 Second draft Evaluation Report Late June 2023 Final Evaluation Report (with cleaned data) Early August 2023 Draft and final Learning Blog Post August 2023 60 6. 2 Logistical Arrangements Field Work Coordination with Harvest III:The evaluation team has consulted with the Harvest III team in the development of the sampling, choice of locations and field work schedule. The Harvest III team will send introductory emails to relevant value chain actors to introduce the evaluation team and provide information about the evaluation. The Harvest III team will also provide an official letter both in Khmer and English to request permission from the local authorities to conduct interviews with direct and indirect beneficiaries of the Harvest II project. IDIs:The IDIs will be conducted by the Team Leader (supported by an interpreter when necessary), the National Evaluation Advisor and the National Fieldwork Manager. Each IDI will be conducted by a team of 2 people, one focused on guiding the discussion and the other on taking notes and ensuring the interview covers all required points. Field staff for FGDs and the survey: Just Results has contracted enumerators who have experience in field data collection and in using tablets for data collection. Field data collectors will be divided into two groups, one group for the vegetable farmers survey with one supervisor and three enumerators and the other group for the FGDs consisting of a facilitator and notetaker. Venue for data collectors training: Just Results will arrange the venue for enumerators’ training and provide coffee breaks and snacks on a daily basis. There will be two days training, one day for questionnaire training and another day for refreshment after field testing. The venue will be big enough for 15 people and have sufficient technology, i. e. having a projector, tablets for mobile data collection, sound system, consistent electricity, proper lighting, etc. Mobile data collection tool: The vegetable farmers survey will use a mobile data collection app called “Qualtrics”. The field surveyors will be trained how to use this app as well as tested to ensure that they are able to use the app properly. Stationary for field work data collection:Just Results will ensure to have enough material for data collection such as data collection tablets, questionnaire/guideline, target beneficiaries list, notebook, pens, pencils etc. , as required by the enumerators. The questionnaire/guideline will be provided well in advance of the enumerator training in order to ensure that there is adequate time. Transport for all teams for the duration of the field work: Just Results will contract a number of vehicles for field data collection. The type and number of vehicles will be planned based on the numbers of field data collectors. In some circumstances, a motorbike is required for enumerators for the duration of the field work. Vehicles contracted will need to have the capacity to operate effectively in remote areas with little road infrastructure. 61 Analysis: The specifications for the analysis will be further developed collaboratively by the whole evaluation team after the field research in order to provide clear direction to the analysis. The research analysts will lead the data analysis and visualization based on these specifications. As the analyzed data emerges, the evaluation team will conduct frequent meetings to interpret the analyzed data, collaboratively drawing conclusions on the evaluation questions, synthesizing lessons and considering implications. 62 Annex D: Information Sources and Sampling Table 1: List of Harvest II documents reviewed Area / Type of document Document Workplan - Feed the Future Harvest II FY22 WorkPlan - Feed the Future Harvest II FY19 WorkPlan - Feed the Future Harvest II FY18 WorkPlan - Feed the Future Harvest II Gender Action Plan (2017) Performance Data and Reports HARVEST II baseline - Harvest II – Baseline Survey Report - Cambodia Harvest II – Baseline Survey Data FY 2022 - Harvest II Final report - Impact Narrative Report - Five Years of Facilitating Changes FY 2022 data - Indicator 1A_Incremental sales – Year 5 - Indicator 1B_Value of annual sales of farm and firms – Year 5 - Indicator 2A_Number of firms applied improved practices – Year 5 - Indicator 2B_Number of individuals management practices – Year 5 - Indicator 3B_Percent of buyers and suppliers supply chain practice – Year 5 - Indicator 4 _Number of firms now operating more profitably – Year 5 - Indicator 5_Number of FTE jobs created – Year 5 - Indicator 6A_Value of new private sector investment – Year 5 - Indicator 6B_Amount of investment mobilized for sustainable landscapes – Year 5 - Indicator 6C_Value of USG commitment and private sector investment – Year 5 - Indicator 7_Number of policies advanced – Year 5 - Indicator 8_Number of farmers completing requirement CSA – Year 5 - Indicator 9_Number of farmers and small-enterprises adopting at least on CSA – Year 5 - Indicator 10A_MSMEs receiving agricultural related credit – Year 5 - Indicator 10B_Value of agriculture related financing accessed – Year 5 - Indicator 11A_Percentage of female participants – Year 5 - Indicator 11B_Percentage of youth participants – Year 5 63 - Indicator 12_Percentage of CP members who achieve at least 80 percent – Year 5 - Indicator 13_Percentage of CPs maintained or expanded – Year 5 - Indicator 14_Percentage of individuals adopting new practices – Year 5 - Indicator 15_Number of individuals participating – Year 5 FY 2021 - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FY21 Annual Report - Annex F_Consultant report_Capacity Development for SMEs and Agriculture Cooperatives to Improve Competitiveness - Annex F_Consultant Report_Rapid Assessment of Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Market - Annex F_Consultant Report_Rapid Assessment of Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Market-USAID - Annex F_Consultant Report_Rapid Assessment of Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Market-USAID_H2 - Annex E_Exposure Story_FY2021 Annual Report - Annex D_Case Study_FY21 Annual Report - Annex C_Success Story_FY21 Annual Report - Annex G_Financial Report FY21 Annual Report - FTF Cambodia Harvest II_FY21 Inventory Report - FY2021 data - Indicator 1A_EG. 3. 2-5-CUST Incremental sales - FY21 - Indicator 1B_EG. 3. 2-26 Value of Annual sales of farm and firms - FY21 final - Indicator 2A_EG. 3. 2-1-CUST Number of firms applied improved practices - FY21 - Indicator 2B_EG. 3. 2-24 Number of individuals applied improved management practices - FY21 final - Indicator 3B_EG. 3. 2-6 Percent assisted buyers suppliers improved supply chain practices - FY21 - Indicator 4_EG. 3. 2-2-CUST Number of firms now operating more profitably - FY21 - Indicator 5_Number of FTE jobs created - FY21 - Indicator 6A_Value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector - FY21 - Indicator 6B_EG. 13-4 Amount of investment mobilized for sustainable landscapes - FY21 - Indicator 6B_EG. 13-4 Amount of investment mobilized for sustainable landscapes - FY21 - Indicator 6B_EG. 13-4 Amount of investment mobilized for sustainable landscapes - FY21 - Indicator 8_EG. 3. 2-7- Number of farmers and small-medium enterprises completing requirement￾FY21 - Indicator 9_EG. 11. 3-1-CUST Number of farmers and small-enterprises adopting at least on CSA - FY21 - Indicator 10A_MSMEs including farmers receiving agricultural-related credit - FY21 - Indicator 10B_EG. 3. 2-27 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed - FY21 - Indicator 10A_MSMEs including farmers receiving agricultural-related credit - FY21 - Indicator 10B_EG. 3. 2-27 Value of agriculture-related financing accessed - FY21 - Indicator 11A_GNDR-2 Percentage female participants access to productive resources - FY21 64 - Indicator 11B_Youth-3 Percentage participants access to productive resources youth - FY21 - Indicator 12_EG. 3. 2-8- Percentage of commercial partnership members who achieve at least 80% - FY21 - Indicator 13_EG. 3. 2-9-CUST Percentage of commercial partnerships maintained or expanded - FY21 - Indicator 14_EG. 3. 2-10-CUST Percentage of individuals adopting new innovative technology - FY21 - Indicator 15_EG. 3-2 Number of individual participating FY21 finalFolder: Mid-Term Evaluation - New on DIS_EG. 5-IPS-6 _O3. 1 USD sales of firms receiving USG funded assistance (custom) - FY21 - New on DIS_EG. 5. 2-1 Number firms receiving USG-funded TA for improving business performance - FY21 FY 2020 - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FY2020 Annual Report-USAID comments_Clean - Annex F_Consultant Report_Preliminary Draft Contract Farming_Promotion Policy for Cambodia - Annex E_ Exposure Story_FY2020 Annual Report - Annex D_Case Study_FY20 Annual Report - Annex C_Success Story_FY20 Annual Report - Harvest II FY2020 Annual Report - FY2020 Annual Report – PITT (Performance Indicator Tracking Table) FY 2020 data - Indicator 1B_EG. 3. 2-26_Value of annual sales of farms and firms - FY20 - Indicator 2A_Number of firms applied improved practices - FY20 - Indicator 2B_EG. 3. 2-24_Number of individuals in ag. system applying improved practices - FY20 - Indicator 3B_Percent of buyers and suppliers who repeatedly applied SCM practices - FY20 - Indicator 4_Number of firms now operating more profitably - FY20 - Indicator 5_Number of FTE jobs created - FY20 - Indicator 6A_Value of new private sector investment - FY20 - Indicator 6C_EG. 3. 1-14 Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment - FY20 - Indicator 7_Number of policies in each stage advanced - FY20 - Indicator 10A_Number of MSME incl farmers receiving agriculture-related financing accessed - FY20 - Indicator 10B_EG. 3. 2-27_Value of agriculture-related financing accessed - FY20 - Indicator 11A_GNR 2_Percentage of female participants - FY20 - Indicator 11B_Youth 3_Percentage of youth participants - FY20 - Indicator 12_Percentage of CP members who achieve at least 80_ of sales target - FY20 - Indicator 13_Percentage of commercial partnerships maintained - FY20 - Indicator 14_Percentage of individuals adopting new practices - FY20 - Indicator 15_EG 3. 2_Number of individuals participating - FY20 - Indicator EG. 5. 2-1_Number of firms receiving technical assistance for improving business performance - FY20 65 Year 2020 data sets - Indicator 1A_Incremental sales - Project Year 3 - Indicator 1B_Value of annual sales of farms and firms - Project Year 3 - Indicator 2A_Number of firms applied improved practices - Project Year 3 - Indicator 2B_Number of individuals applied improved practices - Project Year 3 - Indicator 3B_Percent of buyers and suppliers who repeatedly applied SCM practices - Project Year 3 - Indicator 4_Number of firms now operating more profitably - Project Year 3 - Indicator 5_Number of FTE jobs created - Project Year 3 - Indicator 6A_Investment Project Year 3 - Indicator 6B_Value of USG commitment and private sector investment - Project Year 3 - Indicator 7_Number of policies in each stage advanced - Project Year 3 - Indicator 8A_Number of MSMEs receiving ag. related credit - Project Year 3 - Indicator 8B_Value of ag related financing accessed - Project Year 3 - Indicator 9_Percentage of women participants - Project Year 3 - Indicator 10_Percentage of youth participants - Project Year 3 - Indicator 11_Percentage of CP members who achieve at least 80_ of sales target - Project Year 3 - Indicator 11_Percentage of CP members who achieve at least 80_ of sales target - Project Year 3 - Indicator 12A. Percentage of individuals adopting new innovative technology, climate-smart agricultural, market information and/or management practices, Project Year 3 - Indicator 12B_Number of individuals participating - Project Year 3 - Indicator 13_Percentage of commercial partnerships maintained - Project Year 3 FY 2019 - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FY19 Annual Report_approved - Grants pipeline 2021-12-06 - Harvest II FY2019 Annual Report - Harvest II - List of GPS coordinates for buyers and producers within commercial partnerships FY 2019 data - Indicator 1B_Value of annual sales of farms and firms (EG. 3. 2-26) - FY19 - Indicator 2B_Number of individuals in ag system applied management practices (EG. 3. 2-24) - FY19 - Indicator 6B_Value of USG commitment and private sector investment (EG. 3. 1-14) - FY19 - Indicator 8A_Number of MSMEs receiving ag. related credit (EG. 3. 2-3) - FY19 - Indicator 8B_Value of ag related financing access (EG. 3. 2-27) - FY19 - Indicator 12B_Individual participants FY19 (EG. 3-2) - FY19 FY 2018 - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FY18 Annual Report_revised_final_clean - Cambodia Harvest II_FY18 Annual Report – Youth Success Story_V2 - Annex E_Harvest II _Report on National PDD on Horticulture Sub-Sector_revised_final 66 - Annex E_Harvest II_Consultant Report on Agricultural Sector Master Plan 2030_revised_final - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FY17 annual report_20171030 - Annex C_FTF Cambodia harvest II – Agricultural Policy Assessment_USAID comments_revised - Harvest II Participants FY2018 FY 2018 data - Indicator 1A_Incremental sales - Project Year 2 - Indicator 1B_Value of annual sales of farms and firms (EG. 3. 2-26) - Project Year 2 - Indicator 2_Number of firms applied improved practices - Project Year 2 - Indicator 3_Number of people improved resilience to climate change - Project Year 2 - Indicator 4_Number of firms now operating more profitably - Project Year 2 - Indicator 5_Number of FTE Jobs Created - Project Year 2 - Indicator 6A_Value of New Private Sector Investment - Project Year 2 - Indicator 6B_Value of USG commitment and private sector investment (EG. 3. 1-14) - Project Year 2 - Indicator 7_Number of Policies in Each Stage of Development - Project Year 2 - Indicator 8A_Number of MSMEs receiving ag. related credit (EG. 3. 2-3) - Project Year 2 - Indicator 8B. Value of ag related financing accessed (EG. 3. 2-27) - Project Year 2 - Indicator 9_Percentage of women participants_GNDR-2 - Project Year 2 - Indicator 10_Percentage of youth participants_GFSS-24-Project Year 2 - Indicator 11_Percentage of CP members who achieve at least 80_ of sales target - Project Year 2 - Indicator 12_Percentage of individuals adopting new innovative technology _ market info - Project Year 2 - Indicator 13_Percentage of commercial partnerships maintained - Project Year 2 Archive data - Indicator 1A_Incremental sales – Year 5 - Indicator 1B_Value of annual sales of farm and firms – FY21 - Indicator 2A_Number of firms applied improved practices – FY21 - Indicator 2B_Number of individuals management practices – FY21 - Indicator 3B_Percent of buyers and suppliers supply chain practice – FY21 - Indicator 4 _Number of firms now operating more profitably – FY21 - Indicator 5_Number of FTE jobs created – FY21 - Indicator 6A_Value of new private sector investment – FY21 - Indicator 6B_Amount of investment mobilized for sustainable landscapes – FY21 - Indicator 6C_Value of USG commitment and private sector investment – FY21 - Indicator 7_Number of policies advanced – FY21 - Indicator 8_Number of farmers completing requirement CSA – FY21 - Indicator 9_Number of farmers and small-enterprises adopting at least on CSA – FY21 - Indicator 10A_MSMEs receiving agricultural related credit – FY21 - Indicator 10B_Value of agriculture related financing accessed – FY21 67 - Indicator 11A_Percentage of female participants – FY21 - Indicator 11B_Percentage of youth participants – FY21 - Indicator 12_Percentage of CP members who achieve at least 80 percent – FY21 - Indicator 13_Percentage of CPs maintained or expanded – FY21 - Indicator 14_Percentage of individuals adopting new practices – FY21 - Indicator 15_Number of individuals participating – FY21 Mid-term evaluation - Mid- Term Performance Evaluation of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II_Final report Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan (2020) HARVEST II beneficiaries - FTF Cambodia Harvest II - List of Former Staff - Indicator 15_Number of individuals participating - Year 5 final - List of FTF Cambodia Harvest II Private Sector Partners as of June 2022 - List of Harvest II Private Sector Partners as of May 2022 Gender action plan - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II_Gender Implementation Plan_2017 Youth Plan - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II - Draft Youth Engagement Plan - Harvest II Youth Engagement- Analysis Final Reports - Impact Narrative Report_Five Years of Facilitating Changes (2022) - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 2017-2022 Farmer & buyer surveys - FTF Cambodia Harvest II Buyer 14 July 2022 (pptx) EMMP and PERSUAP - Simplified RCE/IEE Amendment_Asia 19-031 FTF Harvest II RCE AMD Additional documents received by Harvest III team - Harvest II final report (pdf file) - Impact narrative report, capturing systemic changes (pdf file) - Harvest II buyer survey (pptx file) - Harvest II farmer survey (pptx file) - List of Harvest II private sector partners (xlsx file) 68 - FTF Cambodia Harvest II – Covid Introduction (pdf file) - FTF Cambodia Harvest II – FY21 Subsector Achievements (pdf file) - FTF Cambodia Harvest II – FY22 Work Planning Presentation (pdf file) - FTF Cambodia Harvest II – Grant Agreement Template (word file) - FTF Cambodia Harvest II – Growth Plan Template (word file) - FTF Cambodia Harvest II – List of Buyer and Farmer Location (xlsx file) List of secondary source / contextual documents reviewed Area / Type of document Document Agriculture census • Census of agriculture in the Kingdom of Cambodia 2013 (National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) • Cambodia Inter-Censal Agriculture Survey 2019 (CIAS19) Final Report (National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) • Cambodia Agriculture Survey 2020 (CAS2020) Final Report (National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) Other donor documents in Cambodia • Cambodia Micro, Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (MSME) Strengthening Project - USAID Final Evaluation Report, 2008 (might be too old). • Cambodia Agricultural Value Chain Program – Phase II (CAVAC II) Mid-Term Review • Cambodia Agriculture, Natural resources and rural development sector assessment, strategy and road map, 2021 (Asian Development Bank) • Sustainable Assets for Agriculture Markets, Business and Trade (SAAMBAT), 2019, (International Fund for Agricultural Development) 69 Table 2: Contextual analysis secondary source research Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources Q1 What was the status of each targeted subsector (mango, longan, cashew nut, vegetables) in 2017 and what is it now? For 2017 and most recent: • Production (tonnes, USD) • Number of farmers • Land size under cultivation • Number exporters • Volume of exports • Number processors • Key government policies • Etc. Census of Agriculture in Cambodia 2013 - National Report on Final Census Report (2015). Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries. Rep. Edited by National Institute of Statistics and Ministry of Planning. https://www. techostartup. center/media/uploads/resource/files/Census_of_Agriculture_in_Cambodia_2013. pdf. Census of Cambodia Inter-Censal Agriculture Survey 2019 - Statistical Release (2020). Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries. Rep. Edited by National Institute of Statistics and Ministry of Planning. https://www. nis. gov. kh/nis/Agriculture/CIAS2019/Statistical%20Release%20CIAS%202019_Final_EN. pdf. Cambodia Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development Sector Assessment, Strategy, and Road Map (2021). Asian Development Bank. https://www. adb. org/sites/default/files/publication/718806/cambodia-agriculture-rural-development-road-map. pdf. Cambodia Agriculture Competitiveness Opportunity Assessment - Final Report (2019). The US Government's Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative. https://agrilinks. org/sites/default/files/2018_cambodia_opportunity_identification. pdf. Partnership Ready Cambodia: Agriculture and Food Processing (2020). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. https://www. giz. de/de/downloads/GBN_Sector%20Brief_Kambodscha_Agriculture_E_WEB. pdf. Domestic vegetable production increases in 2020 (2021). Khmer Times. https://www. khmertimeskh. com/50803232/domestic-vegetable-production-increases-in-2020/. In Cambodia’s land of opportunity, the agrifood sector is thriving (2022). https://afid. cdc. gov. kh/agrifood-products/ Asian Development Bank (2021). Cambodia agriculture, natural resources, and rural development sector assessment, strategy, and road map. 70 Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources AFID (2022). Agricultural Categories & top products. ; CIAS (2019). Final report Cambodia inter-census agriculture survey. Abt Associates (2022) Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II, Final Report 2017-2022. Grow Asia (2020). Rapid fruit value chain assessment. Global Business Network Program (2020). Partnership ready Cambodia: agriculture and food processing. World Bank (2020). Cambodia Economic Update: Restrained Recovery-Special Focus Adapting to Covid-19 in an Uncertain World. Khmer Times (2022). Cambodia exports over 2,600 tons of fresh longan to China in 2 months. CPSA; CIRD; RUA (2020). Rapid value chain assessment of longan, mango, dragon fruit, banana, and coconut. General Directorate of Agriculture Cambodia (2023). Annual Report 2022 and Strategic Plan for 2023. Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. Socheata, V. (2023). Cashew processing sector seeks aid. The Phnom Penh Post. USAID (2019). Cambodia Agriculture Competitiveness Opportunity Assessment USAID’s Complexity-Aware Monitoring Discussion Note (updated 2021) USAID’s Guidelines for Monitoring, Evaluating and Learning in MSD (2016). Rapid Fruit Value Chain Assesment of longan, mango, dragon fruit, banana, coconut, May 2020 http://exchange. growasia. org/system/files/CPSA_Rapid%20Fruit%20Value%20Chain%20Assessment%20Report. pdf 71 Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources Cashew nut exports exceeds 200,000 tonnes (October 2020). https://www. phnompenhpost. com/business/cashew-nut-exports-exceed-200000- tonnes#:~:text=Despite%20coronavirus%20border%20restrictions%2C%20Cambodia,Agriculture%2C%20F orestry%20and%20Fisheries%20reported Cambodia exports over 2,600 tons of fresh longan to China in 2 months, December 2022 https://www. khmertimeskh. com/501210126/cambodia-exports-over-2600-tons-of-fresh-longan-to-china￾in-2-months/ Cambodians get better income as more mangos enter Chinese market, March 2023 https://www. khmertimeskh. com/501252044/cambodians-get-better-income-as-more-mangoes-enter￾chinese-market/ Longan, mango farmers to get export quality training, July 2022 https://www. khmertimeskh. com/501119198/longan-mango-farmers-to-get-export-quality-training/ Talks on to set up mango processing plant in Kampong Sheu, June 2022 https://www. khmertimeskh. com/501088562/talks-on-to-set-up-mango-processing-plant-in-kampong-speu/ Australasian Agribusiness Perspective, 2021 https://cpb-ap-se2. wpmucdn. com/blog. une. edu. au/dist/4/1340/files/2021/11/AAP-Vol-24-Paper-21-Meng. pdf Domestic vegetable production increases in 2020, January 2021 https://www. khmertimeskh. com/50803232/domestic-vegetable-production-increases-in-2020/ Foreign food processors attracted by Kingdom’s diverse agriculture, January 2020 https://www. khmertimeskh. com/675826/foreign-food-processors-attracted-by-kingdoms-diverse￾agriculture/ Cambodia set to become world’s largest cashew producer, says Prime Minister Hun Sen, March 2023 72 Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources https://www. khmertimeskh. com/501252766/cambodia-set-to-become-worlds-largest-cashew-producer￾says-prime-minister-hun-sen/ Contract farming in Mondulkiri fruits and vegetables rolling out, January 2021 https://www. khmertimeskh. com/50807971/contract-farming-in-mondulkiri-fruit-and-vegetables-rolling-out/ Longan farmers fret over China export delay, September 2022 https://cambodianess. com/article/longan-farmers-fret-over-china-export￾delay#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Ministry%27s%20report,directly%20after%20bananas%20and%20 mangoes Cashew production, processing and commercialization in Kampong Thom and Preah Vihear provinces field assessment report, September 2019 http://exchange. growasia. org/system/files/Cashew%20VC%20assessment%20in%20KgT%26PVH￾final%20report-compr. pdf How has each targeted subsector changed over the last five years? • Changes in structure of value chains • Changes in production (eg quality, inputs, technologies) • Innovations and trends in products, processing, standards/certi fications, marketing, branding, logistics Need Assessment of Traceability System for Vegetable Value Chains. Techno Startup Center, December 2020. https://www. techostartup. center/media/uploads/resource/files/Traceability_Vegetables. pdf. Annual Progress Report. Cambodia Partnership for Sustainable Agriculture (CPSA), 2020. https://cpsa￾growasia. org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/20210602_Annual-Report-2020_Final. pdf. Rapid Fruit Value Chain Assessment of Longan, Mango, Dragon Fruit, Banana, Coconut. Cambodia Partnership for Sustainable Agriculture, May 2020. http://exchange. growasia. org/system/files/CPSA_Rapid%20Fruit%20Value%20Chain%20Assessment%20Report. pdf. Meng, Rithea. Dissertation. Value Chain Analysis of Keo Romeat Mangoes in Cambodia. Dissertation, Global Centre for Food and Resources, University of Adelaide, 2021. https://cpb-ap-se2. wpmucdn. com/blog. une. edu. au/dist/4/1340/files/2021/11/AAP-Vol-24-Paper-21-Meng. pdf. 73 Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources • Changes in government policies, laws and regulations, and public/private cooperation • Change in service provision to value chain actors (finance, marketing etc.) • Power sharing, trust, depth of relationships etc. • Inclusion (esp. women and youth) – roles, access to resources and opportunities • Conservation of natural resources (sources of income from NATIONAL STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2019-2023. ROYAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMBODIA, July 2019. https://data. opendevelopmentmekong. net/dataset/087e8a03-f09d-4eb2-94f2- 00d8d237b342/resource/bb62a621-8616-4728-842f-33ce7e199ef3/download/nsdp-2019-2023_en. pdf. Value chain in decline: WTO, Octboer 2014 https://phnompenhpost. com/business/value-chain-decline-wto Grow Asia to focus on value chain projects, May 2017 https://www. phnompenhpost. com/business/grow-asia-focus-value-chain-projects The key to integrating Cambodia into global value chains, August 2019 https://www. khmertimeskh. com/630616/the-key-to-integrating-cambodia-into-global-value-chains/ Need assessment of traceability system for vegetable value chain, December 2020 https://www. techostartup. center/media/uploads/resource/files/Traceability_Vegetables. pdf ADB approves $70 million loan to strengthen agricultural value chain and food safety in Cambodia, November 2020 https://www. khmertimeskh. com/50787037/adb-approves-70-million-loan-to-strengthen-agricultural-value￾chain-and-food-safety-in-cambodia/ Agriculture innovations hold key to sustainable production intensification and increasing farmers’ income, February 2022 https://www. khmertimeskh. com/501027418/agriculture-innovations-hold-key-to-sustainable-production￾intensification-and-increasing-farmers-income/ Climate change vulnerability and impact assessment, February 2014 https://www. academia. edu/12121067/Climate_change_vulnerability_and_impact_assessment Conservation agriculture and sustainable intensification consortium, June 2020 74 Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources more sustainable practices, government policies) • Adaptation to climate change (applied measures for water scarcity, droughts, government public infrastructure investments) https://www. swisscontact. org/_Resources/Persistent/5/1/9/5/51956a34be8cb0eaf28ed97161ebe3d299cb1176/Info_Pack￾CASIC_EN_Digital. pdf What are the reasons for changes noted above? • Key drivers of change As above. Q3 How is climate change affecting horticulture in Cambodia? • Climate change effects on horticultural production in Cambodia (weather variability, increased intensity of Cambodia Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Rural Development Sector Assessment, Strategy, and Road Map. Asian Development Bank, July 2021. https://www. adb. org/sites/default/files/publication/718806/cambodia￾agriculture-rural-development-road-map. pdf. Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture in Cambodia. Cambodia Partnership for Sustainable Agriculture, n. d. https://cpsa-growasia. org/en/climate-change-and-sustainable-agriculture-in-cambodia/. 75 Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources frequency of floods and droughts, etc.) • Climate change effects on horticulture value chains in Cambodia Pauly, M. , Crosse, W. & Tosteson, J. High deforestation trajectories in Cambodia slowly transformed through economic land concession restrictions and strategic execution of REDD+ protected areas. Sci Rep 12, 17102 (2022). https://doi. org/10. 1038/s41598-022-19660-0 High deforestation trajectories in Cambodia slowly transformed through economic land concession restrictions and strategic execution of REDD+protected areas https://www. nature. com/articles/s41598-022-19660-0#ref-CR21 Climate risk profile: Cambodia, 2021 https://climateknowledgeportal. worldbank. org/sites/default/files/2021-08/15849- WB_Cambodia%20Country%20Profile-WEB. pdf Climate change causes cashew yields to plummet, April 2022 https://cambodianess. com/article/climate-change-causes-cashew-yields-to-plummet Cashew nut plantation area falls due to climate change, October 2022 https://www. khmertimeskh. com/501174931/cashew-nut-plantation-area-falls-due-to-climate-change/ Long-term effect on cassaca cultivation on soil productivity, March 1991 https://www. sciencedirect. com/science/article/abs/pii/037842909190053X Trade and environmental sustainability in Cambodia: A case study of rice, cassava, and fish, December 2010 https://repository. unescap. org/bitstream/handle/20. 500. 12870/1401/ESCAP-2010-WP-Trade-and￾environmental-sustainability-in-Cambodia. pdf? sequence=1&isAllowed=y Cambodia national study: promotion of climate resilience in rice and cassava, 2015 https://asean-crn. org/cambodia-national-study-promotion-of-climate-resilience-in-rice-and-cassava/ Dahles H. (2021). Cambodia’s Uncertain Rebound in 2021. University of Tasmania. Khmer Smart Weather Forecast 76 Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources Khmer Weather Forecast What are available practices, technologies, services, information and business models to support climate change adaptation? • Climate resilient technologies for farmers • Climate resilient practices for farmers • Services for farmers to support climate resilience (eg information, finance) • Climate resilient technologies and practices for other market actors • Value chain efficiency CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGIC PLAN 2014 – 2023. ROYAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMBODIA - National Climate Change Committee, 2013. https://www4. unfccc. int/sites/NAPC/Documents/Parties/Cambodia_CCCSP. pdf. Climate change strategic plan for disaster management sector, 2013 https://ncsd. moe. gov. kh/sites/default/files/phocadownload/POLICYFRAMEWORK/NATIONALPOLICIES/SectoralCCSP/climate% 20change%20strategic%20plan%20for%20disaster%20management-en-final. pdf Roadmap of Cambodia conservation agriculture and sustainable intensification consortium, 2022 – 2026 https://uploads-ssl. webflow. com/6126fbe77de2da46c24ab103/6131cf6e9979f71af8362117_CASIC_Roadmap_final_En . pdf Piseth, S. , Y. Monyoudom and H. Tynarath (2021) Cambodia’s Agri-Food Trade: Structure, New Emerging Potentials, Challenges and Impacts of Covid-19. USAID Feed the Future. ’’ CEIC Data (2021) Cambodia Production: Short Term Crops: Vegetables Khmer Times (2021) Domestic vegetable production increases in 2020. USAID Feed the Future (2023) Practitioners’ Guidance to Assessing Systems Change. How do available climate change adaptation practices, Comparison of available climate adaptation technologies, practices etc. in Same as above. 77 Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources technologies etc. compare? terms of effectiveness and benefit for farmers and other market actors What are the most significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions in horticultural value chains in Cambodia? Specific practices and functions, e. g. Fertilizer usage and sourcing, ELCs, lodging, rice fermentation Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Cambodia. USAID , April 2017. https://www. climatelinks. org/sites/default/files/asset/document/2017_USAID_GHG%20Emissions%20Factsheet_Cambodia . pdf. Bhattacharyya, S. S. , F. F. Leite, C. L. France, A. O. Adekoya, G. H. Ros, W. de Vries, E. M. Melchor￾Martínez, H. M. N. Iqbal and R. Parra-Saldívar (2022). Soil carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, and water pollution under different tillage practices. Science of The Total Environment, Volume 826. What are the most significant opportunities to lessen or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in horticultural value chains in Specific practices and functions, e. g. change in technology or upgraded technology such as solar energy Agricultural Technological Practices and Gaps for Climate Change Adaptation. Cambodia Development Resource Institute, March 2015. https://cdri. org. kh/storage/pdf/wp100e_1617792745. pdf. Lenka, S. , N. Lenka, V. Sejian and M. Mohanty (2015). Contribution of Agriculture Sector to Climate Change. Chapter 3 in Sejian, V. et al. (eds.) Climate Change Impact on Livestock: Adaptation and Mitigation. Springer India Fitzpatrick, J. (2021). Situational Analysis – Cambodian Mango Sector. USAID Feed the Future Harvest II. Fitzpatrick, J. (2019). Situational Analysis – Cambodian Cashew Sector. USAID Feed the Future Harvest II. 78 Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources Cambodia? How do approaches compare in terms of effectiveness? Agriculture Victoria (2020). Greenhouse gas emissions from horticulture Do any government policies, laws, regulations or programs support reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in horticulture in Cambodia? Specific government policies, laws, regulations or programs with brief descriptions CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGIC PLAN 2014 – 2023. ROYAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMBODIA - National Climate Change Committee, 2013. https://www4. unfccc. int/sites/NAPC/Documents/Parties/Cambodia_CCCSP. pdf. How do targeted and non-targeted crops compare in terms of their effects on climate change Eg speed of growth, tolerance to heat and variable weather International Finance Corporation and the European Union (2010). Prospects for Cambodia’s Cashew Sub￾sector. 79 Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources adaptation and mitigation? Are targeted crops associated with deforestation? How does this compare with other crops? Specific information and evidence e. g. “Agriculture is the second largest contributor, mainly through cultivation of rice” “mango is a drought tolerant crop [. . . ] Mango orchards produce a green canopy which can contribute to decreasing Cambodia’s carbon footprint. ” Pradeep, Adur. Cambodia’s GHG emissions remain relatively low. Khmer Times, December 2022. https://www. khmertimeskh. com/501206728/cambodias-ghg-emissions-remain-relatively-low/. Feasibility Study Report for Tram Kak On-Farm Water Management Subproject - Cambodia: Climate￾Friendly Agribusiness Value Chains Sector Project (2018). Asian Development Bank. https://www. adb. org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/48409-002-sd-02. pdf. Q4 What are available practices for firms and farms to prevent or • Specific practices and technologies. • How they compare in preventing negative No references. 80 Evalu ation Quest ion Questions for contextual analysis Information needed Potential sources mitigate negative environmental impacts in the four targeted crops (or horticulture more generally)? How do these compare in terms of effectiveness? environmental impacts Recom menda tions Strengthen the process for promoting system change USAID (2014) A Framework for Inclusive Market Systems Development. USAID (2016) Guidelines for Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning in Market Systems Development. USAID Feed the Future (2023) Practitioners’ Guidance to Assessing System Change. Springfield Centre (2015) The Operational Guide for the Marking Markets Work for the Poor (M4P) Approach. BEAM Exchange Guidance. Posthumus et al. (2020) A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change. 81 Table 1 Harvest II and consultants (workshops, interviews) Session Date & Time (Cambodia time) Description Harvest II staff Evaluation team 1 Tuesday 10 January 2023, 8:00- 10:00 am - Theory of Change of the project - Goals 1 & 2 - Situation pre-COVID-19 1. Nimish Jhaveri 2. Kalyan Ith 3. Vanda Kham 4. Pagchak-Roat Men 5. Sereyrith Ly 6. Tongseng Kor 7. Pisith Oeuk 8. Soeng Vay 9. Chamroeun Hin 10. Nora Tu 1. Aly Mielbradt 2. Makararavy Ty 3. Riguen Thorn 4. Euvodie Pierre 5. Tola Prom 6. Sokhannaro Hep 2. Subsector specific sessions focused on during and post-COVID and stakeholders 2. 