ENDLINE EVALUATION REPORT OF THE STRENGTHENING INCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE IN MALAWI By JUSTICE DUNSTAN CHIMGONDA NKHOMA, Ph.D. Submitted to Farmers Union of Malawi (FUM) November, 2022 ii Table of Contents List of Tables..............................................................................................................................iv List of Figures .............................................................................................................................v Acknowledgement .....................................................................................................................vi DISCLAIMER..............................................................................................................................vii LIST OF ACRONYMS ...............................................................................................................viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................ix 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................12 1.1. Activity Background ......................................................................................................12 1.2. Activity Theory of Change (ToC) ..................................................................................13 2. PURPOSE OF THE END OF ACTIVITY EVALUATION ....................................................15 2.1. Objectives.....................................................................................................................15 2.2. Key Evaluation Stakeholders and Audiences...............................................................15 2.3. Evaluation Purpose and Questions ..............................................................................16 3. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................17 3.1. Review of secondary data ............................................................................................17 3.2. Primary data collection .................................................................................................17 3.2.1. Sampling Plan .......................................................................................................17 3.2.2. Primary Data Collection Tools...............................................................................18 3.3. Data Quality Assurance................................................................................................18 3.4. Data Analysis Plan .......................................................................................................18 3.5. Evaluation criteria and the data needs .........................................................................19 3.6. Limitations of the study.................................................................................................20 4. STUDY RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................................21 4.1. Relevance of the activity...............................................................................................21 4.2. Efficiency ......................................................................................................................22 4.3. Effectiveness ................................................................................................................23 4.3.1. Effectiveness of the Work plan..............................................................................23 4.3.2. Effectiveness of the Activity budget.......................................................................24 4.3.3. Effectiveness of the Theory of Change (ToC).......................................................24 4.4. Assessing Activity Impacts ...........................................................................................25 4.4.1 Performance Assessment Results .............................................................................25 4.4.2 Intermediate Result 1: Increased Production and Productivity ..................................26 iii 4.4.3 Intermediate Result 2: Increased access to markets and trade .................................28 4.4.4 Intermediate Result 3: Enabling Policy Environment .................................................31 Most Significant Changes .......................................................................................................34 4.5 Sustainability of activity interventions................................................................................36 5 ISSUES TO NOTE: ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT ISSUES.......................................................37 6 CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................38 7. RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................39 7.1 Programmatic Recommendations.....................................................................................39 7.2 General Recommendations ..............................................................................................39 8 KEY ACTIVITY LESSONS......................................................................................................40 9 ANNEXES................................................................................................................................41 1: Performance Assessment Results......................................................................................41 2: List of Key Informants Contacted During Key Informant InterviewsError! Bookmark not defined. 3: List of Focus Group Discussions.........................................................................................43 4: Activity Financial Resource Allocation ................................................................................44 5: Data Collection Instruments................................................................................................44 5.1 Implementing Partner Interview Guide..........................................................................45 5.2 Activity Management and Relations with FUM Questions ............................................48 5.3 Activity Design and Implementation Questions.............................................................49 5.4 FGD Guide....................................................................................................................50 5.5 Household Survey Questionnaire .................................................................................54 iv List of Tables Table 1: Activity Theory of Change (ToC)..................................................................................13 Table 2: Stakeholder Engagement Matrix...................................................................................15 Table 3: Data needs for the evaluation criteria ...........................................................................19 Table 4: Quantitative changes in the farmers’ yields per value chains .......................................26 Table 5: Percentage of Farmers indicating the Effectiveness of Technologies promoted by the Activity.........................................................................................................................................26 Table 6: Type of Markets accessed by Farmers in the Targeted Districts..................................29 Table 7: Access to Structured Markets by Districts ...................................................................30 Table 8: Effectiveness of Forestry by-laws .................................................................................32 Table 9: Women participation in Cooperative Leadership (Before and after Activity)................35 Table 10: Percentage of farmer showing willingness to continue with the technologies by district ....................................................................................................................................................36 v List of Figures Figure 3.1: OECD/DAC Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................19 Figure 4.1: Progress of planned activities...................................................................................23 Figure 4:2: Budget spread among partners ................................................................................24 Figure 4.2: ADC members in Machinga district during the orientation of forest and land amended laws.............................................................................................................................32 vi Acknowledgement I feel greatly honored to submit this final evaluation report for the Strengthening Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth and Sustainable Natural Resource Governance in Malawi. To the best of my knowledge, presented in this report provide a true reflection of how the Activity has performed in its three-year lifespan as guided by the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria. I express my sincere gratitude to the Farmers Union of Malawi (FM) and its implementing partners of the activity for entrusting me with the task. My sincere gratitude also goes to Dr. Mathews Madola – activity Chief of Party and Mr. Derrick Kapolo – Activity M&E Specialist for providing necessary technical and logistical support during the development of this report. Above all, I would like to thank all farmers, extension workers, and other stakeholders that provided valuable information that informed this report and also a team of research assistants for data collection. Heartfelt acknowledgement also goes to USAID-Malawi for financing both the Activity and the evaluation work. Regards, Justice Dunstan Chimgonda Nkhoma, Ph.D. vii DISCLAIMER This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the consultant and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. viii LIST OF ACRONYMS AHCX Auction Holdings Commodity Exchange ACE Agricultural Commodity Exchange CEPA Center for Environmental Policy and Advocacy CISANET Civil Society Agricultural Network CSO Civil Society Organizations E-platform Electronic Platform FGD Focus Group Discussion FO Farmer Organization FUM Farmers Union of Malawi GVH Group Village Headmen Ha Hectare KAP Knowledge, attitude, and practice Kg kilogram KII Key Informant Interviews MCCCI Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry MDA Ministries, Departments, and Agencies NAP National Agricultural Policy NAIP National Agricultural Investment Plan NSO National Statistical Office of Malawi OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development DAC Development Assistance Committee PHC Population and Housing Census POs Producer Organizations PPP Principle of Probability Proportion T/A Traditional Authority ToC Theory of Change USAID United States Agency for International Development VNRMC Village Natural Resource Management Committees ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Activity Background The Strengthening Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth and Sustainable Natural Resource Governance Activity developed by four local organizations in Malawi namely FUM, CEPA, MCCCI, and CISANET, with FUM being the lead implementing partner. The activity had a duration of three (3) years (Dec 2019 – Nov 2022) and was budgeted at USD1, 992,477.69 with USAID funding. The activity was developed under Local Works, which recommends for collaboration and learning in order to find solutions to local problems. The activity targeted 3,650 farmers with 50percent women and 30percent youths. It was implemented in 7 districts that included: Lilongwe, Mchinji, Balaka, Mangochi, Machinga, Dowa, and Ntchisi. It targeted four (4) value chains of: Soybean, Dairy, Cotton, and Rice. Activity Goal and Intermediate Results The activity had a goal of increasing sustainable agricultural productivity and commercialization of the selected value chains in targeted districts and had three Intermediate Result (IR) as follows: i. Increased agricultural production and productivity ii. Increased access to markets and trade iii. Increased policy environment for commercialization and natural resource governance Objectives of the End-line Evaluation The end-line evaluation was designed to: (1) Assess activity achievements, (2) Validate or refine the activity theory of change, (3) Understand responsiveness to stakeholder priorities, (4) Assess Efficiency, (5) Identify Key Lessons Learnt. Methods The end-line study was conducted using multiple approaches which included primary and secondary data collections. A household survey was conducted in October, 2022 targeting all the five activity districts. A sample size of 456 farmers was drawn, which included 238 FO members and 218 were non-FO members. The principle of probability proportion to sample (PPS) was applied to determine sampling and proportion of households to be interviewed, which covered all the value chains supported by the activity (soybean, rice, cotton and dairy). The major survey limitation was the tracing of the households that participated in the baseline study. Distance recall for data during the quantitative interviews with households. The primary Household data were collected using KOBO program and exported into SPSS and Microsoft Excel for analysis. A total of 17 key informant interviews (KIIs) and 22 focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted. Stakeholder analysis was integrated as part of the KIIs and secondary data review to better understand stakeholders’ interest and influence on the activity. The qualitative data was analyzed by the NVIVO to draw themes and patterns. Key findings Relevance: The study has found that the activity design, objectives and delivery mechanism were relevant to the Malawi 2063, Malawi Implementation Plan 1 (MIP-1), National Agriculture Policy and the USAID Malawi Country Development Cooperation Strategy. It has further been learnt that the activity was implemented through local structures and district councils aligns with x USAID Local Works Approach and National Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services Strategy (NAEASS). The study has therefore found that the activity was relevant and coherent. Efficiency: Study results indicate that implementing through local structures and government officers significantly lowered the delivery cost due to: reduced over-head costs, reduced staff cost