October 2013 Mid-Term Evaluation of the USAID/RDMA Maximizing Agricultural Revenue through Knowledge, Enterprise Development, and Trade (MARKET) Project Mid-Term Evaluation of the USAID/RDMA Maximizing Agricultural Revenue through Knowledge Enterprise Development, and Trade (MARKET) Project October 2013 Award Number: AID-486-TO-11-00009 DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Mid-Term Evaluation of the USAID/RDMA Maximizing Agricultural Revenue through Knowledge, Enterprise Development, and Trade (MARKET) Project 1 CONTENTS Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Evaluation Approach ........................................................................................................................................ 9 MARKET Performance to the Mid-Point ................................................................................................. 12 MARKET’s Focus on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture and the ASEAN Farmers’ Advisory Council ....................................................................................................................................... 12 The ASEAN Regional Agricultural Trade Environment Assessment (RATE) .............................. 12 Workshops & Public-Private and Civil Society Organization Dialogue......................................... 15 MARKET Support to ASEAN Fisheries & Aquaculture ........................................................................ 23 The ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture ...................... 23 ASEAN Aquaculture Standards .............................................................................................................. 24 Disease Management ................................................................................................................................ 27 Sustainable Aquaculture Feed Management Practices ....................................................................... 28 Promoting Zonal Management Policies ................................................................................................ 28 MARKET's progress, as demonstrated by indicator results ............................................................ 29 Examining the Results Framework ........................................................................................................ 33 MARKET Support to ASEAN Agriculture ............................................................................................... 35 ASEAN Farmers’ Advisory Council ....................................................................................................... 35 Public-Private Workshops on Agricultural Productivity-Enhancing Innovations, Technologies and Practices ............................................................................................................................................... 35 Supporting the Enactment of a Revised Food Law in Laos .............................................................. 36 Gender Integration ........................................................................................................................................ 37 MARKET Strategy for the Next 19 Months ............................................................................................ 39 Opportunities after MARKET Ends (March, 2015) to Support ASEAN ........................................... 42 Annex One ...................................