1 Thursday 12 January 2023, 8:00- 9:00 am Vegetables 1. Nimish Jhaveri 2. Kallyan Ith 3. Soeng Vay 4. Pagchak-Roat Men 1. Aly Mielbradt 2. Makararavy Ty 3. Riguen Thorn 4. Euvodie Pierre 5. Tola Prom 2. 2 Thursday 12 January 9:30-10:30 am Mango 1. Nimish Jhaveri 2. Kallyan Ith 3. Chamroeun Hinn 4. Nora Tu 1. Aly Mielbradt 2. Makararavy Ty 3. Riguen Thorn 4. Euvodie Pierre 5. Tola Prom 2. 3 Friday 13 January 8:00-9:00 am Longan 1. Nimish Jhaveri 2. Kallyan Ith 3. Tongseng Kor 4. Pisith Oeuk 1. Aly Mielbradt 2. Makararavy Ty 3. Riguen Thorn 4. Euvodie Pierre 5. Tola Prom 82 Session Date & Time (Cambodia time) Description Harvest II staff Evaluation team 2. 4 Friday 13 January 2023, 9:30-10:30 am Cashew 1. Nimish Jhaveri 2. Kallyan Ith 3. Sereyrith Ly 4. Vanda Kham 1. Aly Mielbradt 2. Makararavy Ty 3. Riguen Thorn 4. Euvodie Pierre 3 Thursday 19 January 2023, 8:00- 10:00 am Goal 3 Validate evaluation team understanding Feedback on the evaluation plan 1. Nimish Jhaveri 2. Kalyan Ith 3. Vanda Kham 4. Pagchak-Roat Men 5. Sereyrith Ly 6. Tongseng Kor 7. Pisith Oeuk 8. Soeng Vay 9. Chamroeun Hin 10. Nora Tu 1. Aly Mielbradt 2. Makararavy Ty 3. Riguen Thorn 4. Euvodie Pierre 5. Tola Prom 6. Sokhannaro Hep 4. Wednesday 29 March 2023, 8:00 – 9:00 am Business enabling environment key informant interview with James Fitzpatrick - 1. Lara Goldmark 2. Sajda Karmacharya 5. Tuesday 18 April 2023, 9:00 – 9:30 am Business enabling environment key informant interview with Sak Sambath - 1. Lara Goldmark 6. Monday 24 April 2023, 9:00 – 9:30 am Business enabling environment key informant interview with Tho Kim Eng - 1. Lara Goldmark 2. Sajda Karmacharya 7. Monday 30 January 2023, 10:00 – 11:00 am Business enabling environment key informant interview with Luke Colavito 1. Lara Goldmark 83 Session Date & Time (Cambodia time) Description Harvest II staff Evaluation team 8. Thrusday 4 May 2023, 11:00 – 11:30 pm Business enabling environment key informant interview with Pramol Meak [the interviewee did not attend the meeting] 1. Sajda Karmacharya Table 2 IDI summary table Partner Not reached Sector Mango 11 - Cashew 11 - Longan 3 - Vegetable 9 5 Mango and others 1 - Longan, cashew, and mango 2 - Mango, longan, and other 1 - Vegetable and mango 1 - Cashew and mango - 2 Longan and Cashew 1 - Cashew and other - 1 General 11 4 Other 1 - Total 52 12 84 Category Service Provider 12 2 Buyer/Processor/Exporter 31 5 Input supplier 3 2 Agriculture Cooperative 4 - Retailer - 1 Other 2 2 Total 52 12 Table 3 IDI Harvest II partners # Organization Sector Category 1 SHE Agrocam General Service Provider 2 Top Planning Japan Cambodia (Cambodian subsidiary) Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 3 Handcrafted cashew nut Stung Treng (HCST) Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 4 Aliments Vegetable Buyer/Processor/Exporter 5 Misota Food Import Export Mango Buyer/Processor/Exporter 6 Angkor Green Investment and Development (Cambodia) Co. , Ltd. General Input supplier 7 Confirel Co. ,Ltd Mango Buyer/Processor/Exporter 8 Chey Sambo Cashew Nut Processing Handcraft Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 9 Cashew nut Association of Cambodia (CAC) Cashew Agricultural Cooperative 10 Mlis Leap Cashew Enterprise Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 11 Kiv Sok kan ( Chhae Ou) Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 85 # Organization Sector Category 12 Dok Phearum Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 13 Pongro Vegetable Garden Vegetable Buyer/Processor/Exporter 14 Cambodia Food Manufactor Association (CFMA) Mango and others Buyer/Processor/Exporter 15 Bout Nhoeun Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 16 Laey Baitong / Soil for Life Vegetable Producer Buyer 17 Pechenda Fruit Production Company Longan Agricultural Cooperative Buyer/Processor/Exporter 18 Kouy Mealea Vegetable Buyer/Processor/Exporter 19 Navita Healthy Food & Beverages Co. , Ltd. Longan Buyer/Processor/Exporter 20 Teacher at Battambang University Mango, longan, and other Producer 21 Song Mouy Vegetable Input Supplier 22 Tasey Samaki Agricultural Cooperative (TSAC) Vegetable Agricultural Cooperative 23 Santana Agro Products Co. Ltd. Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 24 Banhji FinTech Co. Ltd. General Service Provider 25 Mith Hasika Vegetables Service Provider 26 Remic Vegetables Buyer/Processor/Exporter 27 Vann Piseth General Service Provider 28 Ample Agro Product Co. , Ltd. (Ample) Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 29 Kirirom Food Production Co. ,Ltd Mango Buyer/Processor/Exporter 30 M23 Cashew Enterprise Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 31 Natural Agriculture Village (NAV) Vegetables Buyer/Processor/Exporter 32 Buntong Borarin Sokmean Vann Vegetable Service Provider 86 # Organization Sector Category 33 Cambodia Agriculture Cooperative Alliance (CACA) Longan Agriculture Cooperative 34 Richfarm Asia Co. , Ltd. Mango Buyer/Processor/Exporter 35 Azaylla Cambodia Co. , Ltd Vegetable, Mango Buyer/Processor/Exporter 36 East-West Seed (Cambodia) Co. , Ltd. General Input supplier 37 Green Fresh Market Vegetables Buyer/Processor/Exporter 38 Seasonfresh (Cambodia) Co. , Ltd. Mango Buyer/Processor/Exporter 39 AMK Microfinance Institution PLC General Service Provider 40 Khmer Organic Cooperative Co. , Ltd. Vegetable Buyer/Processor/Exporter 41 CSL Enterprise (CSL) Longan, Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 42 Grove Fruit Growers Co. Ltd. Mango Buyer/Processor/Exporter 43 Kamya AgriTrade Co. , Ltd. Cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 44 International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) Vegetable Service provider 45 Generation One Co. Ltd. General Service provider 46 KCCV Plantation Co. , Ltd. Longan, cashew, mango Buyer/Processor/Exporter 47 Puzzle Solution Co. , Ltd. General Service provider 48 Peng Seng Doctor Water General Service Provider 49 Angkor Mango project (AGID) Mango Buyer/Processor/Exporter 50 Chamroeun Microfinance Plc. General Service provider 51 Cambodia Pepper and Spices Federation (CPSF) Other Agricultural Cooperative 52 Husk Ventures General Service provider 87 Table 4 IDI not reached # Organization Sector Category 1 Lala Garden Vegetables Buyer/Processor/Exporter 2 Chhour Makara Vegetables Buyer/Processor/Exporter 3 Makro supermarket General Retailer 4 Techo Startup Centre General Service provider 5 Agros General Input supplier 6 KsSeed Vegetables Input supplier 7 City of Sprouts Vegetables Producer 8 Svay Angkor Cashew and other Buyer/Processor/Exporter 9 HESED Agriculture Traiding Co. Cashew and mango Buyer/Processor/Exporter 10 Forte Insurance General Service provider 11 Svay Angkor Enterprise Mango and cashew Buyer/Processor/Exporter 12 Visnuth Farm Vegetables Producer Table 5 Types of farmers interviewed and sampling FGDs Sample FGDs with farmers 17 IDIs with farmers 8 Total direct farmers 61 Total not reached farmers 23 Total mango farmers 32 Total longan farmers 10 Total cashew farmers 42 Total female farmers 33 Total male farmers 51 Total farmers 84 88 Table 6 Survey – types of farmers surveyed, sampling and notes on sampling Survey Completed March 24 Farmers who adopted new practices 200 Farmers who did not adopt new practices 100 Farmers reached indirectly 50 Total farmers 350 Notes on survey sampling: The sampling populations come from examining two sets of data from Harvest II (Indicators 2B and 15) collected over the life of the project, to arrive at those farmers who were reached by Harvest II interventions and adopted practice changes and those who were reached by Harvest II interventions and did not adopt practice changes. ‘Copying farmers’ are those not reached by Harvest II partners directly but who copied or were influenced by the behavior changes of those farmers reached by Harvest II partners and who adopted improved practices. The population of vegetable farmers reached by Harvest II is 4,653 (which is 3,499 who improved practices plus 1,154 who did not improve practices.) The optimal sample size for this population is 247. The evaluation team plans for to sample 300 farmers reached by Harvest II so that the sample size will still be sufficient should there be some challenges in the field finding respondents. The calculation of the optimal samples size for farmers reached by Harvest is provided below. A. Formula To compute the sample size for vegetable farmers, we rely on the optimal sample size calculation for statistical theory defined as follow: n=z2*p*(1-p)/e^21+(z2*p*1-pe*N) Where n is the optimal sample size to be calculated p is the population proportion z is the value associated with the chosen confidence level from the table of Gaussian Normal Distribution; and e is the margin error 89 N is the total population of interest B. Parameters definition: p when not known is usually assumed to be 0. 5. In this case, given that the population of the beneficiaries is known to the researcher, we can take p to be higher than 0. 5. We will use the value of 0. 6. confidence level = 90% Z-score: 1. 64 C. Result: After calculations, we determine the optimal size to be 247 beneficiaries. Do not mention specific people/organizations (to maintain confidentiality) Summary of calculations: A= Z^2* p*(1-p)/e^2 Sample size= A /1+(A*1/N) Confidence Level 90% p 60% Error 0. 05 Population size 4653 Alpha divided by 2 0. 05 Z-Score 1. 644853627 A 259. 7321716 90 Sample Size 247 Annex E: Data Collection and Analysis Tools Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guide with farmers FGDs will be carried out with male and female farmers who have been reached directly or indirectly by Harvest II in three subsectors: mango, longan, and cashews. The objective is to collect insights on system changes and the benefits that they have experienced from system improvements facilitated by Harvest II as well as practices and technologies related to climate change adaptation and environmental stewardship. Each FGD will be composed of 4-6 farmers. The evaluation team will conduct 20 FGDs across 5 provinces: Battambang, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, Preah Vihear and Pailin. The FGDs will involve approximately 100 farmers. Consent will be requested at the beginning of each FGD from each participant. General Information on the FGD Subsector Province District Commune Village Gender (women / men / mixed) Date Time start Time end Name of FGD facilitator Name of notetaker 91 Introduction: Interviewers will introduce themselves and explain the purpose of the interview and how the information will be used. The interviewers will inform respondents that their participation is strictly voluntary, that all information discussed is confidential, and that interviewees will not be individually identified in the reporting of findings. Verbal consent must be gained and be included in the notes. Introductory comments: Hello! My name is __________________. I am a researcher with Just Results. We are conducting research related to the Cambodia Harvest II project. I will be asking you about your roles and experience in _____________ (name of subsector) production and marketing, and how and why that has changed over the last five years as well as your opinions about the ____________ (name of subsector) sector overall. I will also be asking about your involvement and opinions on activities sponsored by the project. The discussion will take approximately 2 hours. This discussion will be confidential. We will share your insights with project stakeholders without identifying you as the source. The information will be used to understand changes in the _______________ (name of subsector) sector and to assess the accomplishments of the project, what worked and what did not work as a constructive lesson learning process. This discussion is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any or all of the questions if you want. We hope that you will participate since your views are important. Do you have any questions? Do you agree to be part of the discussion? We would like to record this discussion to ensure we are taking accurate notes. The recording will not be shared beyond our evaluation team. Do you consent to this discussion being recorded? 92 FGD Participants # Name Gender Age Categorya Contact number Number of household membersb Family members active in subsectorc Total Women a. 1. 15-29; 2. 30-49; 3. 50 and over b. How many members are currently living in your household? (Live and eat together.) c. How many members in your family are involved in (name subsector) production and marketing? How many of them are women? Introduction 1. How long have you grown mango/cashew/longan? 2. What were the main reasons you decided to grow mango/cashew/longan? Why have you continued? Changes in the subsector and effects on the business 3. What has changed in the Cashew Nut/Mango/Longan subsector over the last 5 years? Why? (Facilitator: Identify the three most important and discuss how and why these changes occurred. Possible factors to discuss are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. changes in demand; b. Government policies, programs and actions; c. Relationships with buyers (in person/ virtual interaction, trust, support provided by buyers) d. Relationships with input suppliers; e. Availability of information, type of information available, information flows; 93 4. How have these changes affected your production and sales over the last 5 years? (Facilitator: Identify the three most important and discuss details of the changes. Possible effects are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. Production changes –inputs (fertilizer and pesticide), harvesting b. More/less, different markets c. Other changes 5. Have you tried anything new in mango/longan/cashew nut in the last three years? If so, what? Why? Interaction with Harvest II and results 6. What crop/s do you grow for Buyer XX (name Harvest II partner)? 7. What activities have you done with Buyer XX (name Harvest II partner) or other Harvest II partners? (Facilitator: Check all in the table below and probe as directed. Use the table for notetaking.) 94 Knowledge and adoption of practices from Harvest II project For Adopted & Non-adopted farmer: What are the types of agriculture information that you have learned from Harvest II/Harvest II partners? (Call out: CACA, CAC, Kamya, CSC, Angkor Green, Seasonfresh, Confirel etc.) For Indirect farmer: What are the types of agriculture information that you have learned from adopted farmer (call out the name of adopted farmer)? # List of PRACTICE CHANGES in the 3 sub-sectors Crop a. Did you get knowledge? (Yes/No, if no skip to next practice) b. Did you apply that knowledge? (Yes/No) c. Reasons for applying/not applying knowledge d. Did you get any benefit from adaptation? (Yes/No) 1 Improve business and/or financial management Mango/Cashew/Longan 2 Technical advice to improve yields or quality Mango/Cashew/Longan 3 CamGAP practices/certification Mango/Cashew/Longan 4 Formal / informal agreements and coordination (i.e., crop planning, contract farming, purchasing agreements, etc.) Mango/Cashew/Longan 5 FinTech / Digital financial platforms Mango/Cashew/Longan 6 Participated in supply-chain financing / input credits Mango/Cashew/Longan 7 Access to new or different inputs Mango/Cashew/Longan 8 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) such as biological control, change of cultural practices, and uses improved seed varieties Mango/Cashew/Longan 9 Improved fertilizer practice Mango/Cashew/Longan 10 Smart irrigation: (e.g., drip) Mango/Cashew/Longan 11 Climate Smart Agricultural practices (CSA) Mango 12 Organic farming practice Cashew 13 Traceability system Cashew 95 14 Other ________________________ Mango/Cashew/Longan 96 Impacts from Interaction with Harvest II 8. Has your relationship with buyer X changed since participation in Harvest II? Yes/No? How has it changed? Why? (Facilitator; Identify the three most important and discuss details of how the relationship has changed. Possible changes are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. Shorter/longer term relationship b. Production and sales volume c. Coordination, purchase agreements, contract farming d. Trust and sharing power in the relationship. e. Access to information f. Access to credit/inputs from buyer (ask for the terms of the agreement on credit) 9. What impacts have there been (positive and negative) from your interactions with Buyer XX and other activities supported by Harvest II compared to before your buyer worked with Harvest II? (Facilitator: Check all below.) a. Production i. Longer/shorter growing season ii. More/less regular (throughout the season) b. Sales and income: i. Higher/lower prices ii. Income for more/less of the year Male (Facilitator: check these questions for male groups only) 10. Compared to before Buyer X started working with Harvest II, how do you feel about your involvement in mango/longan/cashew nut: a. Greater/less control over transactions with your buyer? Why? b. Shorter/longer term perspective on your business? Why? Female/youth (Facilitator: check these for female groups and/or if there are any youth participants.) 11. Compared to before Buyer X started working with Harvest II, how do you feel about your involvement in mango/longan/cashew nut: a. More/less control over production? Why? 97 b. More/less control over sales? Why? c. More/less control over income from mango/longan/cashew nut? Why? 12. Have you taken any new roles or leadership positions in mango/longan/cashew nut? If so, what roles/positions? 13. What barriers do you face as a woman/youth in the mango/longan/cashew nut business? Have these changed? Has your ability to overcome them changed? Why? Sustainability and scale 14. Are you continuing the activities initiated under HARVEST II support now? Why or why not? Environmental stewardship 15. Did you learn the pesticide application practices in the IPM training? a. Yes, how many workers have you shared to? _________________. Have they changed pesticide application? Why? How, particularly related to type, doses, timing and at pre-harvest interval? b. No 16. Have you expanded your production area? Probe: a. Expansion area: b. Why? c. How did you expand the land area for production? i. Any reserve land or clearance of new land? ii. Replace existing crop with new crop? Climate change adaptation 17. Do you use meteorology information for your planting plan? a. If yes, when did you start? Where do you get the information? how does it help you? b. If no, why not? 18. What impacts do you observe with the changes in climate,? How do you deal with this? 98 Systemic change 19. Have you shared new practices with other farmers? If so, probe: a. What practices, techniques or technologies did you share? b. How many farmers/HH did you share them with? c. Do you think that they applied the practices, techniques or technologies you shared? Why or why not? (Notetaker: Note down who shared practices with other farmers and get names and contact information for those farmers after the FGD is finished.) 20. Are there any other buyers that started doing the same things as your existing buyers? Recommendations 21. What could Harvest III do better to assist you to improve of your sales and/or improve your relationship with your buyer? 22. Do you currently get any support from other projects? If so, from what agency or project? What kinds of support? In-depth interview (IDI) question guides IDIs with Harvest II partners and other market actors involved in horticulture will be conducted to understand in detail system changes, benefits for market actors from Harvest II facilitated improvements in the system, climate change adaptation and environmental stewardship. These interviews will also explore causality using the ‘intervention lens’ and ‘helicopter lens’. The respondents have been chosen to represent the range of activities on which Harvest II worked with partners, while putting more emphasis on the project’s major activities. For manageability, the location of market actors has also been considered. There will be a total of 64 IDIs with market actors covering a majority of the market actors with whom Harvest II had significant interaction as well as some that may have been reached indirectly. 33 IDIs will be with firms, such as buyers, processors and input suppliers, operating in the subsectors and with which Harvest II partnered. Four will be with agriculture cooperatives and 13 will be with service providers (financial institutions, fintech, logistics, marketing and export facilitation companies) with which Harvest II partnered or subcontracted. 14 market actors with whom Harvest II did not partner but may have been influenced by behaviors of other market actors or system changes more broadly will be interviewed, provided they can be found. 99 Consent will be requested at the beginning of each IDI from each participant. Introduction: Interviewers will introduce themselves and explain the purpose of the interview and how the information will be used. The interviewers will inform. respondents that their participation is strictly voluntary, that all information discussed is confidential, and that interviewees will not be individually identified in the reporting of findings. Verbal consent must be gained and be included in the notes. Introductory comments: Hello! My name is __________________. I am a researcher with Just Results. We are conducting research related to the Cambodia Harvest II project. I will be asking you about the horticulture sector, your roles and experience in _____________ (name of relevant subsectors) and how and why that has changed over the last five years. I will also be asking about your involvement and opinions on activities sponsored by the project. The interview will take approximately 1 hour. Our discussion will be confidential. We will share your insights with project stakeholders without identifying you as the source. The information will be used to understand changes in the _______________ (name of subsectors) sector and to assess the accomplishments of the project, what worked and what did not work as a constructive lesson learning process. This discussion is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any or all of the questions if you want. We hope that you will participate since your views are important. Do you have any questions? Do you agree to be interviewed? We would like to record this discussion to ensure we are taking accurate notes. The recording will not be shared beyond our evaluation team. Do you consent to this discussion being recorded? Instructions: Fill out as much as possible below before the interview using the IDI schedule. Name of Interviewer(s): Name of Notetaker: Name of interviewee: Organization: Role of interviewee: Interviewee category: Address of interviewee 100 Telephone number of interviewee: Date of interview: Consent given: Gender: Age Category: 1. 15-29; 2. 30-49; 3. 50 and over Value chain actors who partnered with Harvest II Cashew nut, mango, longan and vegetables Note: Additional questions per subsector are included at the end. Buyers/Processors/Exporters General 1. What does your business do? (Please provide an overview of the products and services your business offers.) 2. How many employees does your business currently have? Changes in the subsector and effects on the business 3. What has changed in the Cashew Nut/Mango/Longan/Vegetable subsector over the last 5 years? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and focus on understanding how and why for those. Possible factors are provided below to probe if necessary.) a. Effects of COVID-19 b. Cashew nut, mango, longan: International trade trends / changes in export markets c. Longan, vegetable: Changes in demand and marketing channels in domestic markets d. Innovations and trends in products, processing, technologies, marketing, branding, logistics, others e. Government policies, programs and actions; public/private cooperation f. Relationships among farmers and businesses within the value chains g. Value chain efficiency; post-harvest waste h. Standards and certification(s) i. availability of finance and other services; tailoring to horticulture, variety available 101 j. Availability of information, type of information available, information flows k. Power sharing, trust, depth of relationships, ‘cheating,’ transparency, etc. l. Women’s access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector m. Youth access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector n. Conservation of natural resources o. Adaptation to climate change 4. How have these changes affected your business over the last 5 years? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and discuss details of the changes. Possible effects are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. Business strategy b. Relationships with suppliers c. Provision of products and services to suppliers d. Relationships and interaction with other market actors (input suppliers, government agencies, service providers, finance providers, associations) including moving from physical to virtual interaction e. Standards and certification(s) f. Markets g. Use of finance or other services h. Practices: sourcing, production, transportation, logistics, marketing i. Other changes 5. In what ways do you need to interact with the government for your business? Probe: a. Have you received any services from government? If so, which? b. Does the government help or hinder your business? Does the government help or hinder the mango/longan/cashew nut/vegetable subsector? If there are challenges, please identify the most burdensome / troublesome issues or procedures. Interaction with Harvest II and results 6. What specific activities did you work with the Harvest II program on? Why did you get involved in these activities? (Interviewer: Check all.) a. Changing business strategy b. Improving business and/or financial management c. Reaching new suppliers d. Changing relationships /coordination with suppliers e. Providing inputs, finance and/or services to suppliers f. Standards and/or certifications g. Getting access to finance h. Product development i. Reaching new markets j. Marketing, branding, packaging, logistics k. Expansion or other new investments l. Addressing issues related to government (get specifics) m. Adaptation to climate change or conservation of natural resources 102 7. What changes have you made in the management in your business after working with Harvest II? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and ask how and why for those. Possible changes are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. Business strategy and management b. Relationships with suppliers (coordination, crop planning, contract farming, purchase agreements, communication, trust, power sharing, etc.) c. Provision of products and services to suppliers (information, finance, training, technical advice, equipment, inputs) d. Relationships with other market actors (input suppliers, government agencies, service providers, finance suppliers) e. Use of finance and/or other services f. Standards, certification(s) and related services g. New products, changes in quality h. Markets (especially niche or premium) 1. Mango/longan/cashew nut: Where do you export? Has that changed? Why? What changes did you have to make to export there? How did you make those changes? 2. Longan/Vegetable: Who do you sell to domestically (e. g. name of supermarket)? Has that changed Why? What changes did you have to make to sell to this buyer? How did you make those changes? i. Marketing and sales (including online sales, branding, packaging) j. Interaction with others market actors during COVID-19 (physical to virtual); has this continued? k. Other practices: sourcing, production, transportation l. Investments (working capital, equipment, facilities, others) m. Rate/type of innovations or changes in the business model; barriers to innovation 1. Did you try anything new in the last year? Why/why not? 2.What are the barriers to innovating / trying something new? n. Conservation of natural resources: 1. providing information on soil/water conserving technologies 2. providing financing or subsidizing soil/water conserving technologies 3. providing training or technical advice on practices to conserve soil/water 4. firm level practices to conserve natural resources o.Adaptation to climate change 1. Providing information on practices, varieties, inputs that help farmers adapt to climate change. 2. Providing financing or subsidizing inputs that help farmers adapt to climate change. 3. Providing training or technical advice on practices that help farmers adapt to climate change. 4. Firm level practices to adapt to climate change. p.Any unexpected changes 8. As a result, how have your suppliers changed? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and understand why for those. Possible changes listed below to probe if necessary.) a. New/different suppliers? What type of farmers are they (gender, size, age, location? ) b. Investments in inputs c. Production quantity, quality, regularity, reliability, length of season d. Cropping patterns, diversification e. New technologies, use of finance 103 f. Waste g. Practices related to climate change adaptation and environmental stewardships. Benefits for the business and any negative impacts on the business 9. What impacts have the changes you made with Harvest II support had on your business performance, both positive and negative? Why? Can you give specific examples? (Interviewer: Check all and get details on why with examples for 2-3.) a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less staff c. More/less diversification (number and types of products) d. More/less, same/different markets e. More/less control in transactions, influence on value chain governance f. More/less efficient supply chain (waste, transaction costs, use of specialized services) g. More/less risk h. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors i. Others Sustainability 10. How happy/satisfied are you with changes you have made to your business after working with Harvest II? What new behaviors, actions or services do you plan to continue or stop? Why? 11. Are there any barriers to continuing with the new behaviors or actions you would like to? What barriers? Probe: a. Internal costs (e. g. labor, materials) b. Connections, networks c. Knowledge, confidence 12. Are there any barriers to continuing to use services that you would like to? What barriers? Probe: a. Costs (e. g. for certification, business planning, logistics, etc.) b. Accessibility for firm or farmers (e. g. for certification) c. Appropriateness (e. g. for branding, export readiness services, etc.) 13. What more or different do you plan to do in the future? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify 2-3 and get details.) Systemic change 14. Have you observed any other businesses that copied the changes you made in your business? If so, what changes (actions, behaviors, use of services) did they copy? Who copied? Why do you think they copied you or didn’t copy you? (Interviewer: Get names, organizations and contact details for those who might have copied if possible.) 104 15. Do you think you have influenced any other businesses in other ways? If so, who did you influence? What changes do you think these businesses made as a result of your influence? (Interviewer: Get names, organizations and contact details for those who might have been influenced if possible.) 16. Are you aware of more farmers entering into horticulture production? If so, probe: a. What types of crops are these new farmers focusing on? b. Where are these new farmers located? c. Why do you think these farmers have chosen to enter into horticulture production? d. Do you think these new farmers have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more farmers entering horticulture production will continue in the future? Why or why not? 17. Are you aware of more businesses entering into horticulture? If so, probe: a. What types of businesses are entering into horticulture? b. Where are these new businesses located? c. Why do you think these businesses have chosen to enter into horticulture? d. Do you think these new businesses have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more businesses entering horticulture will continue in the future? Why or why not? f. Can you give any specific examples of businesses who have recently entered horticulture? (Interviewer, get contact information is possible.) 18. To what degree have financial institutions, input suppliers and service providers begun to focus on the horticulture sector? Probe: a. Have you noticed any financial institutions, input suppliers or service providers who did not previously offer services to the horticulture sector, starting to do so? If so, can you provide examples of these providers and describe the changes they have made to target the horticulture sector? b. Why do you think these providers have started to target the horticulture sector? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to this increased interest from financial and other service providers in the horticulture sector? Why or why not? 19. Are there changes in government policies and programs related to horticulture in the last 5 years? If so, what changes? Probe: a. Who in the government are the main actors driving these changes? b. How have these changes been implemented? c. Why do you think the government is making these changes in policies and programs? d. Do you think these changes are a result of the influence of the Harvest II program or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think these changes will have a positive or negative impact on the horticulture sector? f. What kind of impact do these changes have on the local communities? g. How do you think these changes will affect the future of the horticulture sector? 20. To what extent are horticulture value chains becoming more inclusive of women and youth ? 105 a. If so, what specific changes have happened? How do they make horticulture value chains more inclusive? b. Why do you think these changes occurred? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to increased inclusion of women and youth in horticulture value chains? Why or why not? Support from other donors/government agencies 21. Before or besides Harvest II, did you get any support for your business? From what agency or program? What kind of support? How did it impact your business at that time? 22. What areas of your business do you aim to improve? What are the barriers to that? 23. In the last five years has your energy source changed? If so, how is it changed? Climate change adaptation 24. Has any of the support provided by Harvest II helped you or to adapt your business to increased weather variations and increased droughts and floods? If so, how has it helped you? Can you give specific examples? Probe: a. Business strategy or business management practices b. Relationships and coordination with suppliers c. Increased information exchange with suppliers and other market actors d. Weather or climate information for crop planning and management e. Climate resilient technologies or equipment f. Diversification of products and markets g. Others 25. Has any of the support provided by Harvest II helped your suppliers adapt to increased weather variations and increased droughts and floods? If so, how has it helped them? Can you provide specific examples? Probe: a. Water-efficient technologies: net houses, drip irrigation, harvesting rainfall run-off b. Training or technical advice on farming practices particularly those that conserve soil c. Weather or climate information for crop planning and management; Could you describe how weather forecast helps farmer in their planting plan? d. Others Greenhouse gas emissions 26. For processors: Have you increased production and/or expanded your facilities? If so, please explain what you have done and how much it increased your production. 27.What is your source of energy? Have you made any changes to your energy source or use in the last five years? When? How? Why? 28.How do you transport your products? Have you made any changes to your transport in the last five years? When? How? Why? (including cold chain transport) 106 29.What kind of packaging do you use? Have you made any changes to your packaging in the last five years? When? How? Why? 30. Has Harvest II provided you with any guidance, recommendations or requirements regarding environmental sustainability? If so, what are they? Climate effects of crop choices 31.Are you aware of farmers switching from other crops to mango/longan/cashew nuts/vegetables? 32.Are you aware of farmers diversifying their crops to include mango/longan/cashew nuts/vegetables? 33.Are you aware of farmers increasing the area they use for mango/longan/cashew nut/vegetable production? If so, can you provide details such as location, size, and changes from previous land use? Environmental stewardship 34.Did you include a wastewater treatment facility as a part of your factory construction plan? Is yes, where does your wastewater run-off go? 35.Are your workers provided with proper personal protective equipment (PPE) for their work? 36.Can you explain how your newly installed solar panel for energy generation saves you energy from the grid or diesel generator? 