and decentralized delivery mechanism reduced bureaucracy. However, evidence indicates that this also resulted in inefficiencies in: meeting reporting deadlines, implementing activities as per the agreed timelines in the work plan, compliance with financial reporting and reconciliation of funds among others. The activity also collaborated well with the private sector, research institutions, and other projects to build synergies. Effectiveness: Activity reports indicate that most planned activities were implemented. However, it was noted that annual work plans for the activity were running from December to November. This does not align with the agricultural calendar hence it was learnt that most activities were not implemented in the first year of the activity. The activity calendar does also not align with the USAID financial year hence likely to have reporting misalignments during first year of implementation. It was also noted that the activity budget of USD1, 992,477.69 was too little to be shared among four implementing partners and to be spread in 7 districts. This would imply that resources were spread too thinly hence not able to achieve significant impact. Assessment of the Theory of Change further indicates a direct relationship between inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts. However, key informant interviews revealed that in some incidences there were delayed disbursements of funds to the field. This could make the ToC collapse as money is a critical input. It was also noted that one of the key assumptions of the ToC was availability of government staff to support implementation of the activity. It was however realized that some government officers were not fully available to the activity or fully compliant with the activity hence posing a threat to the ToC. Impact: The activity has brought notable increase in productivity levels of the targeted value chains. These have been reported by several participants to the activity across all value chains. The activity has also contributed towards creation of the enabling policy and regulatory environment for agricultural commercialization and sustainable natural resource governance. A number of advocacy efforts have brought some results such as the enactment of the Seed Bill into a law and awareness campaigns of land and forestry laws have increased knowledge, attitudes and practices among various stakeholders towards forestry and land governance. However, the activity has registered less impact on connecting farmers to structured markets and farmer friendly agricultural financing instruments. Sustainability: Overall, there is a high likelihood that some of the activity interventions are going beyond the activity timeframe. This is the activity has built the capacity of the local structures that will continue with implementations of the activity interventions. The activity has also supported the targeted districts to develop district agriculture plans that will be implemented beyond the activity cycle. The e-trade platform that has been developed by the activity is likely to help farmers to sustainably access profitable markets xi Recommendations: The Strengthening Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth and Sustainable Natural Governance Activity provides a good pilot for Local Works interventions in Malawi. However, based on the findings, we make the following recommendations: 1. Future activities should have adequate staff to coordinate activities at the district level; 2. There is need for more coordination among activity implementing partners; 3. Future agriculture projects should have work plans that align with both agriculture calendar and donor (USAID) financial year; 4. Future activity should ensure timely disbursement of funds to the partners; 5. Future activity should ensure more visibility of the activity. 12 | Page 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents findings from the end-of-activity evaluation for the Strengthening Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth and Sustainable Natural Resource Governance Activity that was being implemented by the Farmers Union of Malawi and three implementing partners. The report applies OECD/DAC evaluation criteria to answer key evaluation questions on relevance, efficiency, coherence, effectiveness, sustainability, and impacts of the activity. Above all, the report presents findings of the key lessons that have been drawn in the course of activity implementation. This is of particular importance to the USAID Local Works activity programing. 1.1. Activity Background Farmers Union of Malawi in partnership with the Malawi Confederation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (MCCCI), the Civil Society Agriculture Network (CISANET), and the Center for Environmental Policy and Advocacy (CEPA) have been implementing a three-year activity: Strengthening Inclusive Agricultural Sector Growth and Natural Resource Governance in Malawi (Contract/Agreement Number: 72061219CA00004) whose goal was to achieve inclusive and sustainable agricultural-led economic growth through agricultural transformation in Malawi. The activity was funded by the United State Agency for International Development (USAID) and was being implemented in seven districts of Malawi namely: Lilongwe, Dowa, Ntchisi, Mchinji, Balaka, Machinga and Mangochi. The activity targeted 3,650 smallholder farmers (50% female) through their producer organizations (POs). A total of 13 POs were targeted under four value chains of: Soybeans, Dairy, Cotton, and Rice. The activity had the following three Intermediate Results: IR1: Increased Agricultural Production and Productivity: Through this component, the activity aimed at improving agricultural production, productivity and profitability through strengthening of extension services, technology development and dissemination, agricultural research, and institutional capacity development of the targeted cooperatives and various governance structures at the district level. The activity also worked towards reducing gender gap thereby promoting economic empowerment of women. IR2: Strengthened and expanded access to markets and trade: Through this component, the activity promoted increased private sector investment in agriculture through up-scaling of commercial farming, improved access to finance and enhanced access to local and international markets. The activity also focused on increasing farmers’ access to profitable and structured markets through capacity building on collective and contract farming. The activity also facilitated strategic business partnerships between farmers and providers of various business enabling services such as agriculture finance. IR3: More effective governance, policy, and institutions: This component advanced improved governance in the agriculture sector through enhanced coordination, collaboration and mutual transparency and accountability. The component also promoted sustainable governance of natural resources in Malawi through promotion of increased devolution of regulatory functions, raising awareness of policy and legislative frameworks around agriculture and natural resource governance and enhance functionality of enforcement entities, and reduced corruption in natural resource management. Activity partners CEPA, CISANET, and MCCCI harnessed their diverse expertise to bring synergetic effect on the delivery of the activity intermediate results. 13 | Page 1.2. Activity Theory of Change (ToC) During the review of the baseline report, it was noted that the theory of change was reviewed to make it more streamlined and to bring causal relationship between inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts. The baseline study report indicates that the review of the Theory of Change was necessary considering that the previous ToC was set at a too higher-level in such a way that it would have been very difficult to be achieved and attributed to the activity. The revised Theory of Change is summarized as follows: Table 1: Activity Theory of Change (ToC) Goal Increased sustainable agricultural productivity and commercialization of selected value chains in targeted districts Leads into Increased agricultural production and productivity Increased access to profitable markets and agricultural financing Increased policy environment for commercialization and natural Then Farmers (including women) will have increased adoption of agricultural technologies and better farming methods Farmers will have increased access to profitable markets Increased farmers’ (including women) capacity to effectively engage in policy process, enhanced coordination, and transparent land and forestry management IF we Train farmers (including women and youth) in Good Agricultural Practices Promote technology adoption Capacitate Farmer Organizations Train farmers (including women) in post-harvest handling and collective marketing Facilitate market linkages Lobby for enabling policy environment for agricultural business Raise farmers’ awareness of agricultural policies, land laws, and orient officers in land and forestry laws Support district policy dialogue fora The Assumption of the activity Theory of Change are provided as follows: - Targeted farmers are able to apply various technologies promoted by the activity; - Other activity interventions like structured markets will be in place to support in aggregation of commodities and warehouse receipts; - Financial institutions willing to lend to the agriculture sector, particularly cooperatives supported by the activity. Also available financing through grants in place; - Farmers will be interested to work through their producer organizations to harness collective action and economies of scale; - Enabling policy environment for production and marketing of prioritized value chain; - Cordial collaboration and coordination among various stakeholders in the agriculture sector at all levels, including district and national level; - Buy-in by farm produce off-takers to directly buy produce from the farmers being supported by the activity through the targeted producer organizations; 14 | Page - District Councils and will support implementation of land governance and forestry management interventions. 15 | Page 2. PURPOSE OF THE END OF ACTIVITY EVALUATION The primary objective of the assignment was to conduct a summative evaluation of the activity. The focus of this evaluation was on the assessment of achievements, the quality, and the results (Reference is made to the entire results chain, covering outputs, outcomes, and impacts). 2.1. Objectives The end-line evaluation was underpinned by the following objectives: a) To determine the extent to which activity results have been achieved, with particular consideration to activity effectiveness, efficiency, and responsiveness to stakeholders. b) To identify key lessons learned, best practices, and examples/success stories that can be used to inform similar future programs led by FUM, USAID, and other partners and donors working in this space. c) To learn about locally-led approaches and collaboration among FUM and consortium partners contributed to addressing locally prioritized challenges. 2.2. Key Evaluation Stakeholders and Audiences Furthermore, data gathering process for the study engaged consultations with a number of stakeholders that were key to the successful implementation of the activity. Stakeholder engagements were therefore by the following matrix: Table 2: Stakeholder Engagement Matrix Anticipated Engagement1 Stakeholder Goal/Objective Co-Lead (highly engaged) Farmers Union Malawi Learn from and validate findings to inform future work; learn areas of improvement for future programming. Participating Farmers Learn what has changed as a result of this activity; serve as primary sources to validate and respond to data collection tools. Partner USAID/Malawi Learn from and validate findings to inform future work. Learn whether the consortium/locally led approach added value. CEPA, CISANET, MCCI Learn from and validate findings to inform future work, particularly regarding policy efforts. Consult District-level CSO networks Better understand how their respective roles in the activity contributed to results; 1 These categories are based on USAID’s Locally Led Development Spectrum, and are designed to serve as a starting point to inform the consultant’s work. 16 | Page Government staff implementing activity (Police, Judiciary, etc.) contribute to data collection efforts. Private sector actors Government Council of Malawi Inform (less engaged) Other donors Leverage lessons learned/best practices for own work; Include in dissemination planning for results. Rice value chain researchers 2.3. Evaluation Purpose and Questions In line with the Terms of Reference (ToRs), the end-of-activity evaluation was designed to answer the following evaluation questions as prioritized by FUM and USAID: 17 | Page 3. METHODOLOGY Considering that this end-line evaluation was commissioned as a follow-up to the baseline study that was conducted in the first year of the activity, efforts were made to align methodologies for the two studies in order to effectively measure changes that have been brought about by the activity. It is, for this reason, the end-line evaluation also applied a mixed methods approach that included qualitative and quantitative techniques. In particular, these techniques included literature review/desktop research and primary data collection in all seven districts of the activity. Furthermore, the end-line evaluation was conducted in a very inclusive and participatory manner to bring out multiple perspectives from key stakeholders in assessing how the activity was implemented, what changes have been brought, and to draw key lessons. However, the client emphasized on the qualitative aspect. 3.1.Review of secondary data In order to have an understanding of the policy and socio-economic context in which the activity was implemented, a number of secondary data sources were reviewed. Internal activity documents were also reviewed to assess activity conceptual framework and results as presented in the progress reports. Some of the secondary data sources that were reviewed are provided as follows: i. Activity Documents, Annual Economic Reports, National Budget documents. ii. National Trade Policy, National Agriculture Policy (NAP), National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP). iii. National Environmental Policy, National Livestock Policy and Strategy, iv. National Industry Policy, National Exports Strategy II. v. National Decentralization Policy, Agricultural Production Estimates data for targeted districts. vi. Joint Sector Review (JSR) Reports, New Land Laws, Forestry Policy, Act. vii. Feed The Future Results Framework. viii. Activity Progress report (partners), Policy briefs. 