37.Can you describe any other specific measures you take to minimize negative environmental impacts in your business? Have you taken any new measures since you have worked with Harvest II? If so, what measures? 38. How do you ensure compliance with local and national environmental regulations and guidelines in your business? 39. What guidelines, recommendations or requirements did Harvest II provide to you in relation environmental sustainability when you receive a grant? 40.What changes did you make after receiving the grant? 41.Which practices do you plan to continue? Which do you plan to stop? Why? What are the barriers to sustaining actions to minimize negative environmental impacts in your business? 42.Can you provide examples of how HARVEST II engages with local communities and stakeholders to promote sustainable land use practices in relation to cashew nut/ mango/longan/vegetable production ? Closing 1. What are your thoughts on the future prospects for mango/longan/cashew/vegetable production and markets? Additional questions per subsector 107 Mango • Since the onset of COVID-19, have you observed an increase in mango processing, particularly for the domestic market? Are there any new processors, formal or informal, targeting the domestic market? Longan • How has the domestic demand for longan changed and what factors have contributed to these changes? • Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, were you selling longan products to the domestic market? If so, what products and through what channels? Are you currently selling to the domestic market and if so, what products and channels are you using? • Have you developed any new longan products specifically for the domestic market? If so, can you provide details on the products, how they were developed and why, and the current sales performance? • How has the market for processed longan changed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic? What percentage of your processed longan products are exported? Cashew Nut • For selected respondents: Why have you focused on organic cashews? How did you make the transition to producing organic cashews? What impact (positive or negative) has this shift had on your business? • Did you receive support from the Harvest II program to assess your market readiness for export? If so, please explain the support received and how it helped your business? • What new market opportunities have you pursued since the onset of COVID-19? Why? How? With which other market actors did you collaborate? • How do you manage cashew nutshell waste? Is any waste from cashew being converted into other value-added by-products including nutshell waste liquid and briquette? Vegetables • How did changes in demand after the onset of COVID-19 affect your business? What did you change as a result? Probe: demand for delivery, year-round vegetables, safe vegetables • How did Harvest II help you adjust your business after the onset of COVID-19? What specific changes did you make as a result? Probe: changes in marketing model, distribution channel, processing, relationships and services/support to suppliers • How did these changes affect your business performance? Agricultural Cooperatives Agricultural Cooperatives • Cashew Nut Association of Cambodia (CAC) • Cambodia Agriculture Cooperative Alliance (CACA) • Tasey Samaki Agricultural Cooperative (TSAC) (vegetable) • Khmer Organic Cooperative Co. , Ltd. (vegetable) General 1. What does your cooperative do? (Please provide an overview of the services and activities provided by your cooperative, e. g. purchasing, providing access to inputs etc.) 2. How many member farmers are currently part of your cooperative? 108 Changes in the subsector and effects on the cooperative 3. What has changed in the cashew nut/vegetable subsector over the last 5 years? How? Why? Interviewer: Identify the three most important and focus on understanding how and why for those. Possible factors are provided below to probe if necessary.) a. Effects of COVID-19 b. Cashew: International trade trends / changes in export markets, c. Vegetables: Changes in demand and marketing channels in domestic markets d. Innovations and trends in products, processing, technologies marketing, branding, logistics, others e. Government policies, programs and actions; public/private cooperation f. Relationships among farmers and businesses within the value chains g. Value chain efficiency; post-harvest waste h. Standards and certification(s) i. Availability of finance and other services; tailoring to horticulture, variety available j. Availability of information, type of information available, information flows k. Power sharing, trust, depth of relationships, ‘cheating,’ transparency, etc. l. Women’s access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector m. Youth access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector n. Conservation of natural resources o. Adaptation to climate change 4. How have these changes affected your cooperative over the last 5 years? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and discuss details of the changes. Possible effects are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. Relationship within the cooperative - with member suppliers b. Provision of products and services to members (and others? ) c. Relationships and interaction with other market actors (buyers, input suppliers, government agencies, service providers, finance providers) including moving from physical to virtual interaction d. Standards and certification(s) e. Buyers and markets f. Use of finance or other services g. Practices: production/sourcing, transportation, marketing, others h. Other changes 5. In what ways do you need to interact with the government for your cooperative? Probe: a. Have you received any services from government? If so, which? b. Does the government help or hinder your cooperative? Does the government help or hinder the mango/longan/cashew nut/vegetable subsector? If there are challenges, please identify the most burdensome / troublesome issues or procedures. Interaction with Harvest II and results 6. What specific activities did you work with the Harvest II program on? Why did you get involved in these activities? (Interviewer: Check all.) a. Changing business strategy b. Improving business and/or financial management 109 c. Reaching new suppliers d. Changing relationships /coordination with suppliers e. Providing inputs, finance and/or services to suppliers f. Standards and/or certifications g. Getting access to finance h. Product development i. Reaching new markets j. Marketing, branding, packaging, logistics k. Expansion or other new investments l. Addressing issues related to government m. Adaptation to climate change or conservation of natural resources 7. What changes have you made in the management in your cooperative after working with Harvest II? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and ask how and why for those. Possible changes are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. Business strategy and management b. Relationships with members/suppliers (coordination, crop planning, purchase agreements, communication, trust, power sharing, etc.) c. Relationships with buyers (coordination, crop planning, purchase agreements, communication, trust, power sharing etc.) d. Provision of products and services to members/suppliers (information, finance, training, technical advice, equipment, inputs) e. Relationships with other market actors (input suppliers, government agencies, service providers, finance suppliers) f. Use of finance or other services g. Standards, certification(s) and related services h. New products, quality of products i. Markets (especially niche or premium) j. Marketing and sales (including online sales, branding, packaging) k. Interaction with others market actors during COVID-19 (physical to virtual); has this continued? l. Other practices: production and sources, transportation m. Investments (working capital, equipment, facilities, others) n. Rate/type of innovations or changes in the cooperative’s model; barriers to innovation 1. Did you try anything new in the last year? Why/why not? 2. What are the barriers to innovating / trying something new? o. Conservation of natural resources 1. providing information to members on soil/water conserving technologies 2. providing financing or subsidizing soil/water conserving technologies for members 3. providing training or technical advice to members on practices to conserve soil/water 4. other practices to conserve natural resources p. Adaptation to climate change 1. Providing information to members on practices, varieties, inputs that help farmers adapt to climate change 2. Providing financing or subsidizing inputs that help member farmers adapt to climate change 3. Providing training or technical advice on practices that help member farmers adapt to climate change 4. other practices to adapt to climate change 110 q. Any unexpected changes 8.Cashew: Did you receive support from the Harvest II program to assess your market readiness for export? If so, please explain the support received and how it helped your cooperative? 9. What market opportunities have you pursued during/after COVID-19? Why? How? With which other market actors? 10. As a result of the changes your cooperative has made, how have your farmer members/suppliers changed their production of cashews/vegetables? Can you provide specific examples of how their operations or practices have changed? How has your cooperative supported or facilitated these changes in your members/suppliers? What impact have these changes had on your member/suppliers' businesses, both positive and negative? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and understand why for those. Possible changes listed below to probe if necessary.) a. New members? What type of farmers are they (gender, size, age, location? ) b. Investments in inputs c. Production quantity, quality, regularity, reliability, length of season d. Cropping patterns, diversification, cropping cycles e. New technologies, use of finance f. Waste g. Practices related to climate change adaptation and environmental stewardships Benefits for the cooperative and any negative impacts on the cooperative 11. What impacts have the changes you made with Harvest II support had on the performance of your cooperative, both positive and negative? Why? Interviewer: Check all and get details on why with examples for 2-3.) a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less staff; more/less members c. More/less, same/different markets d. More/less control in transactions, influence on value chain governance e. More/less efficient supply chain (waste, transaction costs, use of specialized services) f. More/less risk g. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors h. Others Sustainability 12. How happy/satisfied are you with changes you have made to your cooperative after working with Harvest II? What new behaviors, actions or services do you plan to continue or stop? Why? 13. Are there any barriers to continuing with the new behaviors or actions you would like to? What barriers? Probe a. Internal costs (e. g. labor, materials) b. Connections, networks c. Knowledge, confidence 111 14. Are there any barriers to continuing to use services that you would like to? What barriers? Probe: a. Costs (e. g. for certification, business planning, etc.) b. Accessibility (e. g. for certification) c. Appropriateness (e. g. for business planning, etc.) 15. What more or different do you plan to do in the future? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify 2-3 and get details.) System Change 16. Have you noticed any other cooperatives or businesses that have adopted similar changes to those implemented by your cooperative as a result of Harvest II activities and interventions? a. If so, can you provide specific examples of the changes (actions, behaviors, use of services) that have been copied? b. Who are these cooperatives or businesses that have copied your changes? (Interviewer: Get names and contact details if possible.) c. Why do you think they copied your cooperative's changes? d. Do you believe other cooperatives or businesses have not copied your changes, if so, why do you think that is the case? 17. Have you noticed any other farmers in your community or region that have adopted similar changes to those made by the members of your cooperative as a result of Harvest II activities and interventions? a. If so, can you provide specific examples of the changes (actions, behaviors, use of technologies, etc .) that have been copied by other farmers? b. Who are these farmers that have copied the changes made by your cooperative members? (Interviewer: Get names and contact details if possible.) c. Why do you think they copied the changes? d. Where are these farmers located? Are they part of your cooperative or other cooperatives? 18. Are more farmers entering cashew/vegetable production? a. Where are these new farmers located? b. Why do you think these farmers have chosen to enter into cashew/vegetable/longan production ? c. Do you think these new farmers have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? d. Do you think this trend of more farmers entering cashew/vegetable production will continue in the future? Why or why not? 19. Are you aware of more businesses entering into cashew/vegetables/longan? Probe: a. If so, what types of businesses are entering into cashew/vegetables? b. Where are these new businesses located? c. Why do you think these businesses have chosen to enter into horticulture? d. Do you think these new businesses have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more businesses entering horticulture will continue in the future? Why or why not? 112 f. Can you give any specific examples of businesses who have recently entered horticulture? (Interviewer: get contact information if possible.) 20. To what degree have financial institutions, input suppliers and service providers begun to focus on the horticulture sector? Probe: a. Have you noticed any financial institutions, input suppliers or service providers who did not previously offer services to the horticulture sector, starting to do so? If so, can you provide examples of these providers and describe the changes they have made to target the horticulture sector? b. Why do you think these providers have started to target the horticulture sector? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to this increased interest from financial and other service providers in the horticulture sector? Why or why not? 21. Are there changes in government policies and programs related to the horticulture sector in the last 5 years? If so, what changes? Probe: a. Who are the government officials or agencies involved in these changes? b. Why are they making these changes? c. How are these changes being implemented? Support from other donors/government agencies 22. Before or besides Harvest II, did you get any support for your cooperative? From which agency or program? What kind of support? How did it impact your cooperative at that time? 23. What areas of your cooperative do you aim to improve? What are the barriers to that? Climate change adaptation 24. Has any of the support provided by Harvest II helped you or to adapt your cooperative to increased weather variations and increased droughts and floods? If so, how has it helped you? Can you give specific examples? Probe: a. Business strategy or business management practices b. Relationships and coordination with members/suppliers c. Increased information exchange with suppliers and other market actors d. Weather or climate information for crop planning and management e. Climate resilient technologies or equipment f. Diversification of products and markets g. Others 25. Has any of the support provided by Harvest II helped your members adapt to increased weather variations and increased droughts and floods? If so, how has it helped them? Can you provide specific examples? Probe: a. Water-efficient technologies: net houses, drip irrigation, harvesting rainfall run-off; Could you explain how your newly installed irrigation system helps farmers planting their vegetable? (For CKL) b. Training or technical advice on farming practices particularly those that conserve soil c. Weather or climate information for crop planning and management; Could you describe how weather forecast helps farmer in their planting plan? (For CAC) d. Others 113 Greenhouse gas emissions 26.What is your source of energy? Have you made any changes to your energy source or use in the last five years? When? How? Why? 27.How do you transport your products? Have you made any changes to your transport in the last five years? When? How? Why? 28.What kind of packaging do you use? Have you made any changes to your packaging in the last five years? When? How? Why? 29.Has Harvest II provided you with any guidance, recommendations or requirements regarding environmental sustainability? If so, what are they? Climate effects of crop choices 30. Are you aware of farmers switching from other crops to cashew nuts/vegetables/longan? 31. Are you aware of farmers diversifying their crops to include cashew nuts/vegetables/longan? 32. Are you aware of farmers increasing the area they use for cashew nut/vegetable/longan production? If so, can you provide details such as location, size, and changes from previous land use? Environmental stewardship 33. For Cashew Cooperatives: How do you manage cashew nutshell waste? Is any waste from cashew being converted into other value-added by-products including nutshell waste liquid and briquette? (For CSC) 34. Did you include a wastewater treatment facility as a part of your factory construction plan? Is yes, where does your wastewater run-off go? (For CSC) 35. Are your workers provided with proper personal protective equipment (PPE) for their work? (For CSC) 36. Could you explain how your newly installed solar panel for energy generation saves you energy from the grid or diesel generator? (For HCST) 37. Can you describe the specific measures you take to minimize negative environmental impacts in your cooperative? Have you taken any new measures since you have worked with Harvest II? If so, what measures? 38. How do you ensure compliance with local and national environmental regulations and guidelines in your business? 39. What guidelines, recommendations or requirements did Harvest II provide to you in relation environmental sustainability when you receive a grant? 40. What changes did you make after receiving the grant? 114 41. Which practices do you plan to continue? Which do you plan to stop? Why? What are the barriers to sustaining actions to minimize negative environmental impacts in your business? 42. Can you provide examples of how HARVEST II engages with local communities and stakeholders to promote sustainable land use practices in relation to cashew nut/vegetable/longan production ? Closing 44. What do you think will be the future of cashew nut/vegetable/longan production and markets? Cambodian Cashew Federation General 1. When did you form the Cambodia Cashew Federation? Why? 2. What are the aims and objectives of the Cambodia Cashew Federation? Please provide an overview of the services and activities provided by the Federation. 3. How many members do you have currently? How many farmers does that represent? How many businesses? Changes in the subsector and effects on farmers and value chain actors 4. What has changed in the Cashew Nut subsector over the last 5 years? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and focus on understanding how and why for those. Possible factors are provided below to probe if necessary.) a. Effects of COVID-19 b. International trade trends, changes in demand, changes in competing countries, trade agreements c. Innovations and trends in products, processing, technologies, standards/certifications, marketing, branding, logistics, others d. Government policies, programs and actions; public/private cooperation e. Relationships within value chains; relationships with businesses / agencies / people outside the subsector (e. g. service providers) f. Value chain efficiency; post-harvest waste g. Availability of finance and other services; tailoring to horticulture, variety available h. Availability of information, type of information available, information flows i. Power sharing, trust, depth of relationships, ‘cheating,’ transparency, etc. j. Women’s access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector k. Youth access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector l. Conservation of natural resources and adaptation to climate change 5. How have farmers adapted to these changes? Why have they made these specific changes? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and focus on understanding how and why for those. Possible changes are provided below to probe if necessary.) a. Types of crops, diversification, off-season production, cropping patterns 115 b. Quality c. Relationships and interaction with buyers; changing to different buyers d. Use of information e. Use of inputs f. Use of technologies g. Use of external services (eg technical assistance) h. Standards and certification(s) i. Land use j. Wastage k. Conservation of soil/water l. Adaptation to climate change m. Energy sources and usage efficiency n. Other practices 6. How have other value chain actors (buyers, processors, exporters, wholesalers) adapted to these changes? Why have they made these specific changes? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and focus on understanding how and why for those. Possible changes are provided below to probe if necessary.) a. Business strategy and management b. Changed suppliers and/or relationships with suppliers (coordination, crop planning, contract farming, purchase agreements, communication, trust, power sharing, etc.) c. Provision of products and services to suppliers (information, finance, training, technical advice, equipment, inputs) d. Relationships with other market actors (input suppliers, government agencies, service providers, finance suppliers) e. Use of services (e. g. finance, logistics, packaging, branding, market identification, marketing) f. Standards, certification(s) and related services g. New products, changes in quality h. Targeting new international markets (especially niche or premium) i. Marketing and sales (including online sales, branding, packaging) j. Interaction with others market actors during COVID-19 (physical to virtual); has this continued? k. Other practices: sourcing, production, transportation l. Investments (working capital, equipment, facilities, others) m. Rate/type of innovations or changes in the business model n. Conservation of natural resources 1. providing information, financing and/or technical advice on soil/water conserving technologies and practices 2. firm level practices to conserve natural resources o. Adaptation to climate change 1. Providing information, financing, training or TA on practices, varieties, inputs that help farmers adapt to climate change 2. Firm level practices to adapt to climate change Benefits and any negative impacts for farmers and business 7. What benefits or negative impacts did you observe for farmers? Why did these occur? (Interviewer: check all.) 116 a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less workers c. More/less, same/different buyers/markets d. More/less control in transactions, influence on value chain governance e. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors f. More/less/different involvement of women; women have more/less access to resources and opportunities g. More/less different involvement of youth; youth have more/less access to resources and opportunities h. Others 8.What benefits or negative impacts did you observe for other market actors? Why did these occur? (Interviewer: check all and get details on 2-3.) a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less staff/workers c. More/less, same/different markets d. More/less control in transactions, influence on value chain governance e. More/less risk f. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors g. More/less/different involvement of women; women have more/less access to resources and opportunities h. More/less different involvement of youth; youth have more/less access to resources and opportunities i. Others Enabling environment 9. Which policies, laws, regulations, and administrative processes were constraining (or promoting) the growth of cashew in Cambodia at the time of Harvest II inception? 10. What was your sector strategy and vision at the time and has it been realized? If yes, how did it happen and if not, why not? 11. Describe the desired state of the policy framework for cashew in Cambodia, in the view of your a ssociation? 12. Did you participate in any of the technical working group or policy fora organized by development partners? Which were the most dynamic and effective and how did they work? What value did they bring to your advocacy agenda? Sustainability and System Change 13.Are more farmers entering cashew production? a. If so, in what locations? b. Why do you think more farmers are entering cashew production? 14.Are more businesses entering the cashew nut subsector? a. If so, what types of businesses that are entering the subsector (e. g. processors, traders, exporters)? b. Why do you think more businesses are entering the cashew nut subsector? c. Where are these new businesses located? 117 15.To what extent do farmers and value chain businesses understand demand better? To what extent are they better able to meet demand in export markets? Why? Probe: a. Types of products b. Quality c. Standards and certifications d. Seasonality (year round and off-season) e. Branding, packaging, logistics 16.Are there any changes or improvements in cashew value chains that are increasing efficiency? If so, what changes or improvements are taking place? How do they increase efficiency? 17.To what degree have financial institutions, input providers and service providers begun to focus on the cashew nut sector? Probe: a. Have you noticed any financial institutions, input providers or service providers who did not previously offer services to the cashew nut sector, starting to do so? If so, can you provide examples of these providers and describe the changes they have made to target the cashew nut sector? b. Why do you think these providers have started to target the cashew nut sector? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to this increased interest from financial and other service providers in the cashew nut sector? Why or why not? 18. Are there changes in government policies and programs related to horticulture or cashew nut sector in the last 5 years? If so, what changes? Probe: a. Who are the government officials or agencies involved in these changes? b. Why are they making these changes? c. How are these changes being implemented? 19.To what extent are cashew nut value chains becoming more inclusive of women and youth ? Probe: a. What specific changes have you observed in the inclusion of women and youth in cashew nut value chains? b. Why do you think value chains are becoming more inclusive of women and youth ? c. How are these changes affecting the women and youth involved in the cashew nut value chains? 20. How are farmers and other cashew nut businesses adapting to increased weather variability and increased droughts and flooding? 21.To what extent are cashew farmers considering soil and water conservation? How? 22.What was the role of Harvest II in the formation of the Cambodia Cashew Federation? 23.What was the role of Harvest II in changes in the cashew subsector? Support from other donors/government agencies 24. Before or besides Harvest II, did you get any support for the federation? From which agency or program? What kind of support? How did it impact the federation at that time? 118 25. What areas of the federation do you aim to improve? What are the barriers to that? Closing 26. What do you think will be the future of cashew nut production and markets? Service Providers who partnered with Harvest II Finance, Marketing, Logistics, Export Services General 1. What does your business do? (Please provide an overview of the products and services your business offers.) 2. Who are your clients/customers? 3. How many employees does your business currently have? 4. When did your business start? Why? Changes in the horticulture sector and effects on the business 5. Have you always served businesses working in horticulture? If not, why have you changed? 6. For those respondents that have served horticulture businesses for more than a year: What changes have you noticed in the horticulture sector over the last 5 years? (especially mango, longan, cashew, vegetables) How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and focus on understanding how and why for those. Possible factors are provided below to probe if necessary.) a. Effects of COVID-19 b. International trade trends / changes in export markets; changes in demand in local markets c. Innovations and trends in products, processing, standards/certifications, marketing, branding, logistics, others d. Rate of innovation; diversity of products, business models, markets and technologies e. Supply chain management and relationships within value chains f. Government policies, programs and actions; public/private cooperation g. Power sharing, trust, depth of relationships, ‘cheating,’ transparency, etc. h. Women’s access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector i. Youth access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector j. Conservation of natural resources 7.How have these changes affected your business over the last 5 years? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and discuss details of the changes. Possible effects are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. What types of clients you target/serve b. Services for clients c. Relationships and interaction with clients d. Relationships and interaction with other market actors (input suppliers, government agencies, buyers, associations) including moving from physical to virtual interaction 119 e. Other changes 8. In what ways do you need to interact with the government for your business? Probe: a. Have you received any services from government? If so, which? b. Does the government help or hinder your business? Does the government help or hinder the horticulture subsector? If there are challenges, please identify the most burdensome / troublesome issues or procedures. Interaction with Harvest II and results 9. What specific activities did you work with the Harvest II program on? Why did you get involved in these activities? 10. What changes have you made in your business after working with Harvest II? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and ask how and why for those. Possible changes are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. Business strategy b. Types of clients you target/serve c. Services for clients d. Relationships with clients (communication, trust, power sharing, etc.) e. Relationships with other market actors (input suppliers, government agencies, service providers, finance suppliers) f. Marketing (including online marketing) g. Interaction with clients and others market actors during COVID-19 (physical to virtual); has this continued? h. Other practices i. Investments (working capital, equipment, facilities, others) j. Rate/type of innovations or changes in the business model; barriers to innovation 1. Did you try anything new in the last year? Why/why not? 2. What are the barriers to innovating / trying something new? k. Other changes Benefits for the business and any negative impacts on the business 11. What impacts have the changes you made with Harvest II support had on your business performance, both positive and negative? Why? (Interviewer: Check all and get details for 2-3.) a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less staff c. More/less diversification (number and types of services) d. More/less, same/different clients e. More/less risk f. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors g. Others Sustainability 12. How satisfied are you with the changes that have occurred in your business? a. What new behaviors, actions, or services that you have implemented do you plan to continue using in the future? 120 b. What new behaviors, actions, or services that you have implemented do you plan to discontinue in the future? c. Why do you plan to continue or discontinue these specific behaviors, actions, or services? d. What are the main challenges you foresee that could affect your plans for the future? 13. Are there any barriers to continuing to serve clients in the horticulture sector? If so, what barriers? 14. What more or different do you plan to do in the future? How? Why? Systemic Change 15. Have you noticed any other businesses that have adopted similar changes to those implemented by your business as a result of Harvest II activities and interventions? a. If so, can you provide specific examples of the changes (actions, behaviors, use of services) that have been copied? b. Who are these businesses that have copied your changes? (Interviewer: Get names, organizations and contact details, if possible.) c. Why do you think they copied your business's changes? 16. Do you think you have influenced any other businesses in other ways? If so, who did you influence? What changes do you think these businesses made as a result of your influence? (Interviewer: Get names, organizations and contact details, if possible.) 17. Are you aware of more farmers entering into horticulture production? Probe: a. If so, what types of crops are these new farmers focusing on? b. Where are these new farmers located? c. Why do you think these farmers have chosen to enter into horticulture production? d. Do you think these new farmers have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more farmers entering horticulture production will continue in the future? Why or why not? 18. Are you aware of more businesses entering into horticulture? Probe: a. If so, what types of businesses are entering into horticulture? b. Where are these new businesses located? c. Why do you think these businesses have chosen to enter into horticulture? d. Do you think these new businesses have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more businesses entering horticulture will continue in the future? Why or why not? f. Can you give any specific examples of businesses who have recently entered horticulture? 19. To what degree have financial institutions and other service providers begun to focus on the horticulture sector? Probe: 121 a. Have you noticed any financial institutions or service providers who did not previously offer services to the horticulture sector, starting to do so? If so, can you provide examples of these providers and describe the changes they have made to target the horticulture sector? b. Why do you think these providers have started to target the horticulture sector? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to this increased interest from financial and other service providers in the horticulture sector? Why or why not? 20. Are there changes in government policies and programs related to horticulture in the last 5 years? If so, what changes? Probe: a. Who in the government are the main actors driving these changes? b. How have these changes been implemented? c. Why do you think the government is making these changes in policies and programs? d. Do you think these changes are a result of the influence of the Harvest II program or are they driven by other factors? e. How do you think these changes will affect the future of the horticulture sector? Support from other donors/government agencies 21. Before or besides Harvest II, did you get any support for your business? From which agency or project? What kind of support? How did it impact your business at that time? 22. What areas of your business do you aim to improve? What are the barriers to that? Service Providers who did not partner with Harvest II General 1. What does your business do? (Please provide an overview of the products and services your business offers.) 2. Who are your clients/customers? 3. How many employees does your business currently have? 4. When did your business start? Why? Changes in the horticulture sector and effects on the business 5. Have you always served businesses working in horticulture? If not, why have you changed? 6. For those respondents that have served horticulture businesses for more than a year: What changes have you noticed in the horticulture sector over the last 5 years? (especially mango, longan, cashew, vegetables) How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and focus on understanding how and why for those. Possible factors are provided below to probe if necessary.) a. Effects of COVID-19 b. International trade trends / changes in export markets; changes in demand in local markets 122 c. Innovations and trends in products, processing, standards/certifications, marketing, branding, logistics, others d. Rate of innovation; diversity of products, business models, markets and technologies e. Supply chain management and relationships within value chains f. Government policies, programs and actions; public/private cooperation g. Power sharing, trust, depth of relationships, ‘cheating,’ transparency, etc. h. Women’s access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector i. Youth access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector j. Conservation of natural resources 7. How have these changes affected your business over the last 5 years? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and discuss details of the changes. Possible effects are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. What types of clients you target/serve b. Services for clients c. Relationships and interaction with clients d. Relationships and interaction with other market actors (input suppliers, government agencies, buyers, associations) including moving from physical to virtual interaction e. Other changes 8. In what ways do you need to interact with the government for your business? Probe: a. Have you received any services from government? If so, which? b. Does the government help or hinder your business? Does the government help or hinder the mango/longan/cashew nut/vegetable subsector? If there are challenges, please identify the most burdensome / troublesome issues or procedures. Changes to the business 9. What have you changed in your business in the last 3 years? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and ask how and why for those. Possible changes are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. Business strategy b. Types of clients you target/serve c. Services for clients d. Relationships with clients (communication, trust, power sharing, etc.) e. Relationships with other market actors (input suppliers, government agencies, service providers, finance suppliers) f. Marketing (including online marketing) g. Interaction with clients and others market actors during COVID-19 (physical to virtual); has this continued? h. Other practices i. Investments (working capital, equipment, facilities, others) j. Rate/type of innovations or changes in the business model; barriers to innovation 1. Did you try anything new in the last year? Why/why not? 2. What are the barriers to innovating / trying something new? k. Conservation of natural resources 1. providing information and/or services to clients on conserving natural resources 2. firm level practices to conserve natural resources l. Adaptation to climate change 123 1. Providing information and/or services to clients on adapting to climate change 2. Firm level practices to adapt to climate change m. Unexpected changes Benefits for the business and any negative impacts on the business 10. How has the performance of your business changed in the last 3 years? Why? (Interviewer: Check all and get details on why with examples for 2-3.) a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less staff c. More/less diversification (number and types of services) d. More/less, same/different clients e. More/less risk f. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors g. Others Sustainability 11. How satisfied are you with the changes that have occurred in your business? a. What new behaviors, actions, or services that you have implemented do you plan to continue using in the future? b. What new behaviors, actions, or services that you have implemented do you plan to discontinue in the future? c. Why do you plan to continue or discontinue these specific behaviors, actions, or services? d. What are the main challenges you foresee that could affect your plans for the future? 12.Are there any barriers to continuing to serve clients in the horticulture sector? If so, what barriers? 13.What more or different do you plan to do in the future? How? Why? Systemic Change 14. Are you aware of more farmers entering into horticulture production? Probe: a. If so, what types of crops are these new farmers focusing on? b. Where are these new farmers located? c. Why do you think these farmers have chosen to enter into horticulture production? d. Do you think these new farmers have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more farmers entering horticulture production will continue in the future? Why or why not? 15. Are you aware of more businesses entering into horticulture? Probe: a. If so, what types of businesses are entering into horticulture? b. Where are these new businesses located? c. Why do you think these businesses have chosen to enter into horticulture? d. Do you think these new businesses have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? 124 e. Do you think this trend of more businesses entering horticulture will continue in the future? Why or why not? f. Can you give any specific examples of businesses who have recently entered horticulture? 16. To what degree have financial institutions and other service providers begun to focus on the horticulture sector? Probe: a. Have you noticed any financial institutions or service providers who did not previously offer services to the horticulture sector, starting to do so? If so, can you provide examples of these providers and describe the changes they have made to target the horticulture sector? b. Why do you think these providers have started to target the horticulture sector? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to this increased interest from financial and other service providers in the horticulture sector? Why or why not? 17. Are there changes in government policies and programs related to horticulture in the last 5 years? If so, what changes? Probe: a. Who in the government are the main actors driving these changes? b. How have these changes been implemented? c. Why do you think the government is making these changes in policies and programs? d. Do you think these changes are a result of the influence of the Harvest II program or are they driven by other factors? e. How do you think these changes will affect the future of the horticulture sector? Support from other donors/government agencies 18.Have you gotten any support for your business from government or projects? From what agency or project? What kind of support? How did it impact your business at that time? 19.What areas of your business do you aim to improve? What are the barriers to that? Key Informant Interview (KII) question guides KIIs will be conducted with 5 government agencies that will shed light on the results of Harvest II in the development of policies, action plans and laws, as well as the promotion of public-private dialogue (in addition to the contextual information discussed above). There will be KIIs with people from 7 other agencies covering Harvest II subcontractors, other projects, USAID and Harvest III. Consent will be requested at the beginning of each KII from each participant. Introduction: Interviewers will introduce themselves and explain the purpose of the interview and how the information will be used. The interviewers will inform respondents that their participation is strictly voluntary, that all information discussed is confidential, and that interviewees will not be individually identified in the reporting of findings. Verbal consent must be gained and be included in the notes. Introductory comments: 125 Hello! My name is __________________. I am a researcher with Just Results. We are conducting research related to the Cambodia Harvest II project. I will be asking you about the horticulture sector, particularly mango, longan, cashew nuts and vegetables, and how and why these sectors have changed over the last five years. I will also be asking about your involvement and opinions on activities sponsored by the project. The interview will take approximately 1 hour. Our discussion will be confidential. We will share your insights with project stakeholders without identifying you as the source. The information will be used to understand changes in the horticulture sector and to assess the accomplishments of the project, what worked and what did not work as a constructive lesson learning process. This discussion is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any or all of the questions if you want. We hope that you will participate since your views are important. Do you have any questions? Do you agree to be interviewed? We would like to record this discussion to ensure we are taking accurate notes. The recording will not be shared beyond our evaluation team. Do you consent to this discussion being recorded? Instructions: Fill out as much as possible below before the interview using the IDI schedule. Name of Interviewer(s): Name of Notetaker: Name of interviewee: Organization: Role of interviewee: Interviewee category: Address of interviewee Telephone number of interviewee: Date of interview: Consent given: Gender: 126 Government Agencies This general guide will be adapted depending on the agency and the specific activities that were done with Harvest II. Changes in the horticulture subsector and effects on farmers and value chain actors 1.In 2017, what was the situation in the horticulture sector? 2. What was the government vision of where things need(ed) to go? 3. What was the development partner vision? 4. What were private sector concerns? 5. What has changed in the horticulture sector over the last 5 years (especially vegetables, mango, longan and cashew)? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and focus on understanding how and why for those. Possible factors are provided below to probe if necessary.) a. Effects of COVID-19 b. International trade trends / changes in export markets, c. Changes in demand and marketing channels in domestic markets d. Innovations and trends in products, processing, marketing, branding, logistics, others e. Rate of innovation; diversity of products, business models, markets and technologies f. Government policies, programs and actions; public/private cooperation g. Standards and certification(s) h. Availability of finance and other services; tailoring to horticulture, variety available i. Women’s access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector j. Youth access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector k. Conservation of natural resources l. Adaptation to climate change 6. How have farmers adapted to these changes? Why have they made these specific changes? Interviewer: Identify the three most important and understand why for those. Possible changes listed below to probe if necessary.) a. Types of crops, diversification, off-season production, cropping patterns b. Quality c. Relationships and interaction with buyers; changing to different buyers. d. Use of information e. Use of inputs f. Use of technologies g. Use of external services (eg finance, technical assistance) h. Standards and certification(s) i. Land use j. Wastage k. Conservation of soil/water l. Adaptation to climate change 127 m. Energy sources and usage efficiency n. Other practices 7.How have other value chain actors (buyers, processors, exporters, wholesalers) adapted to these changes? Why have they made these specific changes? Interviewer: Identify the three most important and understand why for those. Possible changes listed below to probe if necessary. a. Business strategy b. Standards, certification(s) and related services c. New products, changes in quality d. Targeting new domestic or international markets (especially niche or premium) e. Investments (working capital, equipment, facilities, others) f. Rate/type of innovations or changes in the business model g. Conservation of natural resources h. Adaptation to climate change i. Other changes Interaction with Harvest II and results 8. What specific activities did you work with the Harvest II program on? Why did you get involved in these activities? 9. Are there any specific issues related to the zone of influence (ZOI) provinces that require(d) a differentiated (i.e., subnational or otherwise targeted) policy response? 10. Which development partners do you work with? Which were also working at the time of Harvest II, on agricultural policy development? (i.e., those working on cooperative law or food safety) 11. Can you sketch for us a rough organigram of your Ministry and associated agencies and show which have the most contact with value chain actors in horticulture? What services do they provide? Which of these worked with Harvest II? What was accomplished or achieved? Sustainability and system change 12. What do you anticipate working on in the coming 3 years in the horticulture sector? Why will these by your priorities? Probe: a. Services, particularly CamGAP training b. Policies c. Public/private dialogue 13. Are you aware of more farmers entering into horticulture production? Probe: a. If so, what types of crops are these new farmers focusing on? b. Where are these new farmers located? c. Why do you think these farmers have chosen to enter into horticulture production? 128 14. Are you aware of more businesses entering into horticulture? Probe: a. If so, what types of businesses are entering into horticulture? b. Where are these new businesses located? c. Why do you think these businesses have chosen to enter into horticulture? d. Can you give any specific examples of businesses who have recently entered horticulture? 15. To what degree have financial institutions, input suppliers and service providers begun to focus on the horticulture sector? Probe: a. Have you noticed any financial institutions, input suppliers or service providers who did not previously offer services to the horticulture sector, starting to do so? If so, can you provide examples of these providers and describe the changes they have made to target the horticulture sector? b. Why do you think these providers have started to target the horticulture sector? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to this increased interest from financial and other service providers in the horticulture sector? Why or why not? 16. Are there any other trends in the horticulture sector which Harvest II has contributed to? What trends? Inclusion 17. To what extent are horticulture value chains becoming more inclusive of women and youth? a. If so, what specific changes have happened? How do they make horticulture value chains more inclusive? b. Why do you think these changes occurred? c. If you don’t think horticulture value chains are becoming more inclusive, what activities or actions would contribute to value chains becoming more inclusive? Environmental impacts 18. Are farmers and other value chain businesses considering soil and water conservation more than they used to? a. If so, what changes are they making? Why? b. If you don’t think farmers and other value chain businesses are considering soil and water conservation, what activities or actions would contribute to them focusing on soil and water conservation? 19. Are mango, longan, cashew nut or vegetables associated with deforestation? If so, are they more or less likely than other crops to lead to deforestation? What does government do to prevent deforestation from expanding production of agricultural crops? 129 Climate change adaptation and mitigation 20. What did government do to increase farmer’s capacity to address climate-induced opportunities in agricultural production system? 21. How are farmers and other value chain businesses adapting to climate change? 22. Where are they getting information and support to adapt to climate change? 23. What approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in horticulture exist that are present in or relevant to horticulture in Cambodia? 24. Are farmers switching from other crops to mango, longan, cashew nuts and/or vegetables ? If so, how does this affect farmers’ resilience to climate change? 25. Are farmers diversifying their crops to include mango, longan, cashew nuts and/or vegetables? If so, how does this affect their resilience to climate change? Harvest II subcontractors Changes in the horticulture subsector and effects on farmers and value chain actors 1. What has changed in the horticulture sector over the last 5 years (especially vegetables, mango, longan and cashew)? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and focus on understanding how and why for those. Possible factors are provided below to probe if necessary.) a. Effects of COVID-19 b. International trade trends / changes in export markets, c. Changes in demand and marketing channels in domestic markets d. Innovations and trends in products, processing, marketing, branding, logistics, others e. Rate of innovation; diversity of products, business models, markets and technologies f. Government policies, programs and actions; public/private cooperation g. Relationships among farmers and businesses within the value chains h. Value chain efficiency; post-harvest waste i. Standards and certification(s) j. Availability of finance and other services; tailoring to horticulture, variety available k. Availability of information, type of information available, information flows l. Power sharing, trust, depth of relationships, ‘cheating,’ transparency, etc. m. Women’s access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector n. Youth access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector o. Conservation of natural resources 130 p. Adaptation to climate change 2. How have farmers adapted to these changes? Why have they made these specific changes? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and understand why for those. Possible changes listed below to probe if necessary.) a. Types of crops, diversification, off-season production, cropping patterns b. Quality c. Relationships and interaction with buyers; changing to different buyers d. Use of information e. Use of inputs f. Use of technologies g. Use of external services (eg finance, technical assistance) h. Standards and certification(s) i. Land use j. Wastage k. Conservation of soil/water l. Adaptation to climate change m. Energy sources and usage efficiency n. Other practices 3. How have other value chain actors (buyers, processors, exporters, wholesalers) adapted to these changes? Why have they made these specific changes? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and ask how and why for those. Possible changes are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. Business strategy b. Changed suppliers and/or relationships with suppliers (coordination, crop planning, contract farming, purchase agreements, communication, trust, power sharing, etc.) c. Provision of products and services to suppliers (information, finance, training, technical advice, equipment, inputs) d. Relationships with other market actors (input suppliers, government agencies, service providers, finance suppliers) e. Use of services (e. g. finance, logistics, packaging, branding, market identification, marketing) f. Standards, certification(s) and related services g. New products, changes in quality h. Targeting new domestic or international markets (especially niche or premium) i. Marketing and sales (including online sales, branding, packaging) j. Interaction with others market actors during COVID-19 (physical to virtual); has this continued? k. Other practices: sourcing, production, transportation l. Investments (working capital, equipment, facilities, others) 131 m. Rate/type of innovations or changes in the business model n. Conservation of natural resources 1. providing information, financing and/or technical advice on soil/water conserving technologies and practices 2. firm level practices to conserve natural resources. o. Adaptation to climate change 1. Providing information, financing, training or TA on practices, varieties, inputs that help farmers adapt to climate change. 2. Firm level practices to adapt to climate change. p. Other changes Interaction with Harvest II and results 4. What activities have you done with Harvest II? Why did you do these activities? 5. Do you think the investment in Harvest II activities was worth it? Why or why not? Benefits and any negative impacts for farmers and business 6. What benefits or negative impacts did you observe for farmers from Harvest II activities? Why did these occur? (Interviewer: Check all and get details on why with examples for 2-3.) a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less workers c. More/less, same/different buyers/markets d. More/less control in transactions, influence on value chain governance e. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors. f. More/less/different involvement of women; women have more/less access to resources and opportunities g. More/less different involvement of youth; youth have more/less access to resources and opportunities h. Others 7. What benefits or negative impacts did you observe for other market actors from Harvest II activities ? Why did these occur? (Interviewer: Check all and get details on why with examples for 2-3.) a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less staff/workers c. More/less, same/different markets d. More/less control in transactions, influence on value chain governance e. More/less risk f. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors. 132 g. More/less/different involvement of women; women have more/less access to resources and opportunities h. More/less different involvement of youth; youth have more/less access to resources and opportunities i. Others 8. To what extent did other programs or other factors contribute to these benefits for farmers or firms ? Sustainability and system change 9. Have you observed farmers or market actors continuing new activities or behaviors or continuing to use particular technologies or services? If so, which ones? a. Have you observed them modifying these activities or behaviors? If so, how? Why? b. Have you observed them investing more in new technologies or services? If so, which ones? Why? 10. Have you found any farmers or businesses that did not interact with Harvest II that have made similar changes to those who did? Who? What did they change? Why? 11. Are you aware of more farmers entering into horticulture production? Probe: a. If so, what types of crops are these new farmers focusing on? b. Where are these new farmers located? c. Why do you think these farmers have chosen to enter into horticulture production? d. Do you think these new farmers have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more farmers entering horticulture production will continue in the future? Why or why not? 12. Are you aware of more businesses entering into horticulture? Probe: a. If so, what types of businesses are entering into horticulture? b. Where are these new businesses located? c. Why do you think these businesses have chosen to enter into horticulture? d. Do you think these new businesses have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more businesses entering horticulture will continue in the future? Why or why not? f. Can you give any specific examples of businesses who have recently entered horticulture? 13. To what extent do farmers and value chain businesses understand demand better? To what extent are they better able to meet demand in export markets? In domestic markets? Why? Probe: 133 a. Types of products b. Quality c. Standards and certifications d. Seasonality (year round and off-season) e. Branding, packaging, logistics 14. Are you aware of any changes or improvements in the efficiency of the value chains in the horticulture sector? Probe: a. If so, what changes or improvements are taking place? How do they increase efficiency? b. Can you give any specific examples of how the efficiency of value chains has improved? c. Do you think these improvements in efficiency are due to the efforts of Harvest II, or are they driven by other factors? d. Do you think there are still areas where value chains can be improved in terms of efficiency 15. To what degree have financial institutions, inputs suppliers and service providers begun to focus on the horticulture sector? Probe: a. Have you noticed any financial institutions, input suppliers or service providers who did not previously offer services to the horticulture sector, starting to do so? If so, can you provide examples of these providers and describe the changes they have made to target the horticulture sector? b. Why do you think these providers have started to target the horticulture sector? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to this increased interest from financial and other service providers in the horticulture sector? Why or why not? 16. Are there changes in government policies and programs related to horticulture in the last 5 years ? If so, what changes? Probe: a. Who in the government are the main actors driving these changes? b. How have these changes been implemented? c. Why do you think the government is making these changes in policies and programs? d. Do you think these changes are a result of the influence of the Harvest II program or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think these changes will have a positive or negative impact on the horticulture sector? f. What kind of impact do these changes have on the local communities? g. How do you think these changes will affect the future of the horticulture sector? 17. Are there any other trends in the horticulture sector to which Harvest II has contributed? What trends? 134 Inclusion 18. To what extent are horticulture value chains becoming more inclusive of women and youth? a. If so, what specific changes have happened? How do they make horticulture value chains more inclusive? b. Why do you think these changes occurred? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to increased inclusion of women and youth in horticulture value chains? Why or why not? d. If you don’t think horticulture value chains are becoming more inclusive, what activities or actions would contribute to value chains becoming more inclusive? Environmental impacts 19. Are farmers and other value chain businesses considering soil and water conservation more than they used to? a. If so, what changes are they making? Why? b. Do you think the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to these changes or are they driven by other factors? c. If you don’t think farmers and other value chain businesses are considering soil and water conservation, what activities or actions would contribute to them focusing on soil and water conservation? Climate change adaptation and mitigation 20. How are farmers and other value chain businesses adapting to climate change? a. Where are they getting information and support to adapt to climate change? b. Do you think the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to helping farmers and other value chain businesses adapt to climate change? If so, how? 21. Did Harvest II do anything explicit to encourage farmers and actors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? If so, what? Did market actors change their practices? Were new practices sustained? Were new practices likely to have decreased greenhouse gasses? 22. Did any practices, investments or activities promoted or facilitated by Harvest II unintentionally increase greenhouse gas emissions? If so, how? 23. What approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in horticulture exist that are present in or relevant to horticulture in Cambodia? 24. Are farmers switching from other crops to mango, longan, cashew nuts and/or vegetables ? If so, how does this affect farmers’ resilience to climate change? 135 25. Are farmers diversifying their crops to include mango, longan, cashew nuts and/or vegetables? If so, how does this affect their resilience to climate change? 26. Are mango, longan, cashew nut or vegetables associated with deforestation? If so, are they more or less likely than other crops to lead to deforestation? What did Harvest II do to ensure that promoting these crops and making them more profitable did not lead to deforestation? Was that effective? Recommendations 27. What recommendations do you have for Harvest III based on your experience with Harvest II and the horticulture sector? Other Projects / Donors Agencies Changes in the horticulture subsector and effects on farmers and value chain actors 1. What has changed in the horticulture sector over the last 5 years (especially vegetables, mango, longan and cashew)? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and focus on understanding how and why for those. Possible factors are provided below to probe if necessary.) a. Effects of COVID-19 b. International trade trends / changes in export markets, c. Changes in demand and marketing channels in domestic markets d. Innovations and trends in products, processing, marketing, branding, logistics, others e. Rate of innovation; diversity of products, business models, markets and technologies f. Government policies, programs and actions; public/private cooperation g. Relationships among farmers and businesses within the value chains h. Value chain efficiency; post-harvest waste i. Standards and certification(s) j. Availability of finance and other services; tailoring to horticulture, variety available k. Availability of information, type of information available, information flows l. Power sharing, trust, depth of relationships, ‘cheating,’ transparency, etc. m. Women’s access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector n. Youth access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector o. Conservation of natural resources p. Adaptation to climate change 2. How have farmers adapted to these changes? Why have they made these specific changes? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and discuss details of the changes. Possible changes are outlined below to probe if necessary.) 136 a. Types of crops, diversification, off-season production, cropping patterns b. Quality c. Relationships and interaction with buyers; changing to different buyers. d. Use of information e. Use of inputs f. Use of technologies g. Use of external services (eg technical assistance) h. Standards and certification(s) i. Land use j. Wastage k. Conservation of soil/water l. Adaptation to climate change m. Energy sources and usage efficiency n. Other practices 3. How have other value chain actors (buyers, processors, exporters, wholesalers) adapted to these changes? Why have they made these specific changes? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and discuss details of the changes. Possible effects are outlined below to probe if necessary.) a. Business strategy b. Changed suppliers and/or relationships with suppliers (coordination, crop planning, contract farming, purchase agreements, communication, trust, power sharing, etc.) c. Provision of products and services to suppliers (information, finance, training, technical advice, equipment, inputs) d. Relationships with other market actors (input suppliers, government agencies, service providers, finance suppliers) e. Use of services (e. g. finance, logistics, packaging, branding, market identification, marketing) f. Standards, certification(s) and related services g. New products, changes in quality h. Targeting new domestic or international markets (especially niche or premium) i. Marketing and sales (including online sales, branding, packaging) j. Interaction with others market actors during COVID-19 (physical to virtual); has this continued? k. Other practices: sourcing, production, transportation l. Investments (working capital, equipment, facilities, others) m. Rate/type of innovations or changes in the business model n. Conservation of natural resources 1. providing information, financing and/or technical advice on soil/water conserving technologies and practices 2. firm level practices to conserve natural resources 137 o. Adaptation to climate change 1. Providing information, financing, training or TA on practices, varieties, inputs that help farmers adapt to climate change 2. Firm level practices to adapt to climate change p. Unexpected changes Benefits and any negative impacts for farmers and business 4. What benefits or negative impacts did you observe for farmers from changes in the horticulture sector? Why did these occur? (Interviewer: Check all and get details on why with examples for 2-3.) a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less workers c. More/less, same/different buyers/markets d. More/less control in transactions, influence on value chain governance e. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors f. More/less/different involvement of women; women have more/less access to resources and opportunities g. More/less different involvement of youth; youth have more/less access to resources and opportunities h. Others 5. What benefits or negative impacts did you observe for other market actors from changes in the horticulture sector? Why did these occur? (Interviewer: Check all and get details on why for 2-3.) a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less staff/workers c. More/less, same/different markets d. More/less control in transactions, influence on value chain governance e. More/less risk f. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors g. More/less/different involvement of women; women have more/less access to resources and opportunities h. More/less different involvement of youth; youth have more/less access to resources and opportunities i. Others System change 6. Are you aware of more farmers entering into horticulture production? Probe: a. If so, what types of crops are these new farmers focusing on? b. Where are these new farmers located? 138 c. Why do you think these farmers have chosen to enter into horticulture production? d. Do you think these new farmers have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more farmers entering horticulture production will continue in the future? Why or why not? 7. Are you aware of more businesses entering into horticulture? Probe: a. If so, what types of businesses are entering into horticulture? b. Where are these new businesses located? c. Why do you think these businesses have chosen to enter into horticulture? d. Do you think these new businesses have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more businesses entering horticulture will continue in the future? Why or why not? f. Can you give any specific examples of businesses who have recently entered horticulture? 8. To what extent do farmers and value chain businesses understand demand better? To what extent are they better able to meet demand in export markets? In domestic markets? Why? Probe: a. Types of products b. Quality c. Standards and certifications d. Seasonality (year round and off-season) e. Branding, packaging, logistics 9. Are you aware of any changes or improvements in the efficiency of the value chains in the horticulture sector? Probe: a. If so, what changes or improvements are taking place? How do they increase efficiency? b. Can you give any specific examples of how the efficiency of value chains has improved? c. Do you think these improvements in efficiency are due to the efforts of Harvest II, or are they driven by other factors? d. Do you think there are still areas where value chains can be improved in terms of efficiency? 10. To what degree have financial institutions, input suppliers and service providers begun to focus on the horticulture sector? Probe: a. Have you noticed any financial institutions, input suppliers or service providers who did not previously offer services to the horticulture sector, starting to do so? If so, can you provide examples of these providers and describe the changes they have made to target the horticulture sector? 139 b. Why do you think these providers have started to target the horticulture sector? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to this increased interest from financial and other service providers in the horticulture sector? Why or why not? 11. Are there changes in government policies and programs related to horticulture in the last 5 years ? If so, what changes? Probe: a. Who in the government are the main actors driving these changes? b. How have these changes been implemented? c. Why do you think the government is making these changes in policies and programs? d. Do you think these changes are a result of the influence of the Harvest II program or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think these changes will have a positive or negative impact on the horticulture sector? f. What kind of impact do these changes have on the local communities? g. How do you think these changes will affect the future of the horticulture sector? Inclusion 12. To what extent are horticulture value chains becoming more inclusive of women and youth? a. If so, what specific changes have happened? How do they make horticulture value chains more inclusive? b. Why do you think these changes occurred? c. If you don’t think horticulture value chains are becoming more inclusive, what activities or actions would contribute to value chains becoming more inclusive? Environmental impacts 13. Are farmers and other value chain businesses considering soil and water conservation more than they used to? Probe: a. If so, what changes are they making? Why? b. Does your project aim to reduce the environmental impacts of farmers and other value chain businesses? If so, how? c. If you don’t think farmers and other value chain businesses are considering soil and water conservation, what activities or actions would contribute to them focusing on soil and water conservation? Climate change adaptation and mitigation 14. How are farmers and other value chain businesses adapting to climate change? a. Where are they getting information and support to adapt to climate change? 