3.2. Primary data collection 3.2.1. Sampling Plan Primary data collection involved activities such as household survey of activity beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs) and observations, among others. Data from these various approaches were synthesized to generate the key issues, insights and recommendations from the baseline survey. In the case of the household survey, the total sample size (n) was decided as guided by the standard statistical sampling formula, as per below: Where: n is desired total household sample size for the survey, N is the total population of farmers targeted under the FUM activity (3,650), e is level of precision, being 0.05 in this case. Based on the above formula, an optimal sample size (n) of 360 households was obtained for household interviews. However, the actual sample size was adjusted upwards to 456 households, in order to ensure more statistical representation of both FO and non-FO members, 18 | Page as per different value chains targeted by the activity in the 5 districts. Such a sample distribution was ideal for conducting standard statistical comparative analyses. The principle of probability proportion (PPP) to sample was applied to determine the sampling and proportion of households to be interviewed. Thus, bigger districts in terms of population and membership in farmer organizations/associations had bigger relative sample sizes. The client provided the names of the FOs targeted, which assisted to determine the sample size for FO members and non-FO members. The household sample of 456 was further divided between targeted farmers (238) and non-targeted farmers (218). Simple random sampling was then used when interviewing farmers in order to give each farmer an equal chance of participating in the survey thereby enabling drawing inferences. 3.2.2. Primary Data Collection Tools Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): Checklists were developed to gather information obtained through KIIs and FGDs. The KIIs included agricultural stakeholders at the district level, implementing partners and affiliate partners involved in the activity. The FGDs targeted the village leadership as well as FOs. In total 18 KIIs and 13 FGDs were conducted. For more details, refer to the annex. Stakeholder analysis questions were integrated in the KIIs, particularly administered to district staff and implementing partners. Household Level Data: A semi structured questionnaire was developed as a main tool to collect primary data at farmer level. The tool was pre-tested and inputs from such exercise, alongside inception meeting comments incorporated into a final version which was uploaded in the tablets, where data was collected and transmitted into ODK. 3.3.Data Quality Assurance As evaluators, we recognize that the quality of the study report is as good as the data that is used in writing that report – garbage in, garbage out. It is for this reason that deliberate efforts were made to ensure collection of quality data and data security. This was done by employing multi-layer mechanisms that ensured data quality. These mechanisms included; recruitment of graduate research assistants with prior experience in conducting household surveys, training of the research assistants, pre-testing of the survey tools, use of an electronic questionnaire that was pre-recorded with answer options limited, recruitment of the field supervisors to support the research assistants during data collection, and field visits by the consultant to backstop the team. 3.4. Data Analysis Plan The data collected through the tablets was cleaned and uploaded into Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) and Stata which were the main packages for analyzing the data. Data were further uploaded into Microsoft Excel to populate graphics. Geo-coordinates were also collected throughout primary data collection and helped to populate the GIS map showing the spread of the farmer organizations supported by the activity. Statistical analyses were then done to get descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations to quantitatively assess changes that the activity has made as compared to the baseline figures. Qualitative data were analyzed by NVIVO to get themes and patterns and findings were used to interpret and triangulate findings from the quantitative results. 19 | Page In order to answer the key evaluation questions, OECD/DAC Evaluation criteria was used in order to assess relevance, coherence, sustainability, effectiveness, impact and efficiency of the activity. Figure 3.1: OECD/DAC Evaluation Criteria However, considering that the activity was only implemented for three years with most interventions being done in two years only, efforts on evaluating the activity focused on the processes in order to draw lessons. This means that despite that the OECD/DAC criteria has been used, less efforts were made to assess quantitative impacts and causality of the activity but more focus was made to understand processes, key lessons, and whether the activity was implemented as per the conceptual framework. Furthermore, the consultant understood that data collection exercise was being done when activity activities were still in progress. This would imply that measuring activity impact at this stage may not bring significant results. It is for this reason that most of the analysis focused on qualitative data. 3.5. Evaluation criteria and the data needs In order to effectively answer all the key evaluation, a matrix of data needs for each evaluation criteria were made as follows: Table 3: Data needs for the evaluation criteria Evaluation Criteria Data Collection Methods to address various Evaluation Criteria Household surveys KIIs Documents Review FGDs Success Stories Relevance     Effectiveness      Impact      Efficiency   Sustainability   20 | Page Gender and Youth Inclusion      3.6. Limitations of the study Being a software activity all interventions were not exclusive at the same time they were heterogeneous to the treated (participating) and control groups. This posed the challenge of running the Difference in Difference econometric model to assess the quantitative impact of the activity. The limited excludability and spillover of interventions among participants and non￾participants posed a challenge to assessing the quantitative impact of the activity. Tracing of farmers that participated in the baseline study, more especially the control group, was very difficult as they were not classified according to section, Group Village Head (GVH), or Traditional Authority (TA) demographics. In some cases, the participants had moved away, while in other cases respondents were either misallocated or non-existent (whole section) and could not be traced even by the Agriculture officials and villagers themselves. Finally, the study was carried out at a time when the country was facing fuel scarcity and that affected mobility. 21 | Page 4. STUDY RESULTS AND FINDINGS Findings of the evaluation are presented in this chapter. The results are presented based on the key evaluation questions and evaluation criteria as follows: 4.1. Relevance of the activity In order to have an understanding of the relevance of the activity, a comprehensive review of the activity design and results framework was done. This was done in comparison with the key development blueprints on which the activity was conceptualized. First, a review of the Malawi 2063 was made to assess how the activity was/is contributing to Malawi’s long-term development aspirations. Pillar 1 of the Malawi 2063 focuses on the Agricultural Productivity and Commercialization with an objective of having an optimally productive and commercialized agriculture sector. The first and second intermediate results of the activity therefore align with the Malawi’s long and medium term development aspiration as presented in the MW2063 and the MIP-1. A similar alignment was also found with the National Agriculture Policy which has the first Policy Outcome of Increased agricultural production and productivity. Furthermore, the objectives of the activity also align with the development objective of the USAID/Malawi Country Development Cooperation Strategy (2020-2025) that, inter alia, focuses on sustainable productive systems and capacities in the agriculture sector, expanded access to finance and markets, and sustainable management of natural resources. Additionally, the activity documents indicate that the activity was delivered through local structures from the respective targeted district councils. Some of these structures included; district civil society networks, district agriculture office, district forestry office and district lands office and the district trade officers, among others. Delivering the activity through these structures is in line with the USAID Local Works Approach, Decentralization Policy, and the National Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services Strategy (NAEASS) as they all promote delivering of agriculture interventions through the existing local structures. It has also been noted that the activity reached out to farmers through cooperatives and other forms of farmers’ organizations such as associations. This is also in line with the Farmer Organization Development Strategy, Contract Farming Strategy, National Agriculture Policy and the ministerial directive that promotes working with farmers through collective platforms like cooperatives, associations and clubs. Apart from delivering activity interventions through the farmers’ organizations, the study also learnt that interventions were delivered through the district stakeholder platforms like the District Agriculture Extension Coordinating Committees and the District Civil Society Networks. This also in line with the spirit of the National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP). Finally, a review of the district Social Economic Profiles (SEP) was made to assess if the activity objectives aligned with the priorities for the targeted districts. Through this review, it was noted that the value chains that were promoted in the respective districts are also being prioritized in the targeted districts. Our findings therefore indicate that the Strengthening Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth and Sustainable Natural Resource Governance in Malawi was designed and delivered in line with key policy documents and strategies hence being relevant and coherent. We therefore recommend that future projects should be designed using a similar framework 22 | Page 4.2. Efficiency Under efficiency, analysis focused on answering two questions namely: How well were resources used? And given the relatively small award budget, what results were achieved? With what inputs? To answer this question, an assessment of the activity budget and activity document was made where it was found that the activity had a total three-year budget of $1,992,478. This was shared among all the four implementing partners and also included administration and overhead costs. Furthermore, the analysis of the activity documents indicate that the activity was being implemented in seven districts of Malawi. Considering the scope of work that was in the activity, we find that the activity budget was relatively little to cover all the districts and all the planned scope. However, activity documents and evidence from the Key Informant Interviews further indicate that Farmers Union of Malawi and its implementing partners collaborated with various stakeholder and local structures from the districts to support with implementation of activity activities. In particular, it has been learnt that the activity collaborated with the government extension workers, district civil society organizations, district forestry officers, district trade officers and other subject matter specialist from the district in planning and implementing activity activities. Existence of this strong collaboration between the activity and local structures has ensured efficient utilization of activity funds and activity activities were being implemented with minimum costs possible through decentralized approach whereby resources were sent to government officers on the ground to support activity implementation. This did not only reduce the bureaucracy and time-lag in implementing activity activities, but also resulted it reaching out to more beneficiaries that intended as monitoring data indicate that the activity has managed to reach out to 9,715 participants out of the planned 3,650 target. Implementing through government structures also reduced overhead costs as the activity did not recruit activity officers. Evidence from the field also indicates that the activity also collaborated and partnered with other key stakeholders such as the research institutions and private seed companies to support the activity with technology transfer and promote improved seeds through demonstration plots. It was further observed that through this arrangement private seed companies provided seed and other inputs that were used in the demonstration plots thereby leveraging on the seemingly too little budget. The research institutions also trained farmers (specifically under rice value chain) in seed production thereby providing sustainable means to farmers to access high yielding seeds. However, despite that findings indicating that some of these collaborations brought positive synergies and maximized on the activity budget, other evidence is also indicating that implementing the activity through local structures and government officers also brought some inefficiencies as the government officers were not fully available to implement activity activities as they also had to focus on their core activities. This resulted in inefficiencies and untimely reporting, delayed implementation of activity activities, and delayed and substandard reconciliations of funds. Our findings therefore present a mix bag on efficiency. Despite that evidence is indicating that implementing through government structures reduced some overhead costs and brought synergies, other findings also indicate that overreliance on government staff and local structures to implement activity activities brought some inefficiencies. It is for this reason that we recommend that future projects should at least have one activity employed officer in each district of the activity to support coordination of activity activities and ensure compliance of financial and technical reporting requirements. 23 | Page 4.3. Effectiveness Under effectiveness, an assessment was made to determine if the activity has met its objectives. To achieve this, the analysis was subdivided into three focus areas of; (1) work plan effectiveness, (2) Activity budget effectiveness, and (3) the effectiveness of the Theory of Change (ToC). 4.3.1. Effectiveness of the Work plan Activity work plan is a guiding tool for implementing activity activities. It documents all activity activities needed to achieve the activity goals along with their detailed effort and their schedule. Successful implementation of the work plan is therefore very key to the achieving activity objectives. Figure 4.1: Progress of planned activities As per the 4.1, an assessment of how planned activities have been implemented as per the work plan indicates that almost all but one activity was fully implemented. This is quite interesting considering that implementation of activity started late due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consultations with the key informant indicated that this was achieved because of the adopted activity delivery mechanism of implementing through local structures. Through this approach, activity work plans were designed in coordination and collaborative approach amongst the implementers and local structures from the district. Activity implementing partners were then advancing finances to the district local structures to ensure implementation of activity activities. However, despite that analysis of activity reports is indicating that targets for most activities were surpassed, it has been noted that annual work plans for the activity were running from December to November each year. This does not align with the Agricultural Calendar that runs from September to August. It is therefore not surprising to note that the activity failed to implement agriculture intervention in the first year as the activity started in December, 2019 when the agriculture season had already started. Unfortunately, COVID-19 pandemic also emerged in December 2019, the same time the activity commenced. As a result, activity implementing partners have indicated that implementation of activity activities in the first year started in the 3rd quarter of the year. It is therefore not surprising to the consultant to note that 24 | Page most of the activity activities have been implemented at the very end of the final year. This compounds the fears that have been raised that this evaluation may not capture the actual extent of the evaluation. In addition to the misalignment with the agriculture calendar, it was also noted that the activity year (from December to November) did not align with the USAID reporting year that runs from October to September. This can result in misaligned reporting for the first year. 4.3.2. Effectiveness of the Activity budget Apart from analyzing the effectiveness of the work plan, effectiveness of the budget was also done. The idea was to assess if the activity budget was adequate to meet activity budget and if funds were readily available to implement activity activities. As reported under the efficiency, the activity had a total three-year budget of $1,992,478 which was shared among all the four implementing partners. Considering that the activity was implemented in seven districts of Malawi, the resources provided were relatively too little for all the four partners to cover the seven targeted districts. This would therefore imply that the activity budget was spread too thinly hence not able to effectively register significant results. Considering that key informant Interviews with the USAID officials indicated that all activities that were under Local Works had a budget ceiling of US$2million, it would have been appropriate to concentrate the activity budget in at least four districts in order to draw effective lessons. Furthermore, we assessed how the activity budget was split among the implementing partners. Results indicate that the budget was highly skewed towards the Lead Implementing partner with FUM getting more than 60 percent of the activity because FUM had more activity activities than the rest of the partners. In addition to implementing its activities FUM had also coordinating responsibilities. Figure 4:2 Budget spread among partners 4.3.3. Effectiveness of the Theory of Change (ToC) Analysis of the activity Theory of Change reveals that there is a relationship between inputs, It has also been noted that the activity also involved the level sequencing of technical interventions such that positive outcomes at one level could contribute as well as serve as a prerequisite for the achievement at another level. All these levels could also bring changes both across and between themselves. It is for this reason that it can be concluded that the activity’s theory of change had impact and was holding. This can be attributed to the modifications that were made to the ToC during the baseline study. However, Key Informant Interviews with some government extension officers indicate that in some incidences there were delayed disbursements of funds to the field. Considering that availability of funds is a critical input into the Theory of Change, delayed disbursement of funds We therefore recommend that future agriculture projects should have work plans that align with both agriculture calendar and USAID Financial year. Considering the budget misalignments that have been identified, we therefore recommend for the alignment of the activity budget with the scope of work and also fair allocation of the budget among implementing partners 25 | Page had a strong potential to throw the whole ToC off-balance. Analysis of the data from the Farmers Union of Malawi, a lead implementing partner, indicated that disbursement of funds to the districts was indeed sometimes delayed due to delayed liquidations of funds from the districts as funds could not be disbursed unless the previous disbursements were fully reconciled. This therefore points to one of the key assumptions of the theory of change that banks on the availability of the government staff to support implementation of the activity activities. However, evidence has indicated that the government extension officers were not fully available for the activity hence posing a significant threat to the theory of change. We therefore reiterate that future projects need to have at least one activity officer in each targeted district in order to ensure timely implementation of activity activities. 4.4. Assessing activity impacts The analysis of the impact of the activity zeroed in on what changes have been brought by the activity with a focus on the key intermediate results of the activity. Again, despite that attempts were made to quantitatively assess the impact through econometric modeling, the Difference-in￾Difference econometric model that was run did not hold. Our further analysis indicated that there were a lot of spillovers from the interventions between farmers that were targeted by the activity and those that were not targeted. It is for that reason that analytical approach of the activity impact mainly focuses on analyzing testimonies from the field. 4.4.1 Performance Assessment Results Each immediate result had its targeted and implemented activities assessed in order to establish performance. The table 11 annexed indicates the specific rates for every activities and each immediate result. Overall performance of IR1 is 147%, IR2 is 101% and IR3 is at 127%. Despite the performance assessment results indicating that targets for most activities were surpassed, we noted that annual work plans for the activity were running from December to November. This does not align with the Agricultural Calendar. It is therefore not surprising to note that the activity failed to implement some agriculture interventions in the first year thereby missing the whole year. “The fields of these beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are close to each other. At first they could not understand the benefits of the technologies being promoted. But when they saw the benefits after harvest, they started demanding to participate, having differentiated with their fields which were devoid of technology.” (Chairperson) Mangochi District. 26 | Page 4.4.2 Intermediate Result 1: Increased Production and Productivity The productivity has increased when comparison is made on the baseline and end-line studies across the value chains. The findings from the simple descriptive quantitative analyses on the value chains show significant increase as shown in table 4 below. For instance, rice productivity has increased to about 4.3 tones which represents a 183 percent increase compared to the baseline. This increased productivity level is closer to National potential productivity of 4.52. The results are supported by qualitative data. However, it should be indicated that actual value of quantitative impact cannot be fully measured now as activity interventions are still being implemented with most of the interventions being yet to produce results. A detailed ex-post impact evaluation will therefore later be required to capture the actual impact of the activity. Table 4: Quantitative changes in the farmers’ yields per value chains Data Source Document Rice yield (Kgs/Ha) Cotton yield (Kgs/Ha) Soybean yield (Kgs/Ha) Dairy (litres/cow/day) Baseline Study 1526 896 1100 10 End-line Study 4321.3 1032.7 1231 14 4.4.2.1 Production and productivity Beneficiaries reported that through the trainings and technologies (demonstrations, use of hybrid seeds and modern crop husbandry management) provided by the activity, they have acquired knowledge and skills which they have used in their fields and resulted in increased production and productivity in all the value chains of the activity including maize. Table 5: Percentage of Farmers indicating the Effectiveness of Technologies promoted by the Activity Balaka Lilongwe Machinga Mangochi Mchinji Grand Total TR CO TR CO TR CO TR CO TR CO TR CO 5 13 20 11 0 14 13 0 6 22 10 15 95 87 80 89 100 86 88 100 94 78 90 85 Key: TR means project participants, CO means Control or non-participants 2 Strengthening Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth and Sustainable Natural Resources Governance Activity in Malawi Final Baseline Report, 2020 27 | Page Table 5 above indicates how both the participants and non-participants rated the effectiveness of the technologies promoted by the activity. As can be seen, 90% and 85% of the participants and non-participants respectively indicated that the technologies were effective in promoting both production and productivity. 4.4.2.2.1 Cotton Production and productivity The use of new technologies in cotton by farmers has resulted in increased yields in the past two years. The use of hybrid seed and one seed per planting station technology is not only a cost effective technology but also defends itself against pests. 4.4.2.2.2 Dairy Production and productivity Dairy farmers indicated that there has been an increase in milk production, however they explained that production was affected by several factors such as cow breeds, some being low milk producing while others are high yielding. Additionally, some cooperatives are negatively affected by governance issues as well as poor quality of equipment supplied to the cooperatives as is the case with Mweramkaka and Mpasa cooperatives respectively in Ntchisi and Dowa districts. 4.4.2.2.3 Rice production and productivity According to most rice farmers engaged in the evaluation, the use of new technologies is a game changer as they have been able to obtain bumper harvests on the same piece of land “But as of now, cotton production is quite profitable. Because the selling prices at the market are now appreciating. If in future the cotton production will continue being this profitable, the way the new hybrid variety is producing, because in the past the seed variety was not good enough,” “But the recent cotton production has improved on the hybrid variety which grows so well and produces a lot of yield.” But those, which come as pure Jerseys are the ones, which produce twenty to twenty-five liters if they are being well cared for. “A recent development involves a woman farmer who received a cow. She did everything possible to feed and take care of her cow. Her husband is blind, meaning that he does not work but through the dairy production she has managed to mold bricks and had them woven dried…. (Member accidentally drops a bottle lead on the floor) Bought iron sheets and had them fitted as I am talking now, she lives in a well-structured house, all this through the sales of milk. So, there are two main things which we obtain from milk, nutrition and finances.” Dowa District. 28 | Page where they were struggling to get good harvests for years. Table 5 below confirms this as about 90% of the activity participants as well as 85% of the control indicated that the technologies were indeed effective. This is triangulated with the qualitative part. The new technologies include use of new hybrid seed varieties, planting of a single seedling per planting station, and timely fertilizer application. Through the activity, the farmers were linked to Lifuwu Research Station which provided them with seed for field demonstrations which also they also plant in their fields. In this activity rice value chain has been the highest performer in terms of production. 4.4.2.2.4 Soya production and productivity In terms of production and productivity, the soybean farmers contend that double row planting practice, application of inoculant, fertilizer and other good crop husbandry practices learnt through the activity have enhanced both production and productivity of the soybeans in their fields. 