140 b. Does your project aim to help farmers and value chain businesses adapt to climate change? If so, how? 15. Does your project explicitly encourage farmers and actors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? If so, how? What changes have farmers and market actors made? Were new practices sustained? Were new practices likely to have decreased greenhouse gasses? 16. Are any practices, investments or activities promoted or facilitated by Harvest II or other similar projects unintentionally increasing greenhouse gas emissions? If so, how? 17. What approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in horticulture exist that are relevant to horticulture in Cambodia? 18. What can projects practically and reasonably do to reduce greenhouse gases or mitigate climate change in horticulture? 19. Are farmers switching from other crops to mango, longan, cashew nuts and/or vegetables ? If so, how does this affect farmers’ resilience to climate change? 20. Are farmers diversifying their crops to include mango, longan, cashew nuts and/or vegetables ? If so, how does this affect their resilience to climate change? 21. Are mango, longan, cashew nut or vegetables associated with deforestation? If so, are they more or less likely than other crops to lead to deforestation? What can projects do to prevent deforestation from expanding production of agricultural crops? Recommendations 22. What recommendations do you have for Harvest III based on your experience with Harvest II and the horticulture sector? USAID staff who oversaw Harvest II Changes in the horticulture subsector and effects on farmers and value chain actors 1. What has changed in the horticulture sector over the last 5 years (especially vegetables, mango, longan and cashew)? How? Why? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and focus on understanding how and why for those. Possible factors are provided below to probe if necessary.) a. Effects of COVID-19 141 b. International trade trends / changes in export markets, c. Changes in demand and marketing channels in domestic markets d. Innovations and trends in products, processing, marketing, branding, logistics, others e. Rate of innovation; diversity of products, business models, markets and technologies f. Government policies, programs and actions; public/private cooperation g. Relationships among farmers and businesses within the value chains h. Value chain efficiency; post-harvest waste i. Standards and certification(s) j. Availability of finance and other services; tailoring to horticulture, variety available k. Availability of information, type of information available, information flows l. Power sharing, trust, depth of relationships, ‘cheating,’ transparency, etc. m. Women’s access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector n. Youth access to resources and opportunities, roles in the subsector o. Conservation of natural resources p. Adaptation to climate change 2. How have farmers adapted to these changes? Why have they made these specific changes? (Interviewer: Identify the three most important and understand why for those. Possible changes listed below to probe if necessary.) a. Types of crops, diversification, off-season production, cropping patterns b. Quality c. Relationships and interaction with buyers; changing to different buyers d. Use of information e. Use of inputs f. Use of technologies g. Use of external services (eg technical assistance) h. Standards and certification(s) i. Land use j. Wastage k. Conservation of soil/water l. Adaptation to climate change m. Energy sources and usage efficiency n. Other practices 3. How have other value chain actors (buyers, processors, exporters, wholesalers) adapted to these changes? Why have they made these specific changes? Interviewer: Identify the three most important and understand why for those. Possible changes listed below to probe if necessary.) a. Business strategy 142 b. Changed suppliers and/or relationships with suppliers (coordination, crop planning, contract farming, purchase agreements, communication, trust, power sharing, etc.) c. Provision of products and services to suppliers (information, finance, training, technical advice, equipment, inputs) d. Relationships with other market actors (input suppliers, government agencies, service providers, finance suppliers) e. Use of services (e. g. finance, logistics, packaging, branding, market identification, marketing) f. Standards, certification(s) and related services g. New products, changes in quality h. Targeting new domestic or international markets (especially niche or premium) i. Marketing and sales (including online sales, branding, packaging) j. Interaction with others market actors during COVID-19 (physical to virtual); has this continued? k. Other practices: sourcing, production, transportation l. Investments (working capital, equipment, facilities, others) m. Rate/type of innovations or changes in the business model n. Conservation of natural resources 1. providing information, financing and/or technical advice on soil/water conserving technologies and practices 2. firm level practices to conserve natural resources o. Adaptation to climate change 1. Providing information, financing, training or TA on practices, varieties, inputs that help farmers adapt to climate change 2. Firm level practices to adapt to climate change p. Unexpected changes Benefits and any negative impacts for farmers and business 4. What benefits or negative impacts did you observe for farmers? Why did these occur? (Interviewer: Check all and get details on why for 2-3.) a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less workers c. More/less, same/different buyers/markets d. More/less control in transactions, influence on value chain governance e. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors f. More/less/different involvement of women; women have more/less access to resources and opportunities g. More/less different involvement of youth; youth have more/less access to resources and opportunities h. Others 143 5. What benefits or negative impacts did you observe for other market actors? Why did these occur? (Interviewer: Check all and get details on why for 2-3.) a. Sales and revenues: more/less, more/less regular, more/less reliable, changes in seasonality b. More/less staff/workers c. More/less, same/different markets d. More/less control in transactions, influence on value chain governance e. More/less risk f. More/less capacity to cope with shocks and stressors g. More/less/different involvement of women; women have more/less access to resources and opportunities h. More/less different involvement of youth; youth have more/less access to resources and opportunities i. Others Sustainability and system change 6. Have you observed farmers or market actors continuing new activities or behaviors or continuing to use particular technologies or services? If so, which ones? a. Have you observed them modifying these activities or behaviors? If so, how? Why? b. Have you observed them investing more in new technologies or services? If so, which ones? Why? 7. Have you found any farmers or businesses that did not interact with Harvest II that have made similar changes to those who did? Who? What did they change? Why? 8. Are you aware of more farmers entering into horticulture production? Probe: a. If so, what types of crops are these new farmers focusing on? b. Where are these new farmers located? c. Why do you think these farmers have chosen to enter into horticulture production? d. Do you think these new farmers have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more farmers entering horticulture production will continue in the future? Why or why not? 9. Are you aware of more businesses entering into horticulture? Probe: a. If so, what types of businesses are entering into horticulture? b. Where are these new businesses located? c. Why do you think these businesses have chosen to enter into horticulture? 144 d. Do you think these new businesses have been influenced by the Harvest II program, or are they driven by other factors? e. Do you think this trend of more businesses entering horticulture will continue in the future? Why or why not? f. Can you give any specific examples of businesses who have recently entered horticulture? 10. To what extent do farmers and value chain businesses understand demand better? To what extent are they better able to meet demand in export markets? In domestic markets? Why? Probe: a. Types of products b. Quality c. Standards and certifications d. Seasonality (year round and off-season) e. Branding, packaging, logistics 11. Are you aware of any changes or improvements in the efficiency of the value chains in the horticulture sector? Probe: a. If so, what changes or improvements are taking place? How do they increase efficiency? b. Can you give any specific examples of how the efficiency of value chains has improved? c. Do you think these improvements in efficiency are due to the efforts of Harvest II, or are they driven by other factors? d. Do you think there are still areas where value chains can be improved in terms of efficiency? 12. To what degree have financial institutions, input suppliers and service providers begun to focus on the horticulture sector? Probe: a. Have you noticed any financial institutions, inputs suppliers or service providers who did not previously offer services to the horticulture sector, starting to do so? If so, can you provide examples of these providers and describe the changes they have made to target the horticulture sector? b. Why do you think these providers have started to target the horticulture sector? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to this increased interest from financial and other service providers in the horticulture sector? Why or why not? 13. Are there changes in government policies and programs related to horticulture in the last 5 years? If so, what changes? Probe: a. Who in the government are the main actors driving these changes? b. How have these changes been implemented? c. Why do you think the government is making these changes in policies and programs? d. Do you think these changes are a result of the influence of the Harvest II program or are they driven by other factors? 145 e. Do you think these changes will have a positive or negative impact on the horticulture sector? f. What kind of impact do these changes have on the local communities? g. How do you think these changes will affect the future of the horticulture sector? 14. Are there any other trends in the horticulture sector which Harvest II has contributed to? What trends? Inclusion 15. To what extent are horticulture value chains becoming more inclusive of women and youth? a. If so, what specific changes have happened? How do they make horticulture value chains more inclusive? b. Why do you think these changes occurred? c. Do you think that the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to increased inclusion of women and youth in horticulture value chains? Why or why not? d. If you don’t think horticulture value chains are becoming more inclusive, what activities or actions would contribute to value chains becoming more inclusive? Environmental impacts 16. Are farmers and other value chain businesses considering soil and water conservation more than they used to? a. If so, what changes are they making? Why? b. Do you think the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to these changes or are they driven by other factors? c. If you don’t think farmers and other value chain businesses are considering soil and water conservation, what activities or actions would contribute to them focusing on soil and water conservation? Climate change adaptation and mitigation 17. How are farmers and other value chain businesses adapting to climate change? a. Where are they getting information and support to adapt to climate change? b. Do you think the activities and interventions of Harvest II have contributed to helping farmers and other value chain businesses adapt to climate change? If so, how? 18. Did Harvest II do anything explicit to encourage farmers and actors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? If so, what? Did market actors change their practices? Were new practices sustained? Were new practices likely to have decreased greenhouse gasses 146 19. Did any practices, investments or activities promoted or facilitated by Harvest II unintentionally increase greenhouse gas emissions? If so, how? 20. What approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in horticulture exist that are present in or relevant to horticulture in Cambodia? 21. Are farmers switching from other crops to mango, longan, cashew nuts and/or vegetables? If so, how does this affect farmers’ resilience to climate change? 22. Are farmers diversifying their crops to include mango, longan, cashew nuts and/or vegetables ? If so, how does this affect their resilience to climate change? 23. Are mango, longan, cashew nut or vegetables associated with deforestation? If so, are they more or less likely than other crops to lead to deforestation? What did Harvest II do to ensure that promoting these crops and making them more profitable did not lead to deforestation? Was that effective? Recommendations 24. What recommendations do you have for Harvest III based on your experience with Harvest II and the horticulture sector? Harvest II Staff – BEE Specialist Policy advisor KII Note: this guide is tailored for policy advisors and consultants, and program staff that worked directly on these activities. Following those interviews, the guide will be adapted for public and private stakeholders and used to drill down into the 2-4 specific policy issues identified (1-2 where great progress was made and there is high actual or potential impact, and 1-2 where it was challenging to make progress). 147 Theory of change 1. In the original solicitation for Harvest II one can deduce a rough approximation of a theory of change for the business enabling environment work, it says Harvest II will: “create an enabling policy environment…by strengthening the capacity of engagement among and between the public sector, private sector, and civil society. ” Would you agree that this was the theory of change under which Harvest II operated, or is this outdated, or is there something missing? Please elaborate. Level 2. At which levels did Harvest II work (policy, law, regulation, organizational capacity, procedures)? Diagnosis of policy issues (open question) 3. Please summarize the salient policy constraints to the horticulture sector that were present at the beginning of Harvest II? Diagnosis of policy challenges (value chain) 4. If we were to overlay these policy issues on a value chain map, where would be the biggest pain points? a. Input supply b. Production c. Storage d. Processing e. Transport (and for exports, customs) f. Sale Focus 5. Of these, please confirm the issues that Harvest II worked on. (illustrative list to be refined as interviews progress: registration, certification including CamGAP, sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS), import/export, e-commerce, financial regulation, oversight of cooperatives, other? ) 6. Did Harvest II work on any environmental / climate change-related policies? Which? 148 Regulatory burden versus lack of enforcement 7. Sometimes laws, regulations, and procedures related to business activity are considered too loose – not strong or structured enough to safeguard consumers or citizens (i.e., food safety testing and standards). In other cases, laws, regulations and procedures related to business activity are considered too burdensome, (i.e., complicated, paper-driven registration processes for cooperatives forcing rural farmers to travel to the capital). Of the issues identified above, can you triage them into these two categories? Vision of success 8. If all (or some) of these policy challenges were solved, what would happen? Are we seeing any of these effects yet? Public stakeholders 9. Please identify the Cambodian public partner agencies with which Harvest II worked the most closely. On which issues? Process 10. Was there a formal structure for meetings and activities, or did it vary depending on the issue and the interlocutor? Did Harvest II participate actively in all or some of the technical working groups sponsored by development partners and organized with the intention to bring public, private, and civil society stakeholders together? Which were the most dynamic? Can we identify two specific strategies, plans, laws, or other documents produced (among the forty) that represent the biggest policy achievements of the program? Can we identify 1-2 of the forty that have not moved much and still represent a challenge? Exemplary narrative 11. Can you tell us the story of the work with one of these policy issues, in chronological sequence and adding colorful details so we have a picture of how the work transpired? Next interviewees 12. Which external actors shall we interview that were also engaged with the same policy issues (for example other development partners, private sector associations that were champions on certain issues)? Vegetable Farmers Survey A Survey with approximately 350 vegetable producers will be conducted to understand their changes in practice and performance as well as impacts on their livelihoods and other benefits. The survey will also 149 provide some information to understand system changes, particularly scale. The sample is constructed to compare different groups of farmers related to their interaction with Harvest II promoted activities and their adoption of new practices. Thus, the sample population is categorized into three: 200 samples will be selected from the Harvest II Indicator 2B data set which covers all farmers involved in activities promoted by Harvest II and who have adopted at least one practice change; 100 samples of farmers who were involved in activities promoted by Harvest II but who have not adopted any new practices. These will be selected from Harvest II Indicator 15 data set. Location based sampling will be used for the farmers reached by Harvest II, with random selection within each location. 50 samples of farmers who were not directly involved in activities promoted by Harvest II but who have received information or been influenced by farmers who were involved and changed their practices (referred to as copying farmers). Snowball sampling will be applied to find copying farmers by asking farmers who adopted new practices. While every effort will be made to find farmers who have been influenced by those directly involved in activities promoted by Harvest II, this sample may be smaller if a sufficient number of indirectly reached farmers cannot be found. Consent will be requested at the beginning of each interview in the survey. Introduction: Interviewers will introduce themselves and explain the purpose of the interview and how the information will be used. The interviewers will inform the respondent(s) that their participation is strictly voluntary, that all information discussed is confidential, and that interviewees will not be individually identified in the reporting of findings. Verbal consent must be gained and be included in the notes. Introductory comments: Hello! My name is ____________and I work for Just Results. We are part of a team carrying out a survey for the Cambodia Harvest II project. We would like to ask you some questions about your vegetable farming practices in general. The interview usually takes around 30 minutes to complete. Information that you provide will be kept strictly confidential and will not be shown to other people, this will be used only for the Harvest II project evaluation. This is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any or all of the questions if you want. We hope that you will participate since your views are important. i. Do you have any questions? ⬜1. Yes⬜ 0. No ii. May we begin now? ⬜ 1. Yes ⬜ 0. No (If no, end the interview) SECTION A0 – BASICQUESTIONNAIRE INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE INFORMATION A0. 1 Date: |____|____| / |____|____| / |____|____| (Day/Month /Year) A0. 2a Time start |____|____|(hh/mm) 150 A0. 2b Time end |____|____|(hh/mm) A0. 3 Name of enumerator ⬜ 1. Ung Sreymach ⬜ 2. Seng Sreyno ⬜ 3. Thorn Rasmey A0. 4 Type of sample farmer: ⬜ 1. Adopted farmer ⬜ 2. Non-Adopted farmers ⬜ 3. Indirect farmer SELECTION CRITERIA A05. Is your family currently growing vegetable? ⬜ 1. Yes ⬜ 0. No(If no, end the interview) A06. Only Indirect Farmer: Did you get any information from (name) adopted farmer? ⬜ 1. Yes ⬜ 0. No(If no, end the interview) Use provided list only, don’t ask A07. For Adopted & Non-Adopted farmers, what type of activity did you participate with Harvest II project? (Multiple Answers) ⬜ 1. #02- Suppliers within commercial partnerships ⬜2. #07- Vegetable producers signed contract farming - TSAC ⬜ 3. #08- Vegetable producer adopt CSA - CKL ⬜ 4. #09- Vegetable producers adopted CSA - TSAC ⬜5. #10- Vegetable producers adopted PGS requirements - Aliments ⬜ 6. #11- Vegetable producers with PGS - Laey Baitong ⬜7. #12- Vegetable producers applied for CamGAP Certificate - NAV ⬜8. #13- Vegetable producer group improved practices - EWS ⬜9. #28- Producers participating in EWS's activities, training and TA ⬜10. #29- Producers receiving trainings and follow-up visits on climate resilience practices (BTB) - AS ⬜11. #30- Producers receiving trainings and follow-up visits on climate resilience practices (PUR & SRP) - IIRR ⬜ 12. #32- Producer received trainings on carbon-based fertilizer and wood vinegar - Husk Ventures SECTION A1 – BASIC INFORMATION OF INTERVIEWEE A1 Interviewee address [Use provided list]: a. Province: ____________________________ b. District: ____________________________ c. Commune:____________________________ d. Village: _____________________________ A2 Name of interviewee [Use provided list] Name: _________________________________ A2a Gender of interviewee ⬜ 1. Male ⬜ 0. Female 151 A2b Age category (Single Answer) ⬜ 1. 15 – 29 ⬜ 2. 30 – 49 ⬜ 2. More than 50 A2c Contact number (0 __ __) _______________________ A3 How many members are currently living in your household? (Live and eat together) 1. Total household numbers:[ ___________ ] 2. Total women members:[ ___________ ] A3a How many members in your family are involved in vegetable activity? 1. # member in vegetable farming activity:[ ______ ] 2. # women in vegetable farming activity: [ ______ ] SECTION B– SOCIOECONOMIC AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTION IMPACT B1 What is your main livelihood income activity? (Single Answer) ⬜1. Farming activities ⬜ 2. Fishing activities ⬜ 3. Animal raising activities ⬜ 4. Agricultural labor (daily wage) ⬜ 5. Non-agricultural labor (daily wage) ⬜ 6. Government officer ⬜ 7. Private sector employee/worker (salary) ⬜ 8. Other (specify): ____________________ B2 Among the crops you cultivate, which one represents your main source of income? (Single Answer) ⬜ 1. Vegetables ⬜ 2. Mango ⬜ 3. Longan ⬜ 4. Cashew nut ⬜ 4. Paddy production ⬜ 99. Other crops: _______________________ B3. We would like to ask about your vegetable production in 2022 and how was your income compared to before your involvement in activities with Harvest II and their partners. How many “are” do you have for vegetable production? [________________] Are No. B3a. Type of vegetable (Code B3a) B3b. From Month￾Month B3c. How was the yield compared to before involvement with Harvest II for the same variety? (Code B3c) B3d. How was the income from that vegetable compared to before involvement with Harvest II? (Code B3d) 1 2 152 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Code B3a: 1= Cabbage 2= Chinese cabbage 3= Cauliflower 4= Cucumber 5= Yard long bean 6= Winter melon 7= Bottle gourd 8= Bitter gourd 9= Green Shallot 10= Tomato 11= Cherry-tomato 12= Pok Choy 13= Morning glory 14= Choy sum 99. Others: ________ Code B3c: 1= Get higher yield 2= Get the same yield 3= Get lower yield Code B3d: 1= The higher price of vegetable gave us more income 2= The stable price of vegetable gave us stable income 3= Because if yield increase, we can earn more income 4= We earn less due to lower price 5= We earn less due to yield decrease B4 For the last vegetable season: Did you try any new practices, techniques, or varieties? ⬜ 1. Yes⬜ 2. No 153 B5 Before that, how often did you try something new, such as new practices, techniques, or varieties? ⬜ 1. Every vegetable season/crop ⬜ 2. Every few vegetables seasons/crops ⬜ 3. Rarely ⬜ 4. Never change Now, we would like to ask you about vegetable market B6 How many vegetable collectors are available in your area? How many of them are in your village and outside your village area? [_____________] #Collectors with the village [_____________] #Collectors outside the village B7 Where do you sell your vegetable product mainly? Please rank the top 3 (Multiple Answers) ⬜ 1. End users ⬜ 2. Collectors (No agreement) ⬜ 3. Processor (No agreement) ⬜4. Purchase agreement (verbally) ⬜ 5. Contract farming ⬜ 6. Agricultural Cooperative (AC) ⬜ 7. Contracted market/supermarket ⬜ 99. Others: ______________ Response (code): 1. [______] 2. [______] 3. [______] B8 Why did you decide to sell to whom mentioned in B7b? (Multiple Answers) ⬜ 1. There is no competitor ⬜ 2. Provide better price comparing to others ⬜ 3. Contract farming ⬜ 5. Purchase agreement (verbally) ⬜ 6. I have good relationship with collectors/buyers ⬜ 7. Because they provided me the input credit ⬜ 99. Others ________________________ B9 Have you sold vegetables to the same people for every crops? ⬜ 1. Yes⬜ 2. No B9a Why did you do so? ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ B10 Are you in a long-term relationship with any of your buyers? ⬜ 1. Yes⬜ 2. No B10a To what extent do you feel you can influence transactions with your buyer? ⬜ 1. A lot ⬜ 2. A little ⬜ 3. Not very much ⬜ 4. Not at all 154 B11 Have you ever used the E-commerce platforms such as Tonlesap App, kokopun, Grocerdel ⬜ 1. Yes ⬜ 2. No ⬜ 99. I don’t know this platform B11a If “B12=Yes”, what do you use the platform for? (Multiple Answers) ⬜ 1. Checking vegetable price ⬜ 2. Selling agricultural products ⬜ 3. Searching for agricultural production technique ⬜ 4. To get loan credit from AMK (TonleSap App) ⬜ 99. Others: ______________________________ 155 SECTION C – KNOWLEDGE ,ADOPTION, SUSTAINABILITY ANDSCALE For Adopted & Non-adopted farmer: What are the types of agriculture information that you have learned from 2017-2022? For Indirect farmer: What are the types of agriculture information that you have learned from adopted farmers (call out the name of adopted farmer)? # Improved Practices C1. Did you get information? (Yes/No, if NO skip to C6) C2. Where did you get this information? (Code C2) C3. If “C2=Code 1/2” did you apply the knowledge? (Yes/No) C4. If “C3=Yes”, did you get any impact from the application? (Yes/No) C5. Reasons for getting impact from application (Code C5- Rank top 3 answers) C6. Will you (continue to) apply in the future? (Yes/No) C7. Reasons for applying/not applying? (Code C7- Rank top 3 answers) 1 Net house / Greenhouse 2 Crop varieties/crop diversify 3 Soil mulching 4 Crop rotation 5 Mounding 6 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) such as biological control, change of cultural practices, and use improved seed varieties 7 Soil fertility management 8 Improved fertilizer practices 9 Smart irrigation: (e.g., drip) 10 Land preparation: e.g., low- or no-till 11 Erosion control 156 12 CamGAP practices 13 Organic farming agriculture 14 Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) 15 Post -harvest handling practice 16 Formal agreements (i.e., contract farming, purchasing agreements, etc.) 17 FinTech / Digital financial platforms 18 Financial literacy training 19 Participated in supply - chain financing / input credits 157 C2: Sources of information 1= Harvest/Harvest partners (partner in the list provided) 2= Adopted farmers 3= Other farmers 4= Vegetable seed company 5= Input suppliers 6. Input companies 7= MAFF/PDAFF/DDAFF 99. Others: ________ C5. Reason for getting Impact 1= Labor saving (days) 2= Increased production cycles 3= Reduced expenditure on land preparation 4= Reduced expenditure on seed 5= Reduced expenditure on fertilize 6= Reduced expenditure on pesticide 7= Reduced expenditure on harvesting 8= Increased yield 9= Increased quality of produce 10= Increased the produce price 11= Increased access to new markets 13= Reduced wastage 14= More stable price 15= More planned schedule for supplying market need 99= Other: _________________ 98= No answer C7a. Reason of applying in the future 1= Need to invest only one time (not needed anymore) 2= It increases my yields 3= It is highly profitable 4= Willing to adopt the practice in the next seasons 5= My buyers encouraged me to adopt practice so that they are willing to buy more 6= I can sell for a higher price 7= It allows me to grow more cycles per year 99= Other ___________ 98= No answer C7b: Reasons for NOT Applying knowledge 1= High Investment cost 2= Difficult to apply/Too complicated 3= Inadequate technical support 4= Too labor intensive and we don’t have enough labor 5= Limited knowledge or not confident about it 6= Could not find the required equipment for the technology in the market 7= Nothing different from conventional method 99= Other ____________________ 98= No answer 158 C7 In general, how satisfied are you with the information provided by Harvest II/ Harvest partners/adopted farmers? ⬜ 1. Very satisfied ⬜ 2. Satisfied ⬜ 3. Neutral ⬜ 4. Dissatisfied ⬜ 5. Very dissatisfied C7a Could you please indicate why you think so? (Multiple Answers) ⬜ 1. It helped to improve yield ⬜ 2. It helped to get better price ⬜3. It helped to improve market linkage ⬜ 99. Others: ______________ C8 Are you planning to expand your area of production and/or vegetable market? (Single Answer) ⬜ 1. Expand only production area ⬜ 2. Expand only market ⬜ 3. Expand both area and market ⬜ 4. I am not sure yet ⬜ 5. No, just have the same business C8a Could you please indicate why you think so? (Multiple Answers) ⬜ 1. Vegetable production is good for family income ⬜ 2. I have stable market to sell vegetables ⬜ 3. I have more market networks ⬜ 4. I don’t have land for expanding ⬜ 99. Others: ______________ SECTION D– CLIMATE CHANGE (FOR Q3) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (FOR Q4) For all respondents D1 Does climate change impact your vegetable production such as drought, unusual rain, flooding…)? ⬜ 1. Yes⬜ 2. No D2 If ‘D1=Yes”, what have you done to adapt? (Multiple Answers) ⬜ 1. Net house/Greenhouse ⬜ 2. Crop varieties / Diversify crop ⬜ 3. Soil mulching ⬜ 4. Crop rotation ⬜ 5. Smart irrigation: (e.g., drip) ⬜ 6. Land preparation: e.g., low- or no-till ⬜ 7. CamGAP practices 159 ⬜ 8 Organic Agriculture ⬜ 9. Using climate/weather information for planning ⬜ 98. I don’t know ⬜ 99. Others: _________________ D3 Have you increased your vegetable production over the last three years ⬜ 1. Yes⬜ 2. No D3a If “D3=Yes”, how did you increase your vegetable production? (Multiple Answers) ⬜ 1. Expand vegetable production area ⬜ 2. Replace other crops ⬜ 3. Plant together with other crops (inter crop) ⬜ 99. Others: ____________________ D4 Do you use biochar or rice husk vinegar to enrich your agricultural products? ⬜ 1. Yes ⬜ 2. No ⬜ 98. I don’t know D5 Do you use necessary protective equipment such as respiratory mask, boot, and gloves during biochar or rice husk vinegar application? ⬜ 1. Yes ⬜ 2. No ⬜ 98. I don’t know D6 Do you use meteorology information for your irrigation planning? ⬜ 1. Yes ⬜ 2. No ⬜ 98. I don’t know D7 Do you apply any of the seven climate resilient practices as (read the next box and tick) in your agricultural practice? ⬜ 1. Raising bed, trellising system and pruning ⬜ 2. Production of healthy seedling ⬜ 3. Compost making ⬜ 4. Botanical insecticide ⬜ 5. Drip irrigation ⬜ 6. Soil mulching ⬜ 7. Using net-house ⬜ 98. I don’t know SECTION E – DECISION MAKINGON VEGETABLE PRODUCTION We would like to ask you about your family roles and decision making around vegetable production activity for the last three years. 160 E1 Have roles and decision making around vegetables production and sales in your family changed over the last 3 years? Level of Women’s involvement 1= More involvement of women 2= Same involvement of women (No change) 3= Less involvement of women 97= N/A E1. 1 Roles in production E1. 2 Roles in harvesting and post-harvest E1. 3 Roles in negotiating and working with buyers/collectors E1. 4 Roles in cooperating with other farmers E1. 5 Decision on adopting new practices provided by Harvest/ Harvest partners in general/Adopted farmer E1. 6 Decision on investing in vegetable inputs (fertilizer, pesticide, seed) E1. 7 Decision on applying CamGap practices E1. 8 Decision on applying drip irrigation E1. 9 Decision in adopting net-house E1. 10 Decision on adopting organic farming agriculture E1. 11 Decision on selling vegetable and the price E1. 12 Decision on taking credit for vegetable production E2 If any of “E1=code 1- more involvement of women”, could you please indicate reason why? (Multiple Answers) ⬜ 1. Expanding vegetable production areas ⬜ 2. Change crops which require more labor ⬜3. Women are good at communication/ negotiation ⬜ 99. Others: _________________________ E3 If any of “E1=code 2- the same involvement of women”, could you please indicate reason why? ⬜ 1. Vegetable production required the same labor ⬜ 99. Others: _________________________ 161 (Multiple Answers) E4 If any of “E1=code 3- less involvement of women”, could you please indicate reason why? (Multiple Answers) ⬜ 1. Reducing vegetable production areas ⬜ 2. Change crops which require less labor ⬜3. Machinery help reducing labor so women are less involved ⬜4. Soil mulching help reducing labor especially from women ⬜ 99. Others: _________________________ E5 Have youth (15-29 years old) in your family taken on any new roles in vegetable production and/or sale in the last three years? If so, what roles? ⬜ 1. Yes⬜ 2. No(If No, skip to E6) E5a If “E5=Yes” what roles? (Multiple Answer) ⬜ 1. Leading in production innovation ⬜ 2. Leading in post-harvest innovation ⬜ 3. Marketing ⬜ 4. Farming business management ⬜ 5. Other ___________________ E6 How much influence do you feel you have on vegetable production and sales in your area? (Single Answer) ⬜ 1. A lot ⬜ 2. A little ⬜ 3. Not very much ⬜ 4. Not at all ⬜ 98. I don’t know E7 For the last three years, how has your understanding of what vegetables people want to buy changed, particularly what types of vegetable they want to buy, the quality and the time of year? (Single Answer) ⬜ 1. I have a lot more understanding now ⬜ 2. I have a little more understanding now ⬜ 3. My understanding has not changed ⬜ 4. I have less understanding now E8 How confident are you that vegetable production and sales will continue to be an important source of income for your family? (Single Answer) ⬜ 1. Very confident ⬜ 2. A little confident ⬜ 3. Not very confident ⬜ 4. Not confident at all E9 Are you/your family a member of a cooperative or association for vegetable producers? ⬜ 1. Yes⬜ 2. No(If No, skip to F1) E9a If “E9=Yes”, have you taken a new role in your cooperative/association in the last three years? ⬜ 1. Yes⬜ 2. No(If No, skip to E10) 162 E9b If “E9a=Yes” what new role have you taken? (Single Answer) ⬜ 1. Director ⬜ 2. Deputy director ⬜ 3. Finance ⬜ 4. Others: __________________ E10 How much do you feel your cooperative/association can influence relationships and transactions with buyers? (Single Answer) ⬜ 1. A lot ⬜ 2. A little ⬜ 3. Not very much ⬜ 4. Not at all E11 To what extent can your cooperative/association influence other businesses to provide services for vegetable farmers like inputs, training and finance? (Single Answer) ⬜ 1. A lot ⬜ 2. A little ⬜ 3. Not very much ⬜ 4. Not at all E12 To what extent can your cooperative/association influence government to provide services to vegetable farmers? (Single Answer) ⬜ 1. A lot ⬜ 2. A little ⬜ 3. Not very much ⬜ 4. Not at all SECTION F – KNOWLEDGE SHARING(SYSTEMIC CHANGE) Ask only for Adopted farmers F1 After participating with the Harvest II project, have you shared any information that you learnt or what you have adopted with other farmers? ⬜ 1. Yes ⬜ 0. No (If no, end the interview) F1a If “F1=Yes”, with how many farmers have you shared? |________|(#family) F1b If “F1a>0”, how many shared farmers improved practice based on what you have shared? |________|(#family) F2 If “E1b>0”, can you please provide us with 5 names of farmers who have improved practices? 1. ____________________________ 2. ____________________________ 3. ____________________________ 4. ____________________________ 5. ____________________________ 163 Field Research Schedule The field research schedule for each of the research methods is provided below. Flexibility will be maintained to accommodate respondents’ schedules and maximize the efficiency of the research. 1. FGDs Date Activities Province District Commune Village Direct Indirect 1-Mar-23 Training Phnom Penh 2-Mar-23 Travel and recruitment Battambang 3-Mar-23 Mango Battambang Samlout Mean Chey Srae Chipov 2 4-Mar-23 Mango Battambang Samlout Mean Chey Ampuep 2 5-Mar-23 Longan Battambang Phnum Proek Boeng Reang Prahpout 1 Longan Battambang Phnum Proek Pech Chenda Phnum Touch 1 6-Mar-23 Longan Battambang Phnum Proek Pech Chenda Anlong Mean 2 7-Mar-23 Longan Pailin Pailin Pailin Suon Ampov Khang Koet 1 7-Mar-23 Longan Pailin Pailin Ou Tavau Die Kra Hom 1 8-Mar-23 Travel and recruitment Siem Reap 11-Mar￾23 Cashew Siem Reap Chi Kraeng Pongro Leu Prey Chhkar 2 Mango Siem Reap Banteay Srei Tbaeng Ta Pen 1 164 Date Activities Province District Commune Village Direct Indirect 12-Mar￾23 Mango Siem Reap Soutr Nikom Ta Yaek Paoy Smach 1 13-Mar￾23 Travel and recruitment Kampong Thom 14-Mar￾23 Cashew Kampong Thom Stoung Popok Anlong Kranh 2 15-Mar￾23 Cashew Kampong Thom Prasat Balang Chroab Trapeang Pring 2 16-Mar￾23 Travel and recruitment Preah Vihear 17-Mar￾23 Cashew Preah Vihear Chey Sen Thmea Thmea 2 18-Mar￾23 Travel back Phnom Penh Total=20 FGDs 14 6 2. Survey Date Province District Commune Village Sampling Remark Adopted Non￾adopted Indirect 1-Mar-23 Phnom Penh 1 day training 2-Mar-23 Kampong Thom Baray Andoung Pou Chiveakpheap 6 1 day for field testing 3-Mar-23 Kampong Thom Finalize + prepare for field work Field work in Kampong Thom 40 20 10 165 Date Province District Commune Village Sampling Remark Adopted Non￾adopted Indirect 4-Mar-23 Kampong Thom Baray Sralau Bos Lvea 10 2 #28- Producers participating in EWS's activities, training and TA Kampong Thom Santuk Prasat Banteay Yumreach 5 1 #28- Producers participating in EWS's activities, training and TA 5-Mar-23 Kampong Thom Santuk Prasat Banteay Yumreach 5 1 #02- Suppliers within commercial partnerships Kampong Thom Kampong Svay Kampong Svay Chrang Kraham 10 2 #28- Producers participating in EWS's activities, training and TA 6-Mar-23 Kampong Thom Prasat Sambour Tang Krasau Ta Paong 5 5 2 #28- Producers participating in EWS's activities, training and TA Kampong Thom Prasat Balangk Sala Visai Khmak 5 #28- Producers participating in EWS's activities, training and TA 7-Mar-23 Kampong Thom Kampong Svay Trapeang Ruessei Ou Rumdeng Trapeang Ruessei Snao 5 2 #02- Suppliers within commercial partnerships Kampong Thom Kampong Svay Trapeang Ruessei Ou Rumdeng 5 #28- Producers participating in EWS's activities, training and TA Kampong Thom Kampong Svay Trapeang Ruessei Serei Vongs 5 #28- Producers participating in EWS's activities, training and TA Field work in Siem Reap 40 20 10 8-Mar-23 Morning: Travel to Siem reap Siem Reap Chi Kraeng Kok Thlok Leu Slaeng Kaong Klakmom Thlok Smach 10 3 #32- Producer received trainings on carbon-based fertilizer and wood vinegar - Husk Venture 166 Date Province District Commune Village Sampling Remark Adopted Non￾adopted Indirect 9-Mar-23 Siem Reap Soutr Nikom Chan Sar Baek Kamphleung 10 3 #30- Producers receiving trainings and follow-up visits on climate resilience practices(PUR & SRP) - IIRR Siem Reap Soutr Nikom Chan Sar Kouk Chen 5 #30- Producers receiving trainings and follow-up visits on climate resilience practices(PUR & SRP) - IIRR 10-Mar-23 Siem Reap Soutr Nikom Chan Sar Kouk Chen 5 #30- Producers receiving trainings and follow-up visits on climate resilience practices(PUR & SRP) - IIRR Siem Reap Prasat Bakong Kantrang Ta Trav 10 #12- Vegetable producers applied for CamGAP Certificate - NAV Siem Reap Prasat Bakong Kantrang Ta Trav 3 #12- Vegetable producers applied for CamGAP Certificate - NAV 11-Mar-23 Siem Reap Prasat Bakong Kantreang Kantreang Sret Khang Kaeut 7 2 #12- Vegetable producers applied for CamGAP Certificate - NAV Siem Reap Pouk Koepor Peam Ta Our 5 1 #2- Suppliers within commercial partnerships 12-Mar-23 Siem Reap Pouk Koepor Peam Ta Our 5 1 #2- Suppliers within commercial partnerships Afternoon- Travel to Battambang Field work in Battambang 80 40 20 13-Mar-23 Battambang Bavel Kdol Ta Haen Tuol Krasang Ta Kot 10 3 #08- Vegetable producer adopt CSA - CKL 14-Mar-23 Battambang Banan Ta Kream Anlong Svay 10 #12- Vegetable producers applied for CamGAP Certificate - NAV 167 Date Province District Commune Village Sampling Remark Adopted Non￾adopted Indirect Battambang Banan Ta Kream Anlong Svay 5 2 #32- Producer received trainings on carbon-based fertilizer and wood vinegar - Husk Venture 15-Mar-23 Battambang Banan Ta Kream Andong Neang 10 3 #10- Vegetable producers adopted PGS requirements - Aliments Battambang Banan Chher Teal Svay Prakeab 5 1 #12- Vegetable producers applied for CamGAP Certificate - NAV 16-Mar-23 Battambang Banan Chher Teal Svay Prakeab 5 1 #12- Vegetable producers applied for CamGAP Certificate - NAV Battambang Sangkae Reang Kesei Prey Svay Kakaoh Kambot 10 #11- Vegetable producers with PGS - Laey Baitong 17-Mar-23 Battambang Sangkae Reang Kesei Kakaoh Kambot 10 3 #11- Vegetable producers with PGS - Laey Baitong Battambang Sangkae Wat Tamim Kompong Chlang 5 #32- Producer received trainings on carbon-based fertilizer and wood vinegar - Husk Venture 18-Mar-23 Battambang Sangkae Kampong Preang Som Bok Ork 5 5 2 #32- Producer received trainings on carbon-based fertilizer and wood vinegar - Husk Venture Battambang Thma Koul Tamern Phoum Thmei 5 1 #7- Vegetable producers signed contractfariming - TSAC 19-Mar-23 Battambang Thma Koul Tamern Tasey 10 2 #7- Vegetable producers signed contractfariming - TSAC Battambang Thma Koul Tamern Orng 5 2 #7- Vegetable producers signed contractfariming - TSAC 168 Date Province District Commune Village Sampling Remark Adopted Non￾adopted Indirect 20-Mar-23 Battambang Aek Phnum Preaek Luong Rohal Suong 10 #29- Producers receiving trainings and follow-up visits on climate resilience practices (BTB) - AS Battambang Aek Phnum Peam Aek Preaek Chdaor 10 #29- Producers receiving trainings and follow-up visits on climate resilience practices (BTB) - AS Field work in Pursat 40 20 10 21-Mar-23 Traveling to Pursat Pursat Bakan Boeng Bat Kandaol Boeng Chhuk 10 #30- Producers receiving trainings and follow-up visits on climate resilience practices(PUR & SRP) - IIRR 22-Mar-23 Pursat Bakan Trapeang Chong Chamkar Ou 5 1 #30- Producers receiving trainings and follow-up visits on climate resilience practices(PUR & SRP) - IIRR Pursat Bakan Trapeang Chong Chamkar Ou 1 5 #12- Vegetable producers applied for CamGAP Certificate - NAV Pursat Bakan Trapeang Chong Trapeang Chong 5 #28- Producers participating in EWS's activities, training and TA 23-Mar-23 Pursat Kandieng Svay Luong Chreaeng 2 1 #12- Vegetable producers applied for CamGAP Certificate - NAV Pursat Kandieng Svay Loung Chreaeng 5 1 #30- Producers receiving trainings and follow-up visits on climate resilience practices(PUR & SRP) - IIRR Pursat Kandieng Kaoh Chum Anlong Hab 5 2 #30- Producers receiving trainings and follow-up visits on climate resilience practices(PUR & SRP) - IIRR 169 3. IDIs and KIIs Date Name Province Area of Harvest II Support to Partner 15-Feb-23 IDE Cambodia Phnom Penh CHAIN/SNV/SwissContact Phnom Penh 16-Feb-23 Azaylla Cambodia Co. , Ltd Phnom Penh Grant support HEKS Phnom Penh 17-Feb-23 SEVEA (Feb 2021) Phnom Penh Logistics Handcrafted cashew nut Stung Treng (HCST) Stueng Treng Grant support EMC Phnom Penh 20-Feb-23 Chamroeun Microfinance Institution Phnom Penh Mircrofinance trained literacy coaching through grantee - CMA Date Province District Commune Village Sampling Remark Adopted Non￾adopted Indirect 24-Mar-23 Pursat Pursat Lolok Sa Dob Bat 1 #12- Vegetable producers applied for CamGAP Certificate - NAV Pursat Pursat Lolok Sa Dob Bat 10 3 #02- Suppliers within commercial partnerships Pursat Pursat Roleab Ou Thkov 1 #12- Vegetable producers applied for CamGAP Certificate - NAV 25-Mar-23 Pursat Pursat Roleab Ou Thkov 10 2 #28- Producers participating in EWS's activities, training and TA Traveling back to Phnom Penh 170 Date Name Province Area of Harvest II Support to Partner Top Planning Japan Phnom Penh Participate export to MENA - CPSF Aliments Phnom Penh Grant support 22-Feb-23 Meeting with Harvest team USAID Phnom Penh General Directorate of Agriculture (GDA) Phnom Penh 23-Feb-23 MoC/AIMs Phnom Penh Cambodia Food Manufacture Association - CMFA Phnom Penh Small Size Handicrafts/Enterprises and New Products Registration Mark (ចបផ) Ministry of Environment (MoE) Phnom Penh 24-Feb-23 Angkor Green Investment and Development (Cambodia) Co. , Ltd. Phnom Penh Grant support Husk Ventures Phnom Penh Grant support Confirel Co. ,Ltd Phnom Penh Grant support 25-Feb-23 Travel to Kampong Thom 26-Feb-23 M23 Cashew Enterprise Kampong Thom Cashew processors attend export requirement training - Consultant PDAFF Kampong Thom 27-Feb-23 Chey Sambo Cashew Nut Processing Handicraft (CSC) Kampong Thom Grant support Cashew nut Association of Cambodia (CAC) Kampong Thom Grant support Lim Phany Kampong Thom MSMEs received business development training -consultant 171 Date Name Province Area of Harvest II Support to Partner Travel to Siem Reap 28-Feb-23 PDAFF Siem Reap Phal Sambath Enterprise Siem Reap Cashew processors attend export requirement training - Consultant Bout Nhoeun Siem Reap Buyers within Commercial Partnerships Kiv Sok kan ( Chhae Ou) Siem Reap Buyers within Commercial Partnerships 1-Mar-23 Grove Fruit Growers Co. , Ltd. Siem Reap Grant support Travel to Battambang 2-Mar-23 PDAFF Battambang Pechenda Fruit Production Battambang Trading partners - SHE Agrocam Misota Food Import Export Co. ,Ltd Battambang Grant support Laey Baitong Battambang Grant support 3-Mar-23 Tasey Samaki Agricutlural Cooperative (TSAC) Battambang Grant support Kouy Mealea Battambang Buyers within Commercial Partnerships Navita Healthy Food & Beverages Co. , Ltd. Battambang Grant support Song Mouy Battambang Grant support 4-Mar-23 Travel to Phnom Penh 6-Mar-23 Mith Hasika (Apr 2021) Phnom Penh Food safety training for vegetable processor Buntong Borarin (Jun 2021) Phnom Penh Improve productivity and diversification of nethouse vegetables 172 Date Name Province Area of Harvest II Support to Partner Vann Piseth (Feb 2021) Phnom Penh Production development to improve competitiveness AMK Microfinance Institution PLC Phnom Penh Grant support Banhji FinTech Co. , Ltd. (Banhji) Phnom Penh Grant support 7-Mar-23 SHE Agrocam Products Co. , Ltd. Phnom Penh Grant support Natural Agriculture Village (NAV) Phnom Penh Grant support Kirirom Food Production Co. ,Ltd Phnom Penh/Kampong Speu Grant support Ample Agro Product Co. , Ltd. (Ample) Phnom Penh Grant support 8-10 Mar￾23 Interviews with indirect firms 13-Mar-23 SEGO Project East-West Seed (Cambodia) Co. , Ltd. Phnom Penh Grant support Green Market Phnom Penh Trading partners - SHE Agrocam Song Do Foods (Cambodia) Co. , Ltd. Phnom Penh Grant support 14-Mar-23 Kamya AgriTrade Co. , Ltd. Phnom Penh Grant support Generation One Co. , Ltd. Phnom Penh Grant support KCCV Plantation Co. , Ltd. Phnom Penh Grant support 15-Mar-23 Puzzle Solution Co. , Ltd. Phnom Penh Grant support CSL Enterprise (CSL) Phnom Penh Grant support Richfarm Asia Co. , Ltd. Phnom Penh/Kampong Speu Grant support 173 Date Name Province Area of Harvest II Support to Partner 16-Mar-23 Seasonfresh (Cambodia) Co. , Ltd. (Seasonfresh) Phnom Penh/Kampong Speu Grant support Remic Phnom Penh Buyers within Commercial Partnerships Cambodia Agriculture Cooperative Alliance (CACA) Phnom Penh Grant support 17-Mar-23 Cambodian Pepper and Spices Federation (CPSF) Phnom Penh Tith Sela (Jan-Mar 2021) Phnom Penh Longan Export Development Khmer Organic Cooperative Co. , Ltd. Phnom Penh Participate export to MENA - CPSF 174 Annex F:System Changes Tables The tables below provide details on the analysis of system changes and the contribution of the Harvest II activity to observed system changes in the vegetables subsector and the tree crops subsectors. The methodology uses rubrics to analyze the progress of system changes from the starting system state (2017) towards the desired system state as outlined by the project. Note that it was not expected that progress would reach the desired system state within the life of the project. The analysis covers the following dimensions of system change, recognizing that there is some overlap among them, and dimensions contribute to more than one goal. Competitiveness: • Firms’ abilities to meet market demand, including new and premium market opportunities • Farms’ abilities to meet market demand, including new and premium market opportunities • Certification • Buyer-supplier relationships • Information flows • Innovation • Value chain efficiency • Policies and public/private coordination Inclusion: • Power and influence • Networks • Gender equality and youth inclusion Resilience: • Connectivity and diversity • Environmental stewardship and climate change adaptation For each dimension, scale, sustainability and depth are considered. The analysis of the contribution of Harvest II to system changes considers the project’s activities, the results of those activities and the relative influence of other factors such as government actions, other projects, economic forces, shocks and the actions of firms and farms themselves. The methodology is in line with the recommendations of USAID Feed the Future (2023) Practitioners’ Guidance to Assessing System Change. 175 Vegetables 176 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Goal: Competitiveness Firms’ abilities to meet market demand, including new and premium opportunities Firms have a very limited understanding of demand in domestic premium markets; their products, prices and delivery channels are mostly not competitive with imports. Firms have a strong understanding of demand and new opportunities, and are developing higher quality products, sourcing new types of vegetables and improving delivery channels to compete with imports. Approximate proportion vegetables consumer in Cambodia that are locally produced. Baseline less than 40% = 0 40-50% = 1 50-60% = 2 60-70% = 3 70-80% = 4 Over 80% = 5 Firms’ independent investment of their own resources to understand demand and develop/source new and higher quality products and better delivery channels Limited investment = 0 Most of the initiative for investment is from donors = 1 Small but increasing investment in products and channels with donor support = 2 Investment is growing significantly but not yet regular; some independent investment = 3 Firms investing regularly to understand demand and develop new products and channels = 4 Regular investment in understanding demand and developing/sourcing new products and opening new delivery channels is the norm among firms = 5 Firms’ actions to find new opportunities and understand demand; Types and rate of new local products entering the market and new business models No or few actions, new products and new channels = 0 Limited actions, new products and new channels = 1 Growing diversity of actions, products and channels creating significant interest among retailers = 2 Actions, variety of products available and new delivery channels challenging imports in small retail outlets and delivery = 3 Actions, variety of products available and new delivery channels challenging imports in small retail outlets and starting to be present in premium supermarkets = 4 Actions, product variety, pricing and channels enabling local production to challenge imports in all retail outlets = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 3 The GDA estimates that Cambodia has reduced its reliance on imported vegetables from 70% to 40% over roughly the last decade, with progress accelerating considerably during the pandemic. Sustainability 3 Many projects continue to subsidize efforts to increase local consumption of domestically produced ‘safe’ vegetables, but firms are now investing independently as well. Depth 4 The trend of serving premium domestic markets started before COVID but was accelerated during it with firms developing new business models for sourcing and selling. The variety has continued to expand since the restriction eased and local vegetables are now strongly represented in small retail outlets and delivery models as well as starting to be sold in premium supermarkets. Total 10/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II contributed to local firms’ increasing success in competing with imports by connecting firms with new buyers as well as to each other and increasing their understanding of premium buyers’ requirements for quality, safety, variety, quantity and timeliness. Harvest II partners are among the leading firms increasing sales of vegetables in urban markets. These examples are important in driving system change. 177 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Farms’ abilities to meet market demand, including new and premium opportunities Farmers have limited understanding of market requirements and limited access to advice, training and technologies to improve production. Farmers have a clear understanding of market requirements and accurate and appropriate advice, training and technologies to improve production through multiple, accessible channels. Approximate proportion of farmers who have improved their production to meet market demand. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Sustainability of technical advice, training and provision of technologies to enable farmers to improve production to meet market demand. Farmers acting on improved market understanding. Limited and only donor funded advice and training available = 0 Occasional / ad hoc advice provided without donor funding; farmers mostly growing seasonally = 1 A few firms / PDAFF offices providing training, advice and/or links to technologies to a few farmers sustainably = 2 A small minority of firms as well as PDAFF offices providing advice, training and/or support to obtain technologies sustainably to a growing number of farmers; farmers starting to grow year-round = 3 A large minority of firms as well as PDAFF offices providing advice, training and/or support to obtain technologies sustainably to a growing number of farmers = 4 A majority of firms as well as PDAFF offices providing advice, training and links to technologies to farmer sustainably = 5 Farmers actions and performance in improving quality and meeting product specifications. Quality and accessibility of advice, training and technologies for farmers. Few farmers improving quality and little access to quality advice, training and technologies = 0 Farmers are trying to improve quality but with only limited access to quality advice, training and technologies = 1 Some farmers starting to meet product specifications with quality advice, training or technologies = 2 Some farmers meeting product specifications with quality advice, training and technologies = 3 Most farmers regularly upgrading quality by applying advice, training or technologies = 4 Most farmers regularly upgrading quality and meeting product specifications by applying quality advice, training and technologies = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 4 Farmers’ understanding of market demand has increased dramatically among those serving premium markets and some serving other consumer segments. Training is increasingly available. Sustainability 3 Most farmer training is subsidized by projects; but a few firms and PDAFF offices are providing some technical support independently. An increasing number of farmers are growing vegetables year￾round. Depth 3 The increased buyer-supplier coordination has resulted in an increase in farmers meeting product specifications; firms serving premium markets are increasingly embedding advice and training into their business models; adoption of technologies is still limited by costs. Total 10/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II significantly contributed to increased understanding and capacity of farmers to meet market demand by supporting partners to provide training and technical support to farmers. Adoption rates for new practices were high among those reached by Harvest II partners directly or indirectly; overall, 93% of farmers reached directly or indirectly plan to adopt or continue at least one practice they learned. Harvest II also contributed to the uptake of farm technologies, particularly nethouses and drip irrigation. Other projects also supported farmer trainings and promoted uptake of farm technologies. 178 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Certification Few farmers or firms are certified for any standards; only a few standards in use CamGAP started in 2010. Most farmers are certified in CamGAP; most firms have quality certifications, particularly those demanded by premium buyers. Approximate proportion of farmers and firms with a quality certification. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Costs and accessibility of certification; Farmers’ and firms’ recognition of the benefits of certification; evidence of increasing demand for certification. Few farmers or firms recognize value in certifications = 0 Emerging recognition of the value of certifications = 1 Farmers investing time to get CamGAP training with high donor subsidies = 2 Firms co-investing with donors in CamGAP training for supplying farmers; emerging demand for other certifications = 3 CamGAP training and certification expanding with reduced donor support = 4 A majority of firms and farms accessing CamGAP and other certifications with minimal support = 5 Diversity of channels for CamGAP certification; diversity of certification services available. Benefits of certification. Only very limited government provided CamGAP training available = 0 Government/donor provided CamGAP training available = 1 A few firms initiating CamGAP training with government = 2 A greater variety of firms providing CamGAP training with and without government involvement; other certifications emerging = 3 A variety of firms, agencies and organizations providing CamGAP training; firms starting to get other certifications = 4 CamGAP training and certification is widely available and used; increasing use of other certifications for domestic markets = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 2 Farmers are increasingly adopting CamGAP practices and getting certification, when possible, in order to serve premium markets. Sustainability 3 Firms are recognizing that certifications enable them to reach high-end, formal retailers and are co￾investing with donors in CamGAP training for farmers as well as considering firm level certifications. Costs, frequency and government capacity for formal certification are issues. Depth 4 The provision of CamGAP training has diversified with private firms including inputs suppliers and buyers, now frequently leading. Firms are starting to get other certifications to reach domestic markets such as HACCP. Total 9/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II has been a key supporter of CamGAP training through its grants to input suppliers and buyers. Partner buyers who have worked with government or others to provide CamGAP training to farmers are increasingly reaching more premium markets. Harvest II has also championed the importance of certification among firms as a way to meet premium market demand. Other projects are also supporting the provision of CamGAP training to farmers. 179 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Buyer – supplier relationships Most buyers and farmers have informal relationships, limited interaction and low trust, resulting in poor coordination to meet market demand. Buyers and farmers have formal relationships, trust, multifaceted interaction and close coordination on products and planning to meet market demand. Approximate proportion of farmers coordinating closely with their suppliers in strong and trusting relationships. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Buyers’ and suppliers’ continuation of new behaviors, increased trust, satisfaction with new models and recognition of incentives to coordinate. Informal relationships and low recognition of the value of coordination = 0 Increased recognition of the value of coordination within informal relationships = 1 Informal relationships are mostly being sustained and expanded = 2 Informal relationships are mostly being sustained with an increasing number becoming formal = 3 Relationships rarely breakdown and formal relationships are becoming common = 4 Formal, trusting relations with a high degree of coordination are considered the norm among farmers and buyers = 5 Elements and models of coordination (e. g. contract farming, purchase agreements, crop planning). Limited coordination = 0 Coordination is mostly informal with limited elements = 1 Coordination is mostly informal but more elements (price, quality, quantity, timing) are specified = 2 There is increasing formal coordination models in practice = 3 Formal relationships are covering an increasing number of elements = 4 Formal relationships cover most key elements and improve year on year = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 3 An increasing proportion of farmers are serving premium markets and most of those are working together in groups and coordinating with buyers. Sustainability 3 Satisfaction among firms and farmers with coordination is typically high, some buyers are investing in formal relationships usually with project support. Depth 4 The level of coordination between buyers and suppliers and along the value chain has increased substantially. Formal relationships are becoming more common and comprehensive. Total 10/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II partner firms and cooperatives have made significant improvement in their support and coordination with farmers. Many are among the leading buyers providing technical assistance to suppliers, including providing information on demand, crop planning support and linkages to better inputs (e. g. TSAC, NAV, Azaylla and Aliments). The improved supply chain management has enabled these partners to effectively serve growing urban markets. Some other projects are also facilitating buyer-supplier relationships. 180 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Information flows Farmers and firms have limited information on market demand, new opportunities and new products and services. Information is increasingly embedded in transactions along value chains and service providers are innovating new models for information provision. Approximate proportion of value chain actors that have access to more information than they used to. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Value chain actors’ and service providers’ satisfaction with and business models for the provision of information. Few business models for providing information = 0 Information starting to flow along the value chain but strongly subsidized = 1 Information increasingly flowing along the value chain; specialized information provision is heavily subsidized= 2 Value chain actors and service providers investing more to expand the business models for the provision of information at least every few years = 3 Value chain actors and service providers expanding information provision annually = 4 Value chain actors and service providers prioritize the provision of information as a key business strategy = 5 Types of information available; diversity of models for the provision of information. Limited information available from value chain actors; only public information provision = 0 Some new information shared among value chain actors = 1 More information available and delivered through some information provision channels by the value chain actors= 2 Various types of information increasingly available through various different channels including service providers = 3 Up-to-date and varied information are available, including technical, markets, prices and weather, through various information provision channels both public and private = 4 A full range of technical, market, weather and business model information is accessible anytime through various information provision channels suited to different types of market actors and circumstances = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 4 The COVID pandemic accelerated new models for reaching farmers and firms with information, particularly social media, which is increasingly in use among all market actors. Sustainability 2 There is increased information flowing among market actors without project support, particularly those serving premium markets. Donors are funding a variety of new platforms for information provision. Depth 3 The types of information available have expanded to include technical, markets/prices and weather; the channels are expanding to include embedded information in the value chain, social media including online groups and new apps and webpages. Total 9/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II contributed to improved information flow along the value chain including from input suppliers, between buyers and suppliers and from service providers. Harvest II also helped partners to expand the use of virtual information provision during COVID. There are a wide variety of other sources being developed by government and other projects, as well as independent investment in information provision and use. 181 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Innovation Buyers, wholesalers and retailers making limited changes to their business models. Farmers change crops or varieties only in response to prices. There is limited availability and use of specialized services including finance. Buyers, wholesalers and processors regularly adjust their business models and test new markets. Farmers try new crops and varieties in response to trends in demand and climate. A variety of appropriate, specialized services, including appropriate financial services, are available and in use. Approximate proportion of firms that adjusted their business model or tested a new market in the last year; Approximate proportion of farmers who considered trends in demand and climate in cropping decisions; Proportion of value chain actors using specialized services. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Firms and farmers’ independent investment in making changes in response to market demand and climate, and their perceptions about the barriers to innovation. Independent investment in and sustainability of specialized services. Limited investment in innovation by firms and farmers; few specialized services = 0 Innovation is mostly initiated and funded by donors = 1 Firms and farmers starting to innovate with support from donors = 2 Increasing independent investment among firms, farmers and specialized service providers = 3 Most innovation is driven by the private sector, with donors only supporting = 4 Innovation in firms’ business models, farming and service provision driven by the private sector with limited or now donor and public subsidies = 5 Variety of innovations among firms; nature of farmers’ decision-making on cropping; extent to which all required specialized services are available and in use. Most buyers, wholesalers and retailers using similar business models; Farmers using similar models; few specialized services = 0 Limited innovations among firms and farmers and limited new types of specialized services available and in use = 1 Firms and farmers see the benefits of investment in innovations in response to the changes of market demand and climate = 2 An increasing diversity of business models along the value chain and specialized services; farmers regularly trying new crops = 3 More innovations in response to market demand and climate change among firms and farmers and all required specialized services available and in use = 4 Value chain and specialized service firms and farmers widely and regularly invest in innovation in response to change in market demand and climate = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 4 The pandemic has strongly accelerated the rate of innovation in the vegetable subsector as firms and farms grappled with restrictions. Firms and farmers continue to try new ways to meet market demand such as remote ordering, delivery, crop planning, new varieties and emerging services. Sustainability 3 Firms, cooperatives, farmers and service providers see value in innovating. Donor support is common but independent investment is occurring and the private sector is increasingly driving improvements. Depth 3 Innovations are occurring along the value chain, such as embedding services with inputs supply, wholesale models for matching demand and supply and retail models for reaching customers, as well as among service providers, particularly finance. Farmers are adopting new practices such as crop planning. Some needed services are still largely missing. Total 10/15 182 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II has contributed to a number of innovations in the vegetable subsector such as input suppliers providing services to farmers (East West Seeds, Song Muoy), a traceability and quality control system (Azaylla), increased use of social media and delivery services (e. g. Natural Agricultural Village, Aliments), new sources of technical information (e. g.AMK horticulture app), and a new model for supply chain financing (AMK). The evaluation also found considerable innovations supported by other projects or undertaken by firms and farms independently such as new wholesale/retail models (e. g. Lala Garden), growing new crops such as cauliflower and sprouts, an ICT-based production management system and new input/service provision models such as in solar powered irrigation. Value chain efficiency High costs (relative to neighboring countries), and inefficient transactions. Costs in line with neighboring countries and streamlined transactions. Approximate proportion of value chains (firms/farmers) with lower costs and more streamlined transactions. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Public and private commitment to investments that lower costs including infrastructure. Firms’ and farms’ independent investment in practices and technologies that lower costs and improve transactions. Limited investment has been made = 0 Public and private investment is taking place but is strongly subsidized by donors = 1 Some public and private investments to improve infrastructure and reduce costs is independent = 2 Public and private sectors, including specialized service providers are independently investing with reducing donor support = 3 Large investment initiatives are taking place by the public sector complemented by continuing independent private investment = 4 Sustained and regular public and private investments to lower production costs and improve transactions = 5 Extent and nature of changes in costs, infrastructure and transaction efficiency. Few changes in costs, infrastructure and transactions in supply chains = 0 Private sector adopting new practices and technologies to lower costs = 1 Private sector adopting new practices and technologies, starting investments in infrastructure and improving transactions = 2 Types of private sector investments widening, initial public investment in infrastructure = 3 Public sector, firms and farms adopting a wider variety of changes = 4 Public sector, firms and farms adopting a range of improvements in practices, technologies, infrastructure and improved transactions = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 3 While public sector investment in the necessary infrastructure has been limited; farmers and firms serving premium markets are investing in technologies and practices that reduce costs and improving transaction efficiency. Sustainability 1 While independent private investment is increasing, most efforts to improve infrastructure – such as cold chain and storage investments – are subsidized by donors. Public investment is limited. Depth 2 Firms and farms are adopting practices and technologies, such as smart irrigation and reduced use of chemical inputs, that lower costs; stronger relationships are improving the efficiency of transactions. Public and private investment in infrastructure, such as cold chain and storage, is still limited. Total 6/15 183 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II has contributed to lowering costs by supporting cooperatives and firms to train farmers on practices, such as judi cious use of chemical inputs, that reduce costs and promoting adoption of technologies, like smart irrigation, that lowers ongoing costs. Harvest II has been instrumental in improving the efficiency of transactions through stronger relationships along value chains. Harvest II has also supported a few partners to invest in storage or cold chain transport as well as emerging business models to reach retailers and consumer efficiently, such as Azaylla Cambodia Co. , Ltd. , which sources and sells vegetables and fruits to retailers, businesses such as hotels and restaurants, processors and exporters. Policies and public-private coordination There are few dedicated policies, action plans and laws; there is a lack of coordination among government agencies with a role in the horticulture sector resulting in uncertainty and lack of transparency; regulations and procedures are cumbersome; public￾private coordination is limited. The government has a clear, coordinated strategy with appropriate policies, action plans, laws and regulations that are updated through public-private coordination. Coverage of new or updated horticulture focused policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures, as well as platforms for public-private coordination. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Extent of approval and implementation of new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures; government actors’ investment of time in the horticulture sector. No new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures approved = 0 A few new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures approved by government actors = 1 Some new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures approved and a few implemented by government actors = 2 Government actors increasingly approve and implement the new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures = 3 Government actors update some of the policies, action plans, laws and regulations through public￾private coordination and the requirements of international markets = 4 Extent and nature of changes in public-private coordination and coordination among government agencies with a role in horticulture; effectiveness of new/ improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures No coordination between public and private sectors to develop new/ improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures = 0 Limited changes in coordination among government agencies, firms and farmers organizations and limited effectiveness of new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures = 1 Some changes made in coordination among government agencies, firms and farmers organizations and some new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedure are effective = 2 Increasing coordination; more new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedure = 3 Rubric Score Justification Scale 2 While only 3 new policies have been approved and none implemented, some technical staff in ministries have begun implementing some aspects of new policies in development. Sustainability 3 The policy work linked to seeds clarified and legitimized the role of private sector actors in seed distribution. This represented a mindset change that empowers local private actors linked to seed as well as international seed companies. Depth 2 Government agencies have improved coordination among themselves and with the private sector. New policies show promise but as implementation is limited, it is too early to assess effectiveness. 184 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Total 7/15 Government actors fully implement the policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures to meet the requirements of international markets = 5 Government agencies coordinate well with private sector and new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedure improve tree crop sector competitiveness = 4 A comprehensive set of policies, action plans, laws, regulations, and procedure are reviewed with the private sector and implemented in response to international market requirements = 5 Harvest II contribution to systems change Harvest II consultants led the policy work on seeds, private sector involvement has broadened the scope for private sector activity and in that regard, interviewees reported mindset changes on the part of government officials. Although the policies are not in full effect, the shift in stakeholder mindset has built a strong foundation for change which was specifically initiated by Harvest II. 185 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Goal: Inclusion Power and Influence Power relationships are asymmetrical, but the influence of smallholder farmers is growing somewhat with increasing demand for local vegetables Power is shared among smallholder farmers, and firms of different sizes. Smallholder farmers can influence value chain governance. Approximate proportion of smallholder farmers who feel that power is shared and they can influence value chain governance. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Recognition of the value of power sharing among value chain actors; mechanisms that facilitate power sharing and discourage power grabs; financial & organizational sustainability of platforms for smallholder farmers to influence value chain governance. Farmers have limited but increasing influence = 0 Farmers groups are increasingly emerging but with considerable donor support and limited influence = 1 Farmers groups bargaining collectively with increasing effectiveness = 2 Farmers groups/cooperatives are becoming more sustainable without support and increasing their influence= 3 Buyers increasingly recognize that working equitably with farmers helps them meet market demand; Farmers working in some form of group is becoming widespread = 4 Most firms recognize that sharing power helps to meet market demand; Most farmers bargain collectively and cooperatives and other farmer associations are financially and organizationally sustainable = 5 Changes in the nature of power and influence in value chains. Buyers set the terms of trade = 0 Buyers set most of the terms of trade but farmers have more choices of buyers = 1 Buyers and farmers starting to negotiate on some aspects of transactions = 2 Buyers and farmers increasingly negotiating the terms of trade and cooperatives are starting to influence inputs supplier, service providers and government = 3 Influence is mostly shared across value chains and cooperatives and farmers organizations are influencing multiple aspects of value chain functioning and governance = 4 All aspects of the terms of trade are negotiated with a common understanding of market demand; cooperatives and other farmers’ organizations are influencing all aspects of value chain functioning and governance = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 2. 5 Along parameters of individual and cooperative influence, between 25-35% of farmers feel they have a lot of influence. Cooperative membership is 26% of surveyed farmers but likely less overall. Sustainability 4 Cooperative membership is increasing and farmers working together in groups is becoming widespread. Buyers report that they are working more closely with supplier groups so they can meet demand. Depth 2. 5 Buyers are increasingly negotiating with famers to secure local supplies of ‘safe’ vegetables; 12% of surveyed farmers feel cooperatives influence other businesses a lot and 28% feel they influence government services a lot. Total 9/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Along with other projects, cooperatives and farmers themselves, Harvest II has capitalized on the increasing demand for safe vegetables to enable farmers and their organizations to have more influence and power. Harvest II has built the capacity of cooperatives and encouraged equitable relationships among buyers and farmers/cooperatives. 186 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Networks Commercial networks are relatively static. Commercial networks are expanding and including more smallholder farmers and marginalized people. Approximate proportion of buyers that have expanded their commercial networks in the last year. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-25% = 1 25-40% = 2 40-55% = 3 55-70% = 4 Over 70% = 5 Satisfaction of buyers with expanded networks; perceptions of buyers on expansion. Buyers are not interested in expanding their network of suppliers = 0 A few buyers are actively investing to increase the number of smallholder suppliers in their network = 1 Buyers’ satisfaction with expanding their networks of smallholder farmer suppliers is increasing = 2 Buyers’ satisfied with expanding their networks and investing at least every few years = 3 Buyers invest annually to expand their network of smallholder farmers = 4 Expanding their network of smallholder farmers is a preferred way to expand volumes and increase product diversity = 5 Nature of expansion and who is and is not included. Buyers only focus on farmers close to their businesses and with existing capacity; they fill in the gaps with imported vegetables = 0 A few buyers are supporting existing/new farmers to grow new types of vegetables = 1 Buyers see value in working with new vegetable farmers to expand = 2 Buyers increasingly see the potential of a diverse network of suppliers to expand and replace imported vegetables = 3 New business models are emerging to link more diverse suppliers into networks = 4 Buyers and other firms are working with existing and new vegetable farmers in diverse climatic zones around the country to grow new types of vegetable that can replace most imported vegetables = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 1 Most buyers are increasing their volumes by buying more from existing farmers; Some buyers are starting/expanding their own farms to increase volumes or diversify products. Sustainability 1 A few buyers are investing to expand their networks but most are providing support only to current suppliers and/or investing in their own farms. Depth 1 Some buyers, supported by Harvest II or other projects are working with new vegetable farmers, and providing support on growing new types of vegetables. Total 3/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II has linked buyers and cooperatives, which has provided the cooperatives with more resources and incentives to expa nd their membership. Harvest II has also provided grants to cooperatives, firms and associations for farmer trainings which can encourage new entrants. Other projects and efforts are also providing support in building up networks between buyers and suppliers to encourage vegetable production and supply chains. 187 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Gender equality and Youth inclusion Women play significant but defined roles in horticulture. More men than women are in leadership positions and women tend to have less influence on transactions and value chains. Youth are typically not interested and do not play a big role in horticulture. Women have equitable access to productive resources, information, advice and opportunities in all functions in the value chain; leadership and influence among women and men is equal. Youth play a prominent role in solving challenges in horticulture through innovation and new business models. Approximate proportion of women in the sector who feel they can influence transactions and value chains; approximate proportion of value chain leaders who are women. Approximate proportion of innovators in horticulture who are youth. Status quo = 0 Examples of change but no wider change = 1 Examples of change starting to influence wider change = 2 Progress towards greater equality and youth inclusion on a structural level = 3 Near equality and many youth innovators = 4 Equal influence/leadership among women/men. Youth are a high proportion of innovators = 5 Value chain actors’ attitudes towards women in the sector; continuing barriers to women’s leadership and influence in the sector. Perception of youth in horticulture about future opportunities in the sector. Very limited acknowledgement of barriers = 0 Limited acknowledgement of barriers; a few sustainable examples of change = 1 Acknowledgement of barriers and emerging public or private efforts to address them = 2 Attitudes starting to change and sustained efforts to address barriers = 3 Public and private market actors investing substantially in reducing barriers for women and youth = 4 Addressing barriers for women and youth has become the norm resulting in sustained and increasing equitable access, leadership and innovation among women and youth = 5 Changes in extent and nature of women’s leadership and influence; extent and nature of opportunities available to women. Types of roles that youth are playing in the horticulture sector. Women in defined roles; limited involvement of youth = 0 Women and youths taking on substantially new roles in a few cases and types of market actors = 1 The roles of women and youths are starting to diversify in more types of market actors = 2 Women’s leadership and youths innovation is becoming more common among different types of market actors and service providers = 3 Women’s, men’s and youth’s roles increasingly diversifying in all parts of value chains and supporting services = 4 Women’s and men’s roles have both diversified; there are women leaders in a broad range of value chain actors (including government agencies); youth are leading innovators in many parts of the value chain and service provision = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 1 There are examples of women with greater influence and leadership and youths innovating but no evidence of broader change. Sustainability 1 Most market actors do not acknowledge barriers for women and youth. There are some examples of successful women and youth entrepreneurs and leaders. Depth 1 There are examples of women leading as buyers and service providers but little perceived broader change among women and men; limited involvement of youth in innovation in vegetable value chains Total 3/15 188 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II specifically sought out promising women-owned and managed firms. The project’s support of these firms contributed to them becoming positive examples of women’s leadership and enabled those specific women to get access to more opportunities, a necessary step in system change. There is no evidence yet that Harvest II catalyzed changes on gender roles or increased youth innovation in vegetables on a wider scale. 189 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Goal: Resilience Connectivity and Diversity Farmers interact with several buyers in shallow relationships; Firms have only a few links to markets and service providers. Cambodian horticulture has limited types of products, firms and markets. Most farmers and firms are in dedicated, long-term relationships with mutual investment; Firms have links to other value chain actors and service providers, and multiple markets. The Cambodian horticulture sector has diverse products, firms and markets. Approximate proportion of farmers in long term relationships with buyers; Approximate proportion of firms with increasing links. Baseline 10-20% = 0 20-30% = 1 30-40% = 2 40-55% = 3 55-70% = 4 Over 70% = 5 Satisfaction with new relationships; capacity of firms to generate new connections with other firms, markets and service providers. Most farmers and firms invest little in their relationships; there are limited types of vegetables grown and limited differentiation among markets and firms = 0 Some firms and farmers are starting to invest in relationships and trying to reach new markets with considerable donor/project support = 1 Increasing satisfaction and adoption of longer-term relationships and efforts to reach new markets with donor/project support = 2 Satisfaction and independent investment in relationships and experimentation with new business models, markets and products; reducing donor support = 3 Long-term relationships becoming the norm for an increasing number of value chains reaching different markets; increasing experimentation with business models, markets and products increasing = 4 High satisfaction and continuing investment in relationships, linkages, new business models, markets and products = 5 Nature of relationships between buyers and farmers; diversity of relationships that firms are gaining. Diversity of products, firms and markets. Relationships are shallow; low diversity = 0 Relationships start to have new features like sharing info to meet demand; occasional new products, business models or markets = 1 Relationships between farmers and firms gaining more features such as crop planning; some different products, models or markets = 2 Multifaceted relationships between farmers and buyers; firms reaching out to different value chain actors and service providers; new business models and products emerging regularly = 3 Multifaceted relationships emerging among diverse market actors; growing diversity of firms, models, products and markets = 4 Multifaceted relationships among many diverse market actors; wide range of firms, models, products and markets = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 3 Most farmers reaching premium markets have long term relationships; but much less common for low￾middle income open markets. Sustainability 3 Farmers are generally satisfied with relationships, but some firms are starting or expanding their own farms to limit interactions with smallholder farmers. Evidence indicates considerable experimentation with new business models, markets and products. Depth 3 Relationships are becoming deeper and new business models and services are emerging rapidly; there is still limited diversity in types of vegetables grown and processed products. Total 9/15 190 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II contributed to connectivity by introducing firms to buyers and other value chain actors and supporting firms and cooperatives to deepen their relationships with farmers. Harvest II supported some experimentation with product development. Harvest II supported relatively young service providers. New relationships, services and business models also emerged with support from other projects or with limited external support. Environmental Stewardship and Climate Change Adaptation Many farmers and firms have limited ability to adapt to climate change and do not systematically conserve natural resources and consider their effects on the environment. Farmers and firms have plans and a range of techniques, technologies and services to help them adapt to climate change; they systematically conserve natural resources and minimize negative effects on the environment. Approximately proportion of firms and farmers who are taking action to adapt to climate change, and/or conserve natural resources. Baseline 20-30% = 0 30-40% = 1 40-50% = 2 50-65% = 3 65-80% = 4 Over 80% = 5 Independent investment of value chain actors in techniques and technologies to adapt to climate change and minimize negative effects on the environment; sustainability of services that help firms and farmers adapt to climate change and conserve natural resources. Donors funding almost all investment = 0 Limited co-investment by firms, coops and farmers with donors = 1 Some independent investment by firms, cooperative and farmers while most investments are subsidized = 2 Substantially growing independent investments by firms, cooperatives and farmers with continued public subsidies = 3 Majority of firms, cooperatives and farmers investing independently to some degree; subsidies are focusing more on innovations = 4 Most firms, cooperatives and farmers investing independently with increasing private investment in environmental innovations complementing public funds = 5 Types and effectiveness of actions to adapt to climate change and conserve natural resources; types and effectiveness of services to help firms and farms adapt to climate change and conserve natural resources. Farmers and firms adopting few new conservation practices and technologies = 0 Farmers and firms increasingly trial new solutions = 1 Value chain firms and farmers trying multiple new solutions each year; farmer training becoming more effective = 2 Specialized firms starting to offer more solutions with increasing farmer/firm adoption = 3 Solutions available becoming more diverse and effective, with average number of solutions adopted increasing = 4 A diverse market for conservation/climate adaptation solutions; farmers and firms adopting many practices is the norm = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 3 Among farmers reached directly or indirectly by Harvest II, over 90% are taking at least one action to adapt to climate change and/or conserve natural resources. KIIs and IDIs indicate widespread changes among other farmers and firms too. Sustainability 3 Awareness and investment among farmers are increasing. With the plethora of programs working in horticulture, many technologies and services for farmers are subsidized at least to some extent. Depth 3 Farmers are taking advantage of an increasing number of solutions to conserve natural resources and adapt to climate change including climate resilient seeds, nethouses, drip irrigation, and natural fertilizers and pesticides. Total 9/15 191 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II is one of a number of projects and government agencies that have promoted technologies and funded technical advice and training for farmers (though partners). Harvest II also built the capacity of partners to provide technical support to farmers; most firms are sustaining support to farmers on a lower level than when supported by Harvest II with some stand outs providing sustainable and increasing support. Harvest II also supported a seed company to train farmers, agro-input dealers and collectors on climate smart vegetable production. The evaluation research indicated that other organizations were the primary drivers of climate change adaptation among farmers. 192 Tree Crops 193 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Goal: Competitiveness Firms’ abilities to meet market demand, including new and premium opportunities Firms have a very limited understanding of demand in domestic and international niche and premium markets; their products are not suitable to serve these markets. Tree crops are mostly sold fresh to Thailand or Vietnam for re-export. Firms have a strong understanding of demand and new opportunities based on multiple information sources, and are developing higher quality, differentiated products to serve the changing demands of domestic and international niche and premium markets. Approximate proportion of crops produced in Cambodia being sold domestically or exported directly. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Firms’ independent investment of their own resources to understand demand and develop new, higher quality, differentiated products. No independent investment = 0 Limited investment = 1 Small but increasing investment and ad hoc and subsidized product development = 2 Investment is growing significantly but not yet regular = 3 Firms investing regularly to understand demand and develop new products = 4 Regular investment in understanding demand and developing new products is the norm among firms = 5 Firms’ actions to find new opportunities and understand demand; Types and rate of new products entering the market No or few actions and new products = 0 Limited actions and new products with no or few new exports = 1 Growing diversity of actions and products, resulting in export tests = 2 Actions and new products starting to result in commercial exports = 3 Actions and new products resulting in growing commercial exports = 4 Actions and new products resulting in substantially growing commercial exports = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 1 The proportion of crops produced that are exported directly or sold domestically has increased a little over the program period and is now estimated at 10-15% by relevant government agencies. Sustainability 2 Some firms have a better understanding of export markets and are investing in new products, mostly with external / donor support. Depth 2 Some firms are taking actions to better understand market demand and testing new products in domestic and export markets. Most sales in new export markets are at test level. Total 5/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II support made an important contribution to some firms’ abilities to understand and meet market demand in selected premium markets, such as those for organic cashew. Harvest II provided training and information to firms on export markets and sponsored some firms to attend overseas expos. Currently, most companies still lack sufficient understanding to serve mainstream and larger markets, particularly Western markets. Harvest II supported several small processors to develop new products, an important step in expanding sales domestically as well as, potentially, exporting. At this stage, most of the supported companies are young; they are not yet investing regularly in product development and their success in commercializing new products cannot yet be judged. Overall, Harvest II made a significant contribution to firms’ abilities to meet market demand in domestic and export markets. 194 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Farms’ abilities to meet market demand, including new and premium opportunities Farmers have limited understanding of market requirements and limited access to advice and technologies to improve production. Farmers have a clear understanding of market requirements and accurate and appropriate, advice and technologies to improve production through multiple, accessible channels. Approximate proportion of farmers who have improved their production to meet market demand. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Sustainability of technical advice, training and provision of technologies to enable farmers to improve production to meet market demand. Farmers acting on improved market understanding. Limited and only donor funded advice and training available = 0 Occasional / ad hoc advice and info on technologies provided without donor funding = 1 A few firms / PDAFF offices sustainably providing training, advice and/or links to technologies to a few farmers sustainably = 2 A small minority of firms as well as PDAFF offices providing advice, training and/or support to obtain technologies sustainably to a growing number of farmers = 3 A large minority of firms as well as PDAFF offices providing advice, training and/or support to obtain technologies sustainably to a growing number of farmers = 4 A majority of firms as well as PDAFF offices providing advice, technologies and information sustainably to farmers at scale = 5 Farmers’ actions and performance in improving quality and meeting product specifications. Quality and accessibility of advice, training and technologies for farmers. Few farmers improving quality and little access to quality advice, training and technologies = 0 Farmers are trying to improve quality but with only limited access to quality advice, training and information = 1 Some farmers starting to meet product specifications with quality advice, training or technologies = 2 Some farmers meeting product specifications with quality advice, training and technologies = 3 Most farmers regularly upgrading quality by applying advice, training or technologies = 4 Most farmers regularly upgrading quality and meeting product specifications by applying quality advice, training and technologies = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 1 Most farmers continue to sell to collectors for Thailand or Viet Nam who typically take all products regardless of quality. Sustainability 2 A few firms have integrated advice, training and or information to their regular supplier farmers as part of their regular business model. Some are starting or expanding their own firms rather than growing their smallholder networks. Depth 2 Farmers who receive information and advice are typically applying it to increase quality and meet product specifications. Improvements in production technologies are limited. Total 5/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II supported some partner firms to provide technical advice, training and information on product specifications to tree crop farmers. While not all farmers received advice as expected, the model is an important example of buyers, farmers and other market actors working together to meet market demand. A limited number of cashew farmers have adopted organic practices. Given price volatility as well as climate change and input price shocks, farmers are primarily choosing to adopt only low-cost changes in their practices. Overall, the Harvest II partners sustainably working with farmers are providing important examples for others. Shocks and macroeconomic factors are inhibiting more widespread and deeper change. 195 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Certification Few farmers or firms are certified for any standards; only a few standards in use. Most farmers are certified in CamGAP; most firms have quality certifications, particularly those demanded by international buyers. Approximate proportion of farmers and firms with a quality certification. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Costs and accessibility of certification; Farmers’ and firms’ satisfaction with the cost/benefit of certification; evidence of increasing demand for certification. Firms and farms accessing certification with donor funds only = 0 Firms and farms investing time to get certifications with significant donor subsidies = 1 Firms co-investing with donors in certification for supplying farmers; emerging demand for other certifications = 2 A small minority of firms and farms obtaining certification by themselves = 3 Training and certification expanding with reduced donor support = 4 A majority of firms and farms obtaining certifications with no or minimal support = 5 Diversity of channels for obtaining certification; diversity of certification services available. Benefits of certification. Only very limited, government￾provided CamGAP training available = 0 Government/donor provided certification training available, diversity is increasing = 1 Firms are starting to get different certifications and training providers are emerging = 2 Firms and farmers getting a greater variety of certifications with and without support = 3 The types of certifications, channels and types of firms/farmers using them is expanding significantly = 4 A variety of firms, agencies and organizations providing certification services to a diversity of firms for a variety of certifications demanded by diverse markets = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 2 A few firms and farms haven obtained some local and international standards certifications to meet demand in domestic and international markets. Sustainability 2 Firms are increasingly committing their own resources for certification for themselves and their supplying farmers. Depth 2 Certification services are emerging, and the types of certifications firms are obtaining is expanding. Total 6/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II supported companies and farmers to obtain certification in various standards to comply with requirements in local and international markets. For example, Harvest II supported organic certification for firms and farmers, HACCP for firms and agriculture cooperatives, CamGAP for farmers and some other international certifications, particularly for processors, such as ISO and GMP. Firms and farms are starting to recognize the benefits of certification and to access certification services. 196 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Buyer – supplier relationships Most buyers and farmers have no or informal relationships, limited interaction and low trust, resulting in poor coordination to meet market demand. Buyers and farmers have formal relationships, trust, multifaceted interaction and close coordination on products and planning to meet market demand. Approximate proportion of farmers coordinating closely with their suppliers in strong and trusting relationships. Baseline almost none = 0 1-10% = 1 10-20% = 2 20-35% = 3 35-50% = 4 Over 50% = 5 Buyers’ and suppliers’ continuation of new behaviors, increased trust, satisfaction with new models and recognition of incentives to coordinate. Few relationships and low trust = 0 Few formal relationships have been sustained and farmers and buyers are skeptical about coordination = 1 A minority of formal relationships have been sustained and there is increasing recognition of incentives to coordinate = 2 The majority of formal relationships have been sustained and a growing number of farmers and buyers are improving their relationships = 3 Most formal relationships have been sustained and most farmers and buyers are starting or improving multifaceted coordination = 4 Formal, trusting relations with a high degree of coordination are the norm among farmers and buyers = 5 Elements and models of coordination (e. g. contract farming, purchase agreements). Coordination is almost absent = 0 Coordination is mostly informal with limited elements = 1 Coordination is mostly informal but more elements (price, quality, quantity, timing) are specified = 2 There is increasing formal coordination models in practice = 3 Formal relationships are covering an increasing number of elements = 4 Formal relationships cover most key elements and improve year on year = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 1 Most farmers continue to have unstable relationships with buyers with limited trust. Sustainability 1. 5 A minority of improved relationships have sustained. Most farmers and an increasing number of buyers operating in Cambodia want to coordinate. A majority of relationships that were envisioned or started were not realized or did not sustain. Negative experiences increased skepticism among some farmers and buyers. Resilience 1. 5 Most coordination is informal with limited elements. Some informal relationships are covering more elements of coordination and a few formal relationships are covering more elements. Total 4/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II worked with firms in Cambodia to start or strengthen relationships with farmers. Most production does not currently flow through firms in Cambodia but is sold directly to collectors from neighboring countries. Thus, most farmers were not affected by Harvest II efforts. Some relationships started or improved with Harvest II support benefited firms and farmers with commensurate increases in trust. Interviews indicate that a majority of international deals and expansion that Harvest II planned with firms did not eventuate, because of gaps in supporting functions and issues in the enabling environment in the subsector, meaning firms could not significantly expand or improve relationships with farmers. The majority of improved relationships that firms started with Harvest II support did not become formal or sustain, primarily due to shocks. Unrealized expectations increased the skepticism of some farmers and firms towards more formal and multifaceted relationships. The extent to which farmers were satisfied with their relationship with their buyer(s) was not different between those reached by Harvest II and those not reached, which indicates that the contribution of Harvest II to improved relationship satisfaction among farmers was likely not strong. Overall, Harvest II helped a few firms to create positive examples of stronger coordination . The lack of resilience in some relationships reduced sustainability and increased skepticism of relationships among some farmers and buyers. 197 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Information flows Farmers and firms have limited information on market demand, new opportunities and new products and services. Information is increasingly embedded in transactions along value chains and service providers are innovating new models for information provision. Approximate proportion of value chain actors that have access to more information than they used to. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Value chain actors’ and service providers’ satisfaction with business models for the provision of information. Few business models for providing information = 0 Information starting to flow along the value chain; specialized information provision is heavily subsidized = 1 Information increasingly flowing independently along the value chain; limited independent investment in specialized information provision = 2 Value chain actors and service providers investing more to expand business models for the provision of information at least every few years; increasing satisfaction among firms and farms = 3 Value chain actors and service providers expanding information provision annually = 4 Value chain actors and service providers prioritize the provision of information as a key business strategy; high satisfaction with the quality and usefulness of information = 5 Types of information available; diversity of models for the provision of information. Almost no information available; and no interest in the provision of information by value chain actors and service providers = 0 A few types of information available and the provision of information done by value chain actors = 1 More information available, delivered mostly through value chain actors and some specialized providers= 2 Various types of information increasingly available through various information provision channels = 3 Up-to-date and varied information available, including technical, markets, prices and weather, through various information provision channels both public and private = 4 A full range of technical, market, weather and business model information is accessible anytime through various information provision channels suited to different types of market actors and circumstances = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 2 A minority of firms and farms get more information than they used to; many continue to only get information from peers and collectors. Sustainability 1. 