4.4.3 Intermediate Result 2: Increased access to markets and trade Generally, analysis of the results has indicated that the second intermediate results is the least performing component of the activity as evidence indicates that there were few linkages to markets and financial institutions. Analysis of the farmer level data indicates that only 22 percent of the targeted farmers managed to sale their produce through a properly structured market contract. This was the case because the activity had less interventions that focused on linking farmers to structured markets and when such interventions were made, they were done at the end of the agriculture season instead of at the beginning of the season when farmers are making production decisions. It was noted that the activity had an activity of developing a virtual trade platform called e-trade platform. However, the platform is now operational although by the end of the activity only 20 traders had registered to trade on the platform. It can therefore be concluded that creation of this seemingly important platform has not yet benefited farmers. “In the past, we were harvesting very little but after participating in the activity we are able to have more yields from the same piece of land “In addition to that, we have also learnt to apply a little amount of fertilizer per plot unlike in the past.” “One thing I can say is that I am now able to effectively produce rice and this rice will help to support my child if he can be selected to go to University this year.” Machinga District. “but in a general way there had been improved productivity, we have seen increase in the production of soya bean because of the new technologies that have been employed; the use of inoculant, the use of improved seed and double row planting method. We have seen that production has increased. In terms of productivity, yes, productivity per unit area has also increased.” Mangochi District. 29 | Page Table 6: Type of Markets accessed by Farmers in the Targeted Districts Market Type Balaka Lilongwe Machinga Mangochi Mchinji Grand Total TR CO TR CO TR CO TR CO TR CO TR CO ADMARC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 Aggregator 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 Cooperative 0.0 6.7 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 4.8 0.0 5.5 1.5 Institution (NGO etc) 81.1 46.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.2 50.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 12.1 Other (specify) 16.2 33.3 15.6 33.3 15.4 13.6 0.0 0.0 4.8 16.7 9.9 21.2 Processor 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 Vendors 2.7 13.3 80.0 66.7 76.9 86.4 50.0 50.0 87.1 83.3 62.4 65.2 Key: TR means project participants, CO means Control or non-participants The table 6 above says it all that about 62% of the activity participants indicated that vendors provided reliable markets during the activity implementation. Questions were posed to both the activity implementers and the government agribusiness officers to understand the reasons behind the perceived poor performance of the agriculture marketing components. Findings from the key informant interviews with these officer indicated that it is generally difficult to effectively link farmers to structured markets as trading of the targeted value chains is mostly informal. It was noted that it is in the cotton and dairy value chains where some forms of contract marketing exist and farmers are able to get into contract marketing arrangements with the milk processors and cotton ginners. This is not the case with rice and soybean value chains where vendors dominate the market. This can further be attributed to lack of laws to regulate marketing of these regulations. For instance, in dairy value chain, a milk and milk products criminalizes selling of raw and unpasteurized milk while under the cotton value chain there is a Cotton Council that regulates the value chain. This is unlike with the rice and soybean value chains that are almost operative in a free-for-all mode and without any rules of the game. However, it was noted that some soybean farmers were still linked to structured markets and fetched better prices and incomes. The end line evaluation has found that local farmers were linked to the markets within the country. However, the linkages were mostly to off-taker institutions and usually done after the growing seasons. This did not motivate farmers to produce more as decisions on how much to produce are dependent of the price and market availability. This challenge was compounded by lower prices that were mostly offered by off￾takers than farm-gate prices set by the government. It was also found that vendors were offering higher prices than the set farm-get prices as well as off-takers’ prices. Nevertheless, some cooperatives that had prior agreements with some off-taker institutions had indicated being offered better prices than the prevailing market prices. For instance, farmers in Ntchisi registered good soya prices averaging MK680 per kg offered by Sunseed Oil Company. 30 | Page Structured markets are organized platforms where economic agents such as farmers, traders, processors and financial institutions enter transparent and legal trading and financial arrangements3. Such structured markets in Malawi include Agricultural Commodity Exchange (ACE), Auction Holdings Commodity Exchange, Warehouse receipt systems as well as direct contracts with exporters. The end-line study found that about 22% of the activity participants have access to structured markets as shown in table 7 below. This invariably indicates the performance of the activity in linking farmers to structured markets. Table 7: Access to Structured Markets by Districts Access to Structured markets by district Balaka Lilongwe Machinga Mangochi Mchinji Grand Total No 45.9 80.0 91.1 100.0 84.6 100.0 58.3 100.0 93.5 100.0 77.9 95.5 Yes 54.1 20.0 8.9 0.0 15.4 0.0 41.7 0.0 6.5 0.0 22.1 4.5 4.4.3.1 Improving Access to Finance It was also noted that the activity facilitated linkages of farmers to agricultural financing instruments. However, efforts to link the farmers to the mainstream financial institutions (FIs) proved unsuccessful as the FIs demanded collateral from the farmers and the financial instruments that were available were not patient enough to tally with the agriculture production cycle. Nevertheless, the activity managed to link the farmers to some donor-funded projects such as the Agricultural Commercialization (AGCOM) Activity that was providing finances to the farmers through matching grants. Out of the 13 producer organizations that were targeted by the activity, about 6 of them were successfully linked to the AGCOM activity. 3 East African Grain Council. 2013. Structured Grain Trading Systems in Africa. Kenya “For instance, these two cooperatives we have got; Sidza it has a warehouse, and they used to aggregate soya in that warehouse then we have got Chipuka also has a warehouse. So, because of the project these two cooperatives have been linked to the market. (Which markets?). Uh, that is Sunseed Oil Company, so we linked them to Sunseed company oil, that’s for their market but also we linked them to the seed suppliers like we have SeedCo, then we have this one at Kanengo. After linking do you have volumes and prices that you were offered in terms of what we deliver? Like for Chipuka Cooperative, they have just sold their soya almost 765bags of soya, each being 50kgs, so they were selling at MK680 per kg. 765 bags of 50kgs sold at MK680. (Oh!) Yes. And that’s for Chipuka cooperative. And for this one Sidza, they have sold 115bags, as I am speaking they have also reserved some so that; they use it as seed for this coming season. Ntchisi District. 31 | Page 4.4.4 Intermediate Result 3: Enabling Policy Environment This intermediate results area focused on two areas that involved advocating for policy and regulatory reforms for agriculture commercialization and devolution of land and forestry laws. 4.4.4.1 Devolution of regulatory functions in the environment and natural resource management sector Under natural resources governance, it has been noted that the activity focused on creating awareness of the land and forestry laws to both district partners focusing on forestry and law enforcement agents comprising of the department of forestry, land, police, and magistrates among other partners. The activities including conducting awareness orientations on new land related laws as well as amended Forestry Act. The awareness was for the general public while orientation was for the judiciary and prosecution officials from magistrate, and Police respectively including the forestry officials. Most of the activities were done at introductory level where most of the copies of the Land and Forestry acts booklets were distributed. These activities were done in few selected districts mostly those who were regarded as hotspots of illegal land and forestry disputes as well as districts where charcoal making was taking place because of the presence of forests. “I think that it has made quite an impact in terms of getting people to know what's going on. Because I mean, government, the way government works is quite slow isn't it, in terms of getting the law to people, getting people to understand. So especially in terms of land, the areas that we're working in, that's Ntchisi, Balaka, those areas where there are hotspots for land disputes. And so the orientations that we've done, they've actually helped them; one to encourage them to be receptive of the law, because there has also been a lot of misconceptions about the implications of the customary land law in relation to the authority of chiefs and local leaders. So we've been able to provide clarity on that. And we think that, that means we've almost paved the way for government once they're able to mobilize resources to start registering the land, it will be a much easier one.” 32 | Page Figure 3.2: ADC members in Machinga district during the orientation of forest and land amended laws. In addition to these interventions, no activities have been stated that were carried out by the activity despite local communities having preexisting committees at different levels dealing with regulatory functions. Such committees like the Village Natural Resource Management Committees (VNRMC). The table 8 below indicates that people on the ground perceive their forestry by-laws as being effective in management of natural resource (forest) as about 58.6 % rated by laws being effective. Table 8: Effectiveness of Forestry by-laws Balaka Lilongwe Machinga Mangochi Mchinji Grand Total Effective 45.9 26.7 7.7 37.5 22.6 29.3 Not effective 2.7 13.3 0.0 0.0 9.7 7.2 Very effective 37.8 22.2 23.1 37.5 27.4 29.3 Not Sure 13.5 37.8 69.2 25.0 40.3 34.3 33 | Page 4.4.4.2 Increased policy environment for commercialization Some planned activities under this outcome were performed by farmers, local communities and the district civil society networks in the seven selected districts. The focus was to enhance national level coordination and collaboration among sector players in contributing to the National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP) and also empowering local communities at the district level especially the civil society district networks. The latter has started enhancing mutual transparency and accountability, for instance the budget analysis and tracking in the district councils by non-state actors. During the data collection exercise, it was reported that the civil society networks in the 7 districts were trained in budget analysis and tracking. However, the key informant interviews revealed that no single district civil society networks had yet started analyzing and tracking the budgets despite being trained. Some of the respondents cited the complexity of financial budgets and insufficient training period considering the backgrounds of most of them (low literacy). The outcome indicates that there is now a shift from considering rural people as passive recipients to fully engaged participants in the policy decision-making and formulation. This further shows that it is no longer a top-down approach, but rather a more collaborative and participatory process. Involving local people in policy development and programs will not only ensure ownership but sustainability of the policies. This shift will enhance development at the grass root level. More importantly, it was noted that through the activity ideas from the farmers and the local communities have been incorporated in both national policy and investment documents through their involvement. For instance, representatives of the farmers and local communities were involved in the review processes of the National Agriculture Investment Plan (NAIP) and National Agriculture policy. This arrangement, entailed incorporation of suggested ideas of the local communities into policy documents. It has also been noted that activity partners carried out a number of advocacy initiatives under this intermediate result area. This was in form of positions paper, policy briefs, policy conferences, engagement with the parliamentary committees, and the highlight was on the big walk to the national parliament to present a petition that lobbied parliamentarians to pass the Seed Bill into a law. The bill took more than five years to be passed but it was passed within two weeks soon after the presentation of this petition. “So like I said, we didn't engage with the VNRMCs, we now started engaging with the ADCs and the VDCs. And we did not work on developing bylaws, what we did was we were only communicating the current laws, so that they can, if they already have by-laws, they can adjust them accordingly or they should actually consider developing bylaws.” 34 | Page 4.4.4.2.1 The Most Significant Story of Change Figure 4.3: Farmers’ advocating for enactment of Seed Law 4.4.4.2.2 Women and Youth Participation There has been increased women participation in cooperative management. The activity indicates that about 55.9 % of management positions were filled by women however this has increased to about 58.3% at the end of this evaluation exercise. In terms of membership, women membership has increased from 65% to 67.3 %. Refer to table 9 below. These figures were calculated from the cooperative registers. Most Significant Changes The advocacy engagement of different stakeholders of the activity, especially farmers led by FUM and other civil society organizations on the seed bill, has yielded the most significant change that had been in waiting for too long. These stakeholders walked about 5 km to Parliament presenting their petition, which was received by the chair of parliamentary committee on agriculture and food security. The bill was tabled in Parliament and was unanimously approved within the shortest period. The Head of State has assented the bill into a law. The seed law is awaiting operationalization. This will shape the seed sector environment in the country in that the uptake of genuine seeds of high quality will be on the increase. This will also eventually and potentially increase both the production and productivity of various crops. The activity stakeholders participated and contributed resources to the advocacy efforts that led to the enactment of the seed law. 35 | Page Table 9: Women participation in Cooperative Leadership (Before and after Activity) Women participation in Cooperative Leadership (Before and after Activity) Item Number of members Number of women Number of men Percentage of women members Membership before activity 1344 874 470 65% Leadership before activity 59 33 26 55.9% Membership after activity 1983 1335 654 67.3% Leadership after activity 60 35 25 58.3% Source: Author’s calculations Youth involvement has decreased from 23.1% during baseline to about 16.6% refer to figure 8 below. It was found that the youth have different agricultural priorities such as income generation (Finances), mechanization and access to markets. The quotes above from youth focus group discussions triangulated this finding of reduced participation. Mod: okay, why didn’t you take a greater role in the activity that farmers union brought here? Member: “Poor information. Those giving information about the activity did not sensitize us much, if they did we would have known it from the start, they did not say much about it to the people.” Member: “We would want them to continue giving us loans because it’s hard to find money sometimes we even fail to get money to buy seed for cotton which is now K1000 per kg. For the youth to raise K30, 000 it’s not easy, so if they can give us cotton seed. We can do small jobs to raise fertilizer, it’s only difficult to raise seed.” 36 | Page Figure 4.4:Youth Participation in Agriculture 4.5 Sustainability of activity interventions Overall, there is a high likelihood that some of the activity interventions are going beyond the activity timeframe. This is the case because the activity has built the capacity of the local structures that will continue to implement the activity activities. As regard to agricultural production and productivity, more than 80% of the farmers indicated that they will continue with the adopted technologies such as: double row planting in soybean and the System of Rice Intensification in Rice. The table 10 below confirms the potential sustainability aspect on the farmers themselves. Table 10: Percentage of farmer showing willingness to continue with the technologies by district Balaka Lilongwe Machinga Mangochi Mchinji Total Yes 10.8 8.9 23.1 8.7 8.1 10.0 No 89.2 91.1 76.9 91.3 91.9 90.0 The activity has introduced sustainable means for supporting farmers to access improved seeds in Machinga through the introduction of the Seed Multiplication Revolving Scheme. Through this mechanism, farmers will continue accessing improved rice seeds as they have acquired knowledge of seed multiplication. The activity has also supported the targeted districts to develop district agriculture plans that will be implemented beyond the activity cycle. Finally, the e-trade platform being developed by the activity is likely to help farmers access profitable markets beyond the activity lifespan. 37 | Page 5. ISSUES TO NOTE: PROJECT MANAGEMENT ISSUES Through this activity evaluation assignment, the following activity management issues were assessed: Leadership: Key Informant Interviews indicated that most part of the activity implementation period had no Chief of Party to provide strategic leadership. As a result, most tasks were delegated to the Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, who was equally preoccupied with other roles. . This created a leadership vacuum as the M&E Specialist was also pre-occupied with field work and monitoring of activity progress. Delivery Mechanism: Despite that the activity was designed to bring synergies among the implementing partners, it was realized that implementation of activity activities among the partners was slow such that there was little coordination among activity implementation partners in delivering their activities. There was a weak link on how partner activities could build on each other. Activity-implementing: Analysis of the qualitative data further indicates that there was less coordination among activity implementing partners. This can be attributed to the absence of the Chief of Party whose position kept being vacant Activity Visibility: The activity had been subjected to less visibility both in the field and in the electronic footprint. Funds Disbursements to Partners and to the stakeholders in the field: Testimonies from the field are also indicating that the activity faced delayed and inconsistent disbursement of funds both to the partners and to the field. This affected timely implementation of some activities. 38 | Page 6. CONCLUSION The activity has demonstrated that the local works approach is a significant strategy to use in order to bring meaningful changes needed at the grassroots. This is because the activity has shown both intended and unintended positive impacts on the participants despite utilizing considerably small amount of financial resources that were available but leveraged on the local resources and structures. Farmers also commended this approach especially their involvement in the identification, planning and budgeting for activities in their local environment. The approach has brought the synergies among all the stakeholders including the beneficiaries hence assurance of sustainability of the interventions. Challenges have been noted especially on coordination, monitoring and high human resources turn overs. There is need to consider these issues in the subsequent projects to come. The clients (FUM and the consortium) have to consider the prevailing conditions before suggesting the econometric techniques to be used to evaluate the impacts of the interventions. 39 | Page 7. RECOMMENDATIONS The following programmatic recommendations are based on analysis of the findings from survey respondents, FGDs and interviews with beneficiaries and key informants. The operational recommendations are based on an analysis of program documents as well as key informant interviews. 7.1 Programmatic Recommendations The following program recommendations have been made based on the findings of the activity’s impact assessment: i. Consider future activities to have adequate staff to coordinate the activities at district level ii. There is need for more coordination among activity implementing partners iii. Future agriculture projects should have work plans that align with both agriculture calendar and the donor’s (USAID) financial year, iv. Future activities (projects) to ensure timely disbursement of funds to the partners, v. Future activity should ensure more visibility of the activity both on the ground and electronic environments vi. Activity scope for local works should tally with the budget ceiling (of US$2million) as widening the scope spreads the resources too thinly. 7.2 General Recommendations The project can leverage on the Identification (National ID) system and create centralized databases to track beneficiaries and other stakeholders thus including service providers. This can also be used to track the interventions that are being implemented. For instance, advocacy policy sub-database to track activities and decisions made in relation to those activities. Hence activity progress would easily be measured. 40 | Page 8. KEY ACTIVITY LESSONS Based on the findings from the study, a number of lessons can be drawn. However, key ones include the following: i. Local works approach used in the activity has greater potential of enabling efficient use of resources as it leverages on the players in the development sector including the local beneficiaries, which ensures sustainability ii. The capacities of local institutions are enhanced through the synergies as a result of the activity as they complemented each other’s efforts in addressing the common challenges. iii. Local works approach ensures value for money as the implementers are well conversant with the local context of the challenges/ issues they address iv. The cumbersome process associated with funding through government can be forgone by directly funding activities to local institutions to avoid delays in activity implementation due to bureaucracy in government offices, v. Youth have special needs in agriculture that require special attention. Therefore, activities meant for youth need to be tailor-made to suit their needs in their local context, vi. Capacity building is key to equip weak local institutions to effectively implement local activities. 41 | Page 9. ANNEXES 1: Performance Assessment Results Effectiveness of Work plan Assessment Results Intermediate Result 1: Increased agricultural production and productivity Activities Activity Target Cum. achieved % achieved Train PO leaders and lead farmers in cooperative governance and group dynamics 450 476 106 Train POs leaders and lead farmers in Gender Mainstreaming and women empowerment 450 483 107 Facilitate Farmer Learning and Exchange Visits of PO members 2 1 50 Train government extension workers in cooperative development 100 115 115 Train government extension workers in GAP 35 60 171 Train Lead Farmers in GAP 245 365 149 Train Farmers in GAP 1500 2741 183 Establish Field Demonstration Plots 40 95 238 Conduct Farmer Field Days 15 30 200 Average performance , 147 Intermediate Results 2: Increased access to markets and agricultural financing Organize Agriculture Business Dialogue Forum 4 ,4 100 Facilitate B2B meetings between POs and service providers such as financial institutions, commercial off-takers and agro-input suppliers 15 11 73 Develop e-trade platform 1 1 100 Conduct lobbying sessions with government ministries, departments and agencies on policy and regulatory framework and tax incentive framework 12 16 133 Develop policy position papers and policy briefs highlighting the issues and policy recommendations on tax and regulatory framework 8 8 100 Undertake markets study to obtain market information 1 1 100 Average performance 101 Intermediate Results 3: Increased policy environment for commercialization and natural resource governance Develop awareness materials on NAP and NAIP 5 5 100 Train and dialogue with the Parliamentary Committee of Agriculture on NAP and NAIP 2 2 100 42 | Page Train journalist to adequately report on NAP and NAIP 30 30 100 Develop and update policy repository on agricultural policies 1 1 100 Conduct NAP and NAIP awareness and assessment sessions with various stakeholders 7 7 100 Facilitate policy dialogue and engagement sessions with various stakeholders from different levels 10 11 110 Conduct KAP survey on forestry and land legislation 2 2 100 Conduct awareness campaigns to communities on the new land and forestry laws 4 11 275 Orient law enforcement officials on forestry and land legislation 100 156 156 Average performance 127 43 | Page 3: List of Focus Group Discussions DISTRICT Name of corporative/ farmer group FGD TYPE VALUE MIXED YOUTH WOMEN CHAIN Balaka Ngwengwe  Cotton Kwitanda  Rivirivi  Machinga Domasi  Rice  Mangochi Tiyende Pamodzi  Soya Mchinji Mando  Soya Lilongwe Mtete  Nyanja-mkoko  Ntchisi Mpalo MBG  Milk Mweramkaka   Dowa Mpasa  4: Activity Financial Resource Allocation 44 | Page 5: Data Collection Instruments ACTIVITY FINANCIAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION NAME OF INSTITUTION AMOUNT ALLOCATED (USD) CEPA 216,813.80 CISANET 240,950.79 FUM 1,343,133.02 MCCCI 191,580.07 TOTAL ACTIVITY BUDGET 1,992,477.68 45 | Page 5.1 Implementing Partner Interview Guide Section 1: Interview organizations Name of Implementing Partner: Name of Interviewee: Title of Interviewee: Date of Interview: Section 2: Activity Design and Implementation Questions # I2203EI0 QUESTION SHORTHAND NOTES 1 What was your organizations role in implementing the activity? 2 Can you describe the impact of the activity on the target communities (both intended and unintended)? 3 Do you think that rural people and farmers have a greater voice in agricultural policy decisions as a result of the activity? How? 4 How have government policies or strategies changed at the micro, meso-levels as resulting from the activity’s impacts? 5 Do you think the activity design was appropriate? What changes, if any, would you recommend in order to increase citizen participation in agricultural policy and budget development, implementation and monitoring? 46 | Page Were the planned resources adequate? What steps were taken to ensure that the activity participants got the most out of the resources that were deployed? Do you think activity activities were delivered in a timely manner? Why/why not? What constraints existed that may have prevented the timely delivery activities? What are the activity interventions that are likely to remain in the community after the activity lifetime? What measures have been taken to ensure this? How did FUM seek your input in the design, implementation or monitoring of the activity, if at all? Do you feel that you were able to contribute to the organization’s activity in a meaningful way? How successful was the activity in generating community and national ownership over the activity? What could be done to improve community and national ownership? What was your organizations role in monitoring the activity implementation? 