5 Some value chain actors are finding value in exchanging information, increasing the flow along the value chain; most third-party information sources are heavily subsidized by projects. Depth 1. 5 The ways that firms and farms exchange information is increasing, particularly greater use of social media and online groups. The types of information are still relatively limited and mainly focused on production advice and weather; there are significant gaps, for example related to international markets and climate change adaptation. Total 5/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II has contributed to increasing the provision of information on production and market demand beyond the conventional channels through government agencies, collectors, radio and TV. Harvest II increased firms’ access to information through introductions to international and domestic buyers as well as by facilitating links among value chains firms in Cambodia, which increased information sharing. Harvest II also supported cooperatives and firms to use new approaches to providing information to farmers such as Telegram groups and other social media. At the same time, a number of other projects and government agencies have also increased their efforts to provide or increase the flow of information in the tree crop sub sectors. 198 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Innovation Buyers, wholesalers, processors, exporters tend not to change their business models or test new markets. Farmers change crops or varieties only in response to prices. There is limited availability and use of specialized services. Buyers, wholesalers, processors and exporters regularly adjust their business models and test new markets. Farmers change crops and varieties in response to trends in demand and climate. A variety of appropriate, specialized services, including appropriate financial services, are available and in use. Approximate proportion of firms that adjusted their business model or tested a new market in the last year; Approximate proportion of farmers who considered trends in demand and climate in cropping decisions; Proportion of value chain actors using specialized services. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Firms and farmers’ independent investment in making changes in response to market demand and climate, and their perceptions about the barriers to innovation. Independent investment in and sustainability of specialized services. Limited investment in innovation by firms and farmers; few specialized services = 0 Innovation is mostly initiated and funded by donors = 1 Firms and farmers starting to innovate with support from donors = 2 Increasing independent investment among firms, farmers and specialized service providers = 3 Most innovation is driven by the private sector, with donors only supporting = 4 Innovation in firms’ business models, farming and service provision driven by the private sector with limited or now donor and public subsidies = 5 Variety of innovations among firms; nature of farmers’ decision-making on cropping; extent to which all required specialized services available and in use. Very limited innovations among firms and farmers in response to market demand and climate = 0 Limited innovations among firms and farmers and limited specialized services available and in use = 1 Firms and farmers see the benefits of investment in innovations in response to the changes of market demand and climate = 2 An increasing diversity of business models along the value chain and specialized services; farmers regularly trying new crops = 3 More innovations in response to market demand and climate change among firms and farmers and all required specialized services available and in use = 4 Firms and farmers widely invest in innovation in response to change in market demand and climate, using a variety of specialized services = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 2 A minority of buyers, wholesalers, processors, and exporter are adjusting their business models and farmers change crops and varieties in response to trends in market demand and climate. Sustainability 2. 5 Some firms and farmers are expanding investment to innovate business models and some farmers are trying new, mostly low-cost, practices. Project support for innovation is substantial. Depth 1. 5 Some firms and farmers supported by projects voluntarily invest to innovate in business models, crops and practices to keep up with trends in market demand and climate change and reach new markets. Total 6/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II supported innovation both among value chain actors and service providers to test local and international markets a nd to try out new business models. For example, Harvest II worked with firms such as SHE Agrogam and Puzzle Solutions to improve business models for export market facilitation. Harvest II also worked on innovations in financial services, most notably with AMK Microfinance Institution and Banhji Fintech. Innovation is also emerging without the support of Harvest II, such as weather-indexed crop insurance services. 199 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Value chain efficiency High costs (relative to neighboring countries), inefficient transactions and significant, post-harvest waste. Costs in line with neighboring countries, streamlined transactions and minimal post-harvest waste. Approximate proportion of value chains (firms/farmers) with lower costs, more streamlined transactions and lower waste. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Public and private commitment to investments that lower costs. Firms’ and farms’ independent investment in practices and technologies that lower costs, improve transactions and/or decrease waste. No investment has been made = 0 Limited investment commitment has been initiated by public sector, firms and farms investing to reduce cost and/or waste with project support = 1 A few public and private investments to improve infrastructure and reduce costs and waste are independent = 2 Increasing public and private sector investments, including specialized service providers, with reducing donor support = 3 Large investment initiatives are taking place by the public sector complemented by continuing independent private investment = 4 Sustained and regular public and private investments to lower production costs, improve transactions and reduce waste = 5 Extent and nature of changes in costs, infrastructure, transaction efficiency and waste in supply chains. Few changes in costs, infrastructure, transactions and waste in supply chains = 0 Public sector, firms and farms adopting some new practices and technologies to lower costs, improve transactions or reduce waste in supply chains = 1 Some firms and farms start to invest more in effective practices and technology changes = 2 Types of private sector investments widening, initial public investment in infrastructure = 3 Public sector, firms and farms adopting a wider variety of changes = 4 Public sector, firms and farms adopting a range of improvements in practices, technologies, infrastructure, and waste reduction approaches = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 1 Public sector made little investment in practice and technologies changes. Limited number of firms and farms started to invest in practices and technology changes to lower cost and/or reduce waste. Sustainability 1 The investment cost to practices and technologies is relatively higher than the proportion of income generation which discourage firms and farms to continue investing. Depth 1 Few public sector projects, few firms and farms are trying to invest in practices and technologies changes. Total 3/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II supported the public sector on policy work, not on specific initiatives to lower costs and/or reduce waste, for example through infrastructure improvement or regulations. Harvest II provided support to partners to encourage changes in practices and technologies, some of which contributed to lowering costs or reducing waste. Harvest II worked with specialized firms to improve logistics and facilitated linkages in value chains, which contributed to improving the efficiency of transactions. Other projects and firms not supported by Harvest II have also contributed to waste reduction and improvements in efficiency. Key costs, particularly power, imported inputs and regulatory compliance, remain high . 200 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Policies and public-private coordination There are few dedicated policies, action plans and laws; there is a lack of coordination among government agencies with a role in the horticulture sector resulting in uncertainty and lack of transparency; regulations and procedures are cumbersome; public-private coordination is limited. The government has a clear, coordinated strategy with appropriate policies, action plans, laws and regulations that are updated through public￾private coordination and the requirements of international markets. Procedures for export are clear and streamlined. Coverage of new or updated horticulture focused policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures, as well as platforms for public-private coordination. Baseline less than10% = 0 10-20% = 1 20-30% = 2 30-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Extent of approval and implementation of new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures; government actors’ investment of time in the horticulture sector. No new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures approved = 0 A few new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures approved by government actors = 1 Some new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures approved and a few implemented by government actors = 2 Government actors increasingly approve and implement the new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures = 3 Government actors update some of the policies, action plans, laws and regulations through public￾private coordination and the requirements of international markets = 4 Government actors fully implement the policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures to meet the requirements of international markets = 5 Extent and nature of changes in public￾private coordination and coordination among government agencies with a role in horticulture; effectiveness of new/ improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures No coordination between public and private sectors to develop new/ improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures = 0 Limited changes in coordination among government agencies, firms and farmers organizations and limited effectiveness of new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedures = 1 Some changes made in coordination among government agencies, firms and farmers organizations and some new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedure are effective = 2 Increasing coordination; more new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedure = 3 Government agencies coordinate well with private sector and new/improved policies, action plans, laws, regulations and procedure improve tree crop sector competitiveness = 4 A comprehensive set of policies, action plans, laws, regulations, and procedure are reviewed with the private sector and implemented in response to international market requirements = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 2 While only 3 new policies have been approved and none implemented, some technical staff in ministries have begun implementing some aspects of new policies in development. Sustainability 1 The government has expressed commitment to tree crop subsectors, particularly cashew and mango. However, that has not yet extended to many policy approvals nor improvements among laws, regulations and procedures. Depth 2 Government agencies have improved coordination among themselves and with the private sector. New policies show promise but as implementation is limited, it is too early to assess effectiveness. Total 5/15 201 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II supported the development of some policies with necessary technical inputs for Cambodia to comply with international market requirements and trade agreements, and encouraged participation of the private sector in the policy development process. For example, the recently approved RGC Cashew Policy represents an important step forward in increasing government support for the sector. The strategy research Harvest II conducted as background for the policy clearly lays out the necessary gaps to address in order for Cambodia to become a processing country . There were multiple development partners, private business associations, and government actors involved in the policy formulation and approval; it is not clear whether Harvest II was a key driver. 202 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Goal: Inclusion Power and Influence Power relationships are asymmetrical. Influence of smallholder farmers is minimal. Power is shared among smallholder farmers, and firms of different sizes. Smallholder farmers can influence value chain governance. Approximate proportion of smallholder farmers who feel that power is shared and they have some influence in value chain governance. Baseline almost none = 0 1-10% = 1 10-20% = 2 20-35% = 3 35-50% = 4 Over 50% = 5 Recognition of the value of power sharing among value chain actors; mechanisms that facilitate power sharing and discourage power grabs; financial & organizational sustainability of platforms for smallholder farmers to influence value chain governance. Farmers have very limited influence = 0 Farmers groups are increasingly emerging but with considerable donor support and limited influence = 1 Farmers groups bargaining collectively with increasing effectiveness = 2 Farmers groups/cooperatives are becoming more sustainable without support and increasing their influence= 3 Buyers increasingly recognize that working equitably with farmers helps them meet market demand; Farmers working in some form of group is becoming widespread = 4 Most firms recognize that sharing power helps to meet market demand; Most farmers bargain collectively, and cooperatives and other farmer associations are financially and organizationally sustainable = 5 Changes in the nature of power and influence in value chains. Buyers set the terms of trade = 0 Buyers set most of the terms of trade but farmers have more choices of buyers = 1 Buyers and farmers starting to negotiate on some aspects of transactions = 2 Buyers and farmers increasingly negotiating the terms of trade and cooperatives are starting to influence input suppliers, service providers and government = 3 Influence is mostly shared across value chains, and cooperatives and farmers organizations are influencing multiple aspects of value chain functioning and governance = 4 All aspects of the terms of trade are negotiated with a common understanding of market demand; cooperatives and other farmers’ organizations are influencing all aspects of value chain functioning and governance = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 1 The power and influence of smallholder farmers remain minimal despite projects facilitating relationships between buyers and suppliers. Sustainability 1 The number and membership of farmer groups are increasing with substantial support from development projects and partners. Depth 0 Collectors who sell to Thailand and Vietnam set the terms of trade. Even in relationships facilitated by projects, buyers continue to set the terms of trade. Socially motivated buyers provide more generous terms. Total 2/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II worked with socially motivated buyers who provide more generous terms to farmers and maintain more stable relationships, supporting several firms to become models of more ethical and effective relationships with their suppliers. These firms have not yet influenced others, as their changes are recent and current market conditions put smallholder tree crop farmers at a disadvantage in Cambodia. In both some buyer-supplier relationships facilitated by Harvest II and those that developed without support, the significant number of shocks over the last few years have often damaged relationships, sometimes with both buyers and farmers feeling that the other have broken agreements or not honored the relationships. 203 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Networks Commercial networks are relatively static. Commercial networks are expanding and including more smallholder farmers and marginalized people. Approximate proportion of buyers that have expanded their commercial networks in the last year. Baseline less than 5% = 0 5-15% = 1 15-25% = 2 25-40% = 3 40-60% = 4 Over 60% = 5 Satisfaction of buyers with expanded networks; perceptions of buyers on expansion. Buyers are not interested in expanding their network of suppliers = 0 A few buyers are actively investing to increase the number of smallholder suppliers in their networks = 1 Buyers’ satisfaction with expanding their networks of smallholder farmer suppliers is increasing = 2 Buyers’ satisfied with expanding their networks and investing at least every few years = 3 Buyers invest annually to expand their network of smallholder farmers = 4 Expanding their network of smallholder farmers is a preferred way to expand volumes = 5 Nature of expansion and who is and is not included. Buyers only focus on farmers close to their businesses or in production hotspots and who have existing capacity = 0 A few buyers are supporting farmers to join their networks = 1 Buyers see value in bringing more farmers into their networks = 2 Buyers increasingly see the potential of working with new smallholder suppliers to expand = 3 New business models are emerging to link more suppliers into networks = 4 Buyers and other firms are working to bring more suppliers into their networks in various areas around the country with appropriate climate and soil conditions = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 1 A few buyers in Cambodia have expanded their commercial networks, with more aiming to expand as logistics ease and demand increases post￾COVID. Sustainability 1 A few buyers are actively investing to increase the number of smallholder suppliers in their network. Some buyers are instead starting or expanding their own farms to control supply and quality. Depth 1 Most buyers work only with suppliers with existing capacity; a few, mostly socially motivated buyers are supporting farmers new to their networks. Total 3/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Some Harvest II partners have expanded their network of smallholder farmer suppliers. Given the challenges of reaching new international markets, some companies supported by Harvest II to expand their supplier base purchase only from a subset of suppliers each year based on their needs. Some buyers are establishing or expanding their own tree crop farms to better control supply and quality . 204 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Gender equality and Youth inclusion Women play significant but defined roles in horticulture. More men than women are in leadership positions and women tend to have less influence on transactions and value chains. Youth are typically not interested and do not play a big role in horticulture. Women have equitable access to productive resources, information, advice and opportunities in all functions in the value chain; leadership and influence among women and men is equal. Youth play a prominent role in solving challenges in horticulture through innovation and new business models. Approximate proportion of women in the sector who feel they can influence transactions and value chains; approximate proportion of value chain leaders who are women. Approximate proportion of innovators in horticulture who are youth. Status quo = 0 Examples of change but no wider change = 1 Examples of change starting to influence wider change = 2 Progress towards greater equality and youth inclusion on a structural level = 3 Near equality and many youth innovators = 4 Equal influence/ leadership among women/men. Youth are a high proportion of innovators = 5 Value chain actors’ attitudes towards women in the sector; continuing barriers to women’s leadership and influence in the sector. Perception of youth in horticulture about future opportunities in the sector. Very limited acknowledgement of barriers = 0 Limited acknowledgement of barriers; a few sustainable examples of change = 1 Acknowledgement of barriers and emerging public or private efforts to address them = 2 Attitudes starting to change and sustained efforts to address barriers = 3 Public and private market actors investing substantially in reducing barriers for women and youth = 4 Addressing barriers for women and youth has become the norm resulting in sustained and increasing equitable access, leadership and innovation among women and youth = 5 Changes in extent and nature of women’s leadership and influence; extent and nature of opportunities available to women. Types of roles that youth are playing in the horticulture sector. Women in defined roles; limited involvement of youth = 0 Women and youth taking on substantially new roles in a few cases and types of market actors = 1 The roles of women and youth are starting to diversify in more types of market actors = 2 Women’s leadership and youth innovation is becoming more common among different types of market actors and service providers = 3 Women’s, men’s and youth’s roles increasingly diversifying in all parts of value chains and supporting services = 4 Women’s and men’s roles have both diversified; there are women leaders in a broad range of value chain actors (including government agencies); youth are leading innovators in many parts of the value chain and service provision = 4 Rubric Score Justification Scale 1 There are examples of women with greater influence and leadership and youths innovating but no evidence of broader change. Sustainability 1 There is limited acknowledgement of the barriers that women and youth face in business, leadership and influence. However, a few women or youth owned and managed businesses are successful and sustainable. Depth 1 Some women and youth entrepreneurs are taking risks to develop new products and test out new markets, for example as processors or service providers. Total 3/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II supported promising women-owned and managed firms which contributed to positive examples of women’s leadership and enabled them to get access to more opportunities. Women are less likely to be members of agriculture cooperatives than their male counterparts. Harvest II actively supported start-ups led by women and youth. This encouraged innovation in business models and product development to test new markets. 205 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Goal: Resilience Connectivity and Diversity Farmers interact with several buyers in shallow relationships; Firms have only a few links to markets and service providers. Cambodian horticulture has limited types of products, firms and markets. Most farmers and firms are in dedicated, long￾term relationships with mutual investment; Firms have links to other value chain actors and service providers, and multiple markets. The Cambodian horticulture sector has diverse products, firms and markets. Approximate proportion of farmers in long term relationships with buyers; Approximate proportion of firms with increased links. Baseline almost none = 0 1-10% = 1 10-20% = 2 20-35% = 3 35-50% = 4 Over 50% = 5 Satisfaction with new relationships; capacity of firms to generate new connections with other firms, markets and service providers. Most farmers and firms invest little in their relationships; there is limited diversity in markets and firms = 0 Some firms and farmers are starting to invest in relationships and trying to reach new markets with considerable donor/project support = 1 Increasing satisfaction and adoption of longer-term relationships and efforts to reach new markets with donor/project support = 2 Satisfaction and independent investment in relationships and experimentation with new business models, markets and products; reducing donor support = 3 Long-term relationships becoming the norm for an increasing number of value chains reaching different markets; increasing experimentation with business models, markets and products increasing = 4 High satisfaction and continuing investment in relationships, linkages, new business models, markets and products = 5 Nature of relationships between buyers and farmers; diversity of relationships that firms are gaining. Diversity of products, firms and markets. Relationships are shallow; low diversity = 0 Relationships start to have new features like sharing info to meet demand; occasional new products, business models or markets = 1 Relationships between farmers and firms gaining more features; some different products, models or markets = 2 Multifaceted relationships between farmers and buyers; firms reaching out to different value chain actors and service providers; new business models and products emerging regularly = 3 Multifaceted relationships emerging among diverse market actors; growing diversity of firms, models, products and markets = 4 Multifaceted relationships among many diverse market actors; wide range of firms, models, products and markets = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 2 The proportion of farmers in long term relationships with buyers is low; however, many tree crop firms in Cambodia have increased their links with other firms. Sustainability 1 Some firms and farmers are starting to invest in relationships and trying to reach new markets with considerable donor/project support. Depth 1 Information on market demand is shared among value chain actors particularly exporters. They view each other as partners in expanding Cambodian exports, rather than competitors. Total 4/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Harvest II’s networking interventions significantly contributed to new relationships and increased interaction between buyers/exporters and other value chain actors such as input suppliers, farmers and agricultural cooperatives, retailers and service providers. Harvest II also supported product development and connections to new markets. Overall Harvest II has contributed to a greater variety of products, services and markets in tree crops. 206 Dimensions Starting system state 2017 Desired system state Assessment Rubric Scale Sustainability Depth Environmental Stewardship and Climate Change Adaptation Many farmers and firms have no or limited ability to adapt to climate change and do not systematically conserve natural resources and consider their effects on the environment. Farmers and firms have plans and a range of techniques, technologies and services to help them adapt to climate change; they systematically conserve natural resources and minimize negative effects on the environment. Approximately proportion of firms and farmers who consider their effect on the environment and feel confident their ability to adapt to climate change. Baseline almost none = 0 1-10% = 1 10-20% = 2 20-35% = 3 35-50% = 4 Over 50% = 5 Independent investment of value chain actors in techniques and technologies to adapt to climate change and minimize negative effects on the environment; sustainability of services that help firms and farmers adapt to climate change and conserve natural resources. Donors funding almost all investment = 0 Limited co-investment by firms, coops and farmers with donors = 1 Some independent investment by firms, coop and farmers while most investments are subsidized = 2 Substantially growing independent investments by firms, coops and farmers with continued public subsidies = 3 Majority of firms, coops and farmers investing independently to some degree; subsidies are focusing more on innovations = 4 Most firms, coops and farmers investing independently with increasing private investment in environmental innovations complementing public funds = 5 Types and effectiveness of actions to adapt to climate change and conserve natural resources; types and effectiveness of services to help firms and farms adapt to climate change and conserve natural resources. Farmers and firms adopting few new conservation practices and technologies = 0 Farmers and firms increasingly trial new solutions = 1 Value chain firms and farmers trying multiple new solutions each year; farmer training becoming more effective = 2 Specialized firms starting to offer more solutions with increasing farmer/firm adoption = 3 Solutions available becoming more diverse and effective, with average number of solutions adopted increasing = 4 A diverse market for conservation/climate adaptation solutions; farmers and firms adopting many practices is the norm = 5 Rubric Score Justification Scale 1 Only a very few farmers and firms feel confident in their abilities to adapt to climate change; however, a greater proportion are considering their effects on the environment and trying to conserve resources, particularly water and soil. Sustainability 1 Limited co-investment by firms, cooperatives and farmers with donors. Depth 1 Farmers and firms increasingly taking actions to adapt to climate change and conserve natural resources. Effectiveness at this stage is only modest. Total 3/15 Harvest II Contribution to System Change Firms and farmers are aware of the climate change and environmental impacts on their businesses and agriculture activities. Harvest II, other projects, government agencies, and private firms have provided or promoted an increasing number of solutions to help farmers conserve n atural resources and to adapt to climate change. Tree crops farmers have limited choices in this area due to the large scale of farms which require big investments. 207 Annex G: Evaluation Team Members’ Signed Disclosure Forms 1 Evaluation team – conflict of interest form for Feed the future market systems and partnership Evaluation award number: REAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: 1. Immediate family or 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/material 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/material though indirect experience with the activities being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 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. Name Title Organization Evaluation Position Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) Subcontract # 1004295-FFP-23S-21884-01 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Final Evaluation of the USAID/Cambodia Feed the Future Harvest II Activity Subcontract # 1004295- FFP-23S-21884-01 I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Makararavy Ty Dr. Freelance Consultant 208 2 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 involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 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 13/07/2023 209 210 211 1 Evaluation team – conflict of interest form for Feed the future market systems and partnership Evaluation award number: REAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: 1. Immediate family or 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/material 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/material though indirect experience with the activities being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 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. Name Title Organization Evaluation Position Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) Subcontract # 1004295-FFP-23S-21884-01 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Final Evaluation of the USAID/Cambodia Feed the Future Harvest II Activity Subcontract # 1004295- FFP-23S-21884-01 I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Riguen Thorn National Fieldwork Manager & Research Analyst Freelance 212 2 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 involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 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 19 July 2023 213 1 Evaluation team – conflict of interest form for Feed the future market systems and partnership Evaluation award number: REAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: 1. Immediate family or 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/material 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/material though indirect experience with the activities being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 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. Name Title Organization Evaluation Position Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) Subcontract # 1004295-FFP-23S-21884-01 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Final Evaluation of the USAID/Cambodia Feed the Future Harvest II Activity Subcontract # 1004295- FFP-23S-21884-01 I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Euvodie Ludmilla Pierre Research Analyst Just Results 214 2 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 involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 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 7/12/2023 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 Annex H: Evaluation Team Member Bios Name Role Responsibilities Experience Alexandra Miehlbradt (Aly) Team Leader Lead the team and overall evaluation delivery; provide expertise in market system development, innovative qualitative tools; convene technical experts; travel to the field; oversee data collection tools development, workshops, learning products development and quality control; lead development of all reports. 30 years in inclusive economic development, particularly market systems development in Asia, Africa, the Pacific and Central America. She advised several market systems development (MSD) programs. She is a leader in the global effort to improve monitoring and results measurement and the effective use of information in MSD. Makararavy Ty (Ravy) National Evaluation Advisor Lead the evaluation preparation in Cambodia; contribute to evaluation methodology and design; coordinate the national team during the data collection; ensure quality of training and data gathering; contribute to data analysis, findings, and recommendations in the report. 10+ years of experience in private sector development. She is an expert in monitoring and evaluation, and she worked on projects such as agriculture and climate change. She is a specialist in results measurement and market development analysis. Sílvio Aquino Team Facilitator Client communications and team strategizing; provide regular briefings to the client; organize implementation team and ensure clear communication among the team focused on delivering high￾quality reports; quality control. International cooperation and public policy specialist with 10+ years of experience in sustainable economic development, program management, social impact, formulation and implementation of public policy, strategy, institutional coordination, operations, and partnerships. Sajda Karmacharya Lara Goldmark Enabling Environment Specialist Support with expert advice on business enabling environment; provide input to evaluation methodology; provide technical input to the reports. Founder and CEO of Just Results. 30+ years in monitoring and evaluation (MEL) with a focus on market systems development and improving the business enabling environment through digitization. 226 Name Role Responsibilities Experience Sokhannaro Hep Climate Change and Environment Specialist Support with expert advice on climate change and environment; provide input to evaluation methodology; provide technical input to the reports. 20 years of experience as specialist in environmental research and assessments, natural resource management, climate change, environmental assessment, carbon finance, conservation, ecosystem services, indigenous and rural communities. Tola Prom National Agriculture Specialist Support with expert advice on agriculture; provide input to evaluation methodology; provide technical input to the reports. Considerable expertise in the agriculture and aquaculture sectors of Cambodia. Extensive experience in donor funded monitoring and evaluation of agriculture related programs, economics and econometrics, statistics, and statistical analysis. Riguen Thorn National Fieldwork Manager Coordinate the team of enumerators to provide high-level qualitative and quantitative data collection; train and orient enumerators; oversee tools verification; support travels as needed; contribute with data analysis. Experienced in quantitative and qualitative research with rural people in Cambodia, quantitative and qualitative data analysis, tools development, mobile phone/tablet usage to collect quantitative data. Euvodie Pierre Research Analyst Technical data analysis; support primary research lead and other team members; create engaging graphics and data visualization content. Experienced in field research, sustainable agricultural development, and interpretation/translation. Hamza Denguezli Research Analyst Skillful at project management and digital transformation. Experienced in elaborating content, conducting interviews for data collection, and finalizing process maps of administrative procedures. www. feedthefuture. gov