47 | Page How appropriate and useful were the indicators described in the activity results framework in assessing the activity’s progress? Were the gender￾based targeted indicator values realistic and could they be easily tracked? How was disaggregated gender (youth and women) integrated in the activity? How have the disaggregated gender issues been dealt with in the activity? Any outcomes for the gender based issues? 48 | Page 5.2 Activity Management and Relations with FUM Questions Section 1: Interview Information Name of Implementing Partner: Name of Interviewee: Title of Interviewee: Date of Interview: # Interview Question Comments QUESTION SHORTHAND NOTES 1 Did FUM provide a conducive environment for partners to effectively implement the activity? Please describe. 2 Did your organization have a clear understanding of your role in implementing the activity? Please explain. 3 Do you feel that your organization received appropriate administrative support (including financial) from FUM? What additional support did you need? 4 Were activity funds released in a timely way in order to implement activities appropriately? What challenges existed? 5 How did FUM monitor activity performance and results? Was this effective? 6 What recommendations do you have for improving coordination and management of the activity by FUM? 7 Is there anything else that you would like to share about the activity? Any unique story reflecting the outcome of the activity 49 | Page 5.3 Activity Design and Implementation Questions QUESTION SHORTHAND NOTES 1 Can you describe the impact of the activity on the target communities (both intended and unintended)? 2 Do you think that rural people and farmers have a greater voice in agricultural policy decisions as a result of the activity? How is that visible? 3 How has government policy, strategy changed at the micro, meso or macro level as the result of the activity? 4 Do you think the activity design was appropriate? What changes, if any, would you recommend in order to increase citizen participation in policy and budget development, implementation and monitoring? 5 Were the planned resources adequate? What steps were taken to ensure that the activity participants got the most out of the resources that were deployed? 6 Do you think activity activities were delivered in a timely manner? Why/why not? What constraints existed that may have prevented timely delivery of activity activities? 7 What are the activity interventions that are likely to remain in the community after the activity lifetime? What measures have been taken to ensure this? 8 How did FUM, CEPA, CISANET MCCCI and or USAID seek your input in the design, implementation or monitoring of the activity, if at all? Do you feel that you were able to contribute to the activity in a meaningful way? 9 How successful was the activity in generating community and national ownership over the activity? What could be done to improve community and national ownership? 11 What was your organizations role in monitoring the activity implementation? 12 How appropriate and useful were the indicators described in the activity results framework in assessing the activity’s progress? Were the targeted indicator values realistic and could they be easily tracked? 50 | Page 5.4 FGD Guide INTRODUCTION This is a focus group discussion guideline (FGD) for the USAID funded summative evaluation for End of Activity Evaluation for ‘Strengthening Inclusive Agricultural Sector, Growth and Natural Resource Governance in Malawi Activity’. The activity was implemented by a consortium of organizations that included CEPA, CISANET, M.C.C.C.I and led by FUM. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the results, the lessons and experiences against the activity proposal and planning documents. Instruction to RA  Explain clearly the aim and goal of the FGD  Introduce yourself as the facilitator, note taker and team members and their roles.  Clarify intended use of the FGD outcomes and what is expected of the participants  Explain that participants will remain anonymous  Set the ground rules for the discussion  As for consent/permission to take notes and record the discussion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ METADATA Date: Name of facilitator (s) District Name of note taker (s) Time Start: How were FGD participants identified (tick appropriately box) Referred by implementing partner Random respondents Word of mouth End: Other FGD # Number of Participants attending Circle where applicable and indicate the number Women Youths Men Other T.A/EPA/Village IR1 The Activity Aimed at Increased Agricultural Production and Productivity Through Enhanced capacity of farmer leaders to effectively engage in policy processes (both at national 51 | Page and district levels and enhanced Technology Development, Dissemination, Management and Innovation) Q1. Kodi polojeketi iyi mukuyidziwa? (Probe hints; mukuyidziwa bwanji? Inu mun,atenga magawo anji mu polojeketiyi? What roles did you play in the activity?). Q2. Munayambila pati kutenga nawo magawo? At what stage were you involved in the implementation of the activity? (Probe hints; at design (inception), implementation, monitoring and evaluation stages). 3. Ndi upangiri wanji wa malimidwe omwe munalandila kudzera muzionetsero zaulimi zomwe activity imeneyii imachititsa? Hints Seed; fertilizer; Crop Protection Products (CPPs) 3b Kodi pali kusiyana kapena palibe ndi mmene mauthenga azaulimi mumawapezera panopa ndi mmenene ma,awapezera activity isanayambe? Hint: the kachulukidwe, frequency. 3c. Kodi mukuzigwiritsa ntchito zomwe munaphunziranzo? Kodi zakupindulirani bwanji kusiyana ndipamene activity isanabwere? Value Chains (Ask for Specific Value Chain on Production, Productivity and Profitability) This example is for diary value chain 4. Codi ng’ombe imodzi imakupatsani mkaka wochuluka bwanji polojeketi isanayambe? Nanga pamene polojecti inalimkati, ng’ombe imodzi ikukupatsani mkaka wochuluka bwanji? Fotokozani zikupangitsa kusiyanako ndizitinzo. 5 Pali kusintha kwanji pakachulukidwe ka mkaka womwe mumakama pa ng’ombe imodzi. 5b. kodi pali phindu lomwe mukupeza poweta ng’ombe zamkaka. (Hint: Siyanitsani kale ndi munthawi yapolojeketi) probe for products, financial as well as nutritional gains? 5c ,Fotokonzani za misika kale komanso munthawi ya polojeketi. Q3. Benefits: you have obtained through the activity. (Probe hints: In what processes were you trained, skills acquired, demonstrate or articulate knowledge acquired, processes followed in engaging and satisfaction and what have been the results/impact?). Q4. Technologies: What technologies were you exposed to in terms of seeds fertilizers c,rop rotation products in this activity and how have you been impacted? (Probe hints: Level of uptake of extension services, Number of developed technologies by type, CSA technologies in the district; Number of disseminated technologies by type and by methods of dissemination and Number of innovations introduced and sustained). Q5. Challenges: Challenges you faced in the implementation of the activity. (Probe production challenges). IR2: The Activity Sought to Increase Access to Markets And Agricultural Financing by Expanded Markets and Improved access to business development and sound and affordable financial and risk management services and Improved Policy & Regulatory Framework that promotes agriculture transformation and commercialization 1. Kodi activity yabweretsa kuthekera kopeza misika ya zaulimi wanu motani? Hint: Mitundu ya misika; kuthekera (affordability) 52 | Page 2. Ndi njira ziti zakapezedwe kazipangizo zaulimi zomwe mukupeza potsatira activityyi? Hint: Ngongole za ndala, ngongole za zipangizo. 3. Ndi mabungwe ati omwe amakupatsani ngongole ya ndalama zogulira zipangizo zaulimi kapena kukukongozani zipangizozo? Q6. Describe the type of markets you accessed as a result of the activity? (Probe hints: Major factors driving demand for the different agricultural commodities; are the commodities aggregated for sale? If so, in what forms (link to structured markets) Warehouses used for warehouse receipt system in the area; Market prices for the agriculture produce commodities in the different market centers; Market prices for the agro-input commodities in the market centers in the, district, Off-takers’ direct purchase of farm produce from members of POs from activity efforts and Linkages of Off-takers (national-level) facilitated by the activity). Q7. Explain the kind of financing and risk management services you have successfully acquired? (Probe on affordability, level of financing and financing sources). IR3: Increased Policy Environment for Commercialization and Natural Resource Governance by Enhanced national level coordination and collaboration among sector players in contributing to the NAIP and Increased devolution of regulatory functions in the environment and natural resource management sector Q8. Explain the impacts of enhanced coordination and collaboration among players and increased devolution of regulatory functions in the environment and natural resources sector? (Probe hints: were you involved in the devolution of powers and at what level). Codi activity yi yapititsa bwanji patsogolo misika yogulitsira zamalimidwe? Codi pulojeketi yathandizira motani pazakasamalidwe ka zachilengedwe? Codi pulojeketi yathandizira bwanji zamphavu zanu pazosamalira zachilengedwe? Hint zokhudzana ndi ulimi; zokhudzana ndi nkhalango ndi mitsinje. (Hint: kuletsa ku dula mitengo, kuotcha Makala, malimidwe oyipa monga kuthe lima mosapingasa mipito yamadzi, Ndizovuta zanji zomwe makumazo pamene mumapanga polojeketiyi? Hint: munachitanji kutimuthanenazo? Atati polojeketi ipitilire, ndi zinthu ziti zomwe mungafune kuti: - I. kuti zipitilire II. zisapitilire III. ziwonjezedweremo IV. zikozendwe Q9. Explain how the activity improved policy environment for production of the prioritized value chains and for marketing of prioritized value chains (Probe hints: Structured markets promoted by the activity, number of farmer organizations, Structured markets used by farmers under the activity, Major produce investors and their effectiveness) 53 | Page Q10. Explain how you were supported by the council in implementation of land governance and forestry management interventions? (Probe for any challenges/Opportunities). Q11. To what extent did the activity promote gender? (Probe hints: number of women in leadership and value chain, how did the activity promoted the needs and priorities of women, men and youth?) Q12. Given an opportunity for another activity, what would like to be done differently and what would you maintain? (Probe hints; Activities, resources) Q13. What real difference has the activity made to you as beneficiaries? (Hint: this can be positive or negative) Q14. Has the activity (3-year) achieved its intended results? (Probe hint; why in either case) Q15.Any challenges associated with the activity activities Thank you very much for the information provided!!! 54 | Page 5.5 Household Survey Questionnaire INTRODUCTION Hallo! My name is ____________________. I am working with Farmers Union of Malawi which is implementing a 3year Strengthening Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth and Sustainable Natural Resource Governance in Malawi Activity which is being funded by the US government through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The activity is being implemented in seven districts of Malawi namely:, Lilongwe, Ntchisi, Dowa, Mchinji, Balaka, Mangochi and Machinga. FUM is implementing the activity in collaboration with CISANET, MCCCI and CEPA. The goal of the activity is to achieve inclusive and sustainable agricultural-led economic growth through agricultural transformation in Malawi and is targeting 4 value chains of dairy, soybean, rice and cotton. September marks the end of the second year of activity hence we are carrying out a survey to review progress and results that have been achieved by the activity in the second year of its implementation. Among other objectives, the study would like to assess how the activity has impacted on your agricultural production system and livelihood from October 2020 to date. Your household has been randomly selected for the survey and I would like to ask you some questions about your household. The questions usually take about 40 minutes. This information will help us to ensure that activity implementation is rolling out as expected and that activity interventions are on track or achieving their intended outcomes and targets. The results of the survey will be used to inform decisions about activity strategies and to make corrections to the activity’s components if monitoring data show that they are not on track. All of the answers you give will be confidential and will not be shared with anyone. Participation in the survey is not by compulsory, but we hope you will agree to answer the questions since your views are very important for the success of the activity. Would you be comfortable to take part in this survey? Yes/No SECTION A: QUALITY CONTROL A1. Interviewer’s Name: A2. Date of interviews (dd/mm/yyyy): Start time (hh:mm): End time (hh:mm): SECTION B: FARMER IDENTIFICATION B1. Name of the Farmer B2. District B3. Extension Planning Area (EPA) SECTION C: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FARMER 55 | Page SECTION D: HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND INCOME SOURCES D1-What are the sources of income for the household (Multiple responses, please tick and record amount How much money did your household get from income sources that you have mentioned? Income Source Amount of money obtained per annum (MK) Income Source Amount of money obtained per annum (MK) i. Farming (Crops) ii. Commodity trading iii. Livestock production iv. Kabanza business v. Fishing vi. Skilled work (e.g mechanic, caperntry, brick laying, etc vii. Formal employment viii. Casual labour (ganyu) ix. Pension x. Other (Specify) xi. Remittance/Gifts xii. Casual labour (ganyu) xiii. Petty trading(small scale) e.the g. zitumbuwa xiv. Business eg kaunjika, groceries, butcheries xv. Other (Specify) D3 What is the Total Amount of money obtained per annum? Add annual income from all sources of income MK SECTION E: AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY E1. Which crops did you plant In the ending year E2: What was the total area under production for (crop)? The area should be in acres. For rice value chain it has to be number of plots E3: How many 50Kgs bags did you harvest from the area that you have mentioned? E4: Are you satisfied with the harvest? 1. Yes 0. No E5: If not satisfied why? See the options below Maize Soya Beans C1: Sex of the responded 1. Male 0. Female C2: Age of the respondent C3: What is the highest level of education that you attended? 01. Never attended 02. Primary (1-5) 03. Primary (6-8) 04. Secondary 05. College/Universi ty 99. Don’t know C4: What is your marital status? 1. Never married 2. Married 3. Separated 4. Divorced 5. Widowed C5: How many people currently live in your household? (A Household is defined as a person or group of persons who live together in the same house or compound, share the same housthe ekeeping arrangements and are catered for as one unit. Members of a household are not necessarily related (by blood or marriage) and not all those related in the same house or compound are necessarily of the same household) 56 | Page Rice Cotton 1= inadequate fertilizer, 2=poor seeds, 3=poor crop husbandry, 4=poor irrigation facilities, 5=theft, 6=natural causes, 7=labor constraints SECTION F: ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGIES Now I will ask you about various technologies that you applied when you were producing the crops that you have mentioned F1: For the crops grown, did you apply the following technologies? Multiple responses, Tick all that apply Maize Soybean Cotton Rice Certified seed Certified Seed Use of hybrid Seed Improved Seeds Sasakawa spacing Recommended plant spacing Recommended plant spacing System of Rice Intensification Fertilizer Application Use of inoculant Pest Control Irrigation Fertilizer application F2: Where did you learn the technologies that you applied in your production (multiple response) Tick if applicable F3: Do you think the technologies are helpful? 1. Yes 0. No F4: If No, why? 1. Demand more money 2. Demand more labor 3. Demand more skills 4. Not suitable for the area 5. No significan t change in yield 6. Other (Specify) F5: Do you intend to continue applying the technologies? 1. Yes 0. No (if F1 is ticked) F6: What portion of land did you apply the stated technologies 1. Whole land 2. 75 percent 3. 50 percent 4. 25percent F7: Did you use any machinery in the previous year’s production? 1. Yes 0. No 1. Government extension workers – through the activity 2. NGO Extension workers 3. Lead Farmers 4. Fellow farmers 5. Radio 6. Other (specify) 57 | Page SECTION G: ACCESS TO MARKETS AND OTHER ENABLERS G1. From the list of the crops that you produced last year G2: At what price did you sell the crops that you have told me that you produced in the just ending season (for rice capture MK/Bag, otherwise MK/Kg) G3: Do you think you sold your produce at a good price 1. Yes 0. No G4: What was the most reliable market for the crops that you produced? 1. ADMARC 2. Processor 3. Aggregator 4. Vendors 5. Institution (NGO etc) 6. Cooperative 7. Other (specify) G5: Was the market structured through a formally agreed contract? 1. Yes 0. No G6: How did you hear about/access this market? 1. Radio 2. Cooperative 3. Friend 4. Village announcement s 5. Processor 6. Aggregator 7. Extension workers Maize Soya Beans Rice Cotton G7: Did you receive any extension services in the previous production season? 1=Yes 2=No G8: If yes, where did you get the extension from? 1. Government extension workers – through the activity 2. NGO Extension workers 3. Lead Farmers 4. Fellow farmers 5. Radio 6. Other (specify) G9: How were you satisfied with the extension services that were provided? 1. Not Satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Very satisfied 4. I don’t know G10: Did you receive inputs under AIP in the previous production season? 1=Yes 0=No SECTION H: ACCESS TO FINANCE AND CREDIT “Next I’d like to ask about your household’s experience with borrowing money or other items Did you take any loans or borrowed cash/in-kind from the past production season? CIRCLE ONE Who made the decision to borrow from most of the time? CIRCLE ALL APPLICABLE Who made the decision about what to do with the money/ item borrowed from most of the time? CIRCLE ALL APPLICABLE 58 | Page in the past 12 months.” LENDING SOURCE NAMES H1 H2 H3 Non￾Governmental Organizations (NGO) Yes ,........................ 1 No ............................ 0 Wife......................................... 1 Husband................................... 2 Both...................................... 3 Not Applicable................. 99 Wife......................................... 1 Husband................................... 2 Both...................................... 3 Not Applicable................. 99 Formal Lender (Bank/Financial Institution) Yes....................................... 1 No...................................... 0 Wife......................................... 1 Husband................................... 2 Both...................................... 3 Not Applicable................. 99 Wife......................................... 1 Husband................................... 2 Both...................................... 3 Not Applicable................. 99 Family and Friends Yes ....................................... 1 No ........................................ 0 Wife......................................... .........................lenders.......... 1 Husband................................... 2 Both...................................... 3 Not Applicable................. 99 Wife......................................... 1 Husband................................... 2 Both...................................... 3 Not Applicable................. 99lenders Informal lender (loan sharks) Yes ........................................ 1 No........................................... 0 Wife......................................... 1 Husband................................... 2 Both...................................... 3 Not Applicable................. 99 Wife......................................... 1 Husband................................... 2 Both...................................... 3 Not Applicable................. 99 Group Based Microfinance or Lending Including VSLAs/SACCO Yes ........................................ 1 No........................................... 0 Wife.............THE ............................ 1 Husband................................... 2 Both...................................... 3 Not Applicable................. 99 Wife......................................... 1 Husband................................... 2 Both...................................... 3 Not Applicable................. 99 SECTION I: INDIVIDUATHE L SATISFACTION WITH CO-OPERATIVE MODEL I1: Are you a member of the cooperative/ any farmer organization? 1=Yes 0=No G2: If yes, what is the name of your 1= Nkhunguyembe, 2= Luso, 3=Mando, 4=Katonde, 5=Nyanja, 6=Balaka Cotton Association, 7=Domasi Irrigation Scheme 8=Tukamulane Farmers Association (TUFA), 9=Tiyende Pamodzi, 10=Mtiya, 11=Kafulu Association, 12=Kanamdzeka cooperative, 13=Madzo Cooperative, 14=Sidza cooperative, 15=Chipuka Cooperative, 16=Mweramkaka, 17=Mpalo I3: If yes, Are you an active member of the group? 1=Yes 0=No I4: If yes, please rate your farmer based on the below parameters PERFORMANCE CRITERIA SCORE (please write the number that applies) Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 59 | Page (1) (2) (5) (6) Basic Values Structure: has proper structure, division of duties, strategic plan, Identity: is registered, has mission, vision relevant Relevance: has relevant member-services, has relevance service delivery mechanism Activities: does work-planning of activities Relations Tiset Group: relates well with members, are involved, there is downward accountability Working Environment: works well with other stakeholders Capacity Expertise: has qualified and competent staff and leaders, Systems: has proper governance systems that are complied with, has proper systems management, SECTION J: DECISION MAKING IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY When decisions are made regarding the following aspects of household life, who is it that normally takes the decision? Wife = 1 Husband = 2 Husband and wife jointly = 3 Do NOT ask J2 if the J1 response is 1 and the respondent is male OR the J1 response is 2 and the respondent is female. To what extent do you feel you can make your own personal decisions regarding these aspects of household life if you want(ed) to? Not at all …………………………1 Small extent……………… ……..2 Medium extent…………… ……..3 To a high extent…………… ……4 J1 J2 A The types of crops to grow for agricultural production B Taking crops to the market (or not) C to the use money made from crop production D Major household expenditures (such as a large appliance for the house like TV E Minor household expenditures (such as food for daily consumption or other household needs) SECTION K: DAIRY PRODUCTION (Applicable to dairy farmers only) K1. Are you a dairy farmer ? K2: How many dairy animals does your househol K3: How much milk do you get K4: What recommended technologies are you applying in your dairy production K5: Do you belong to any milk bulking group? K6: Does your group have milk bulking K7: Where to you usually sell your milk? (most reliable market) 1. Milk K8: What is the average milk price (MK/litr K9: How much income do you generat e from K10: If you are a member of a milk bulking group, does your group have a contract/agreem ent with any milk 60 | Page 1. Ye s 0. No d have? per cow on a norm al day? (Tick all that apply) 1. Ye s 0. No and cooling facilities ? 1. Ye s 0. No Processor 2. Vendors 3. Restaura nts 4. Nearby communiti es 5. Other (specify) e) being currentl y offered by this market? milk sales in a year? processor? 1. Yes 0. No 1. Moder n 2. Intensi ve feeding system 3. Animal Health 4. Other (specif y) SECTION L: LAND OWNERSHIP AND TENURE SECURITY 1. L1. Does your household own land? title 0. No L2: If Yes, does your house have any land ownership certificate or tittle deed for your land? 1. Yes 0. No L3: Are you aware of any land related laws for the country? 1. Yes 0. No L4: Do you think the ownership/tenure of your land is secure? 1. Yes 0. No SECTION M: NATURAL RESOURCE USE AND GOVERNANCE M1: Do you have any forestry natural resource in your area? 1. Yes 0. No M2: If Yes, how does your household directly benefit from the forestry natural resource? M3: Are there any community structures and committees that are responsible for the management of the forestry natural resource that is in your area? 1. Yes 0. No M4: If yes, how effective are the community structures mentioned above in executing their roles and functions? 1. Not Effective 2. Effective 3. Very Effective M5: Are you aware of any laws for forestry natural resource management? 1. Yes 0. No 1. Firewood 2. Charcoal making 3. Hunting 4. Bee Keeping 5. Wild Fruits 6. Other (Specify) 7. None SECTION N: BENEFICIARY ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT N1. Are you aware of the activity N2: If Yes, how N3: Kindly acknowledge if Please tick if the 61 | Page that is being implemented by FUM, CISANET, CEPA and MCCCI through the Agriculture Office and is being funded USAID? 1. Yes 0. No important/relevant is the activity to your needs in agricultural production? 1. Not important 2. Important 3. Very important you are aware of the activities that are being implemented by implementing partners of this activity? respondent acknowledges Farmers Union of Malawi CISANET CEPA MCCCI END OF SURVEY: ENUMERATOR PLEASE THANK THE RESPONDENT FOR PARTICIPATING Activity Management and Relations with FUM Questions Section 1: Interview Information Name of Implementing Partner: Name of Interviewee: Title of Interviewee: Date of Interview: Interview Question Comments QUESTION SHORTHAND NOTES 1 Did FUM provide a conducive environment for partners to effectively implement the activity? Please describe. 2 Did your organization have a clear understanding of your role in implementing the activity? Please explain. 3 Do you feel that your organization received appropriate administrative support (including financial) from FUM? What additional support did you need? 4 Were activity funds released in a timely way in order to implement activities appropriately? What challenges existed? 5 How did FUM monitor activity performance and results? Was this effective? 6 What recommendations do you have for improving coordination and management of the activity by FUM? 7 Is there anything else that you would like to share about the activity? 8 Any unique story reflecting the outcome of the activity Activity Design and Implementation Questions QUESTION SHORTHAND NOTES 1 Can you describe the impact of the activity on the target communities (both intended and unintended)? 62 | Page 2 Do you think that rural people and farmers have a greater voice in agricultural policy decisions as a result of the activity? How is that visible? 3 How has government policy or strategy changed at the micro, meso, or macro level as the result of activity? 4 Do you think the activity design was appropriate? What changes, if any, would you recommend in order to increase citizen participation in agricultural policy and budget development, implementation, and monitoring? 5 Were the planned resources adequate? What steps were taken to ensure that the activity participants got the most out of the resources that were deployed? 6 Do you think the activity’s activities were delivered in a timely manner? Why/why not? What constraints existed that may have prevented timely delivery of activity activities? 7 What are the activity interventions that are likely to remain in the community after the activity lifetime? What measures have been taken to ensure this? 8 How did FUM, CEPA, CISANET MCCCI and or USAID seek your input in the design, implementation or monitoring of the activity, if at all? Do you feel that you were able to contribute to the activity in a meaningful way? 9 How successful was the activity in generating community and national ownership of the activity? What could be done to improve community and national ownership? 11 What was your organizations role in monitoring the activity implementation? 12 How appropriate and useful were the indicators described in the activity results framework in assessing the activity’s progress? Were the targeted indicator values realistic and could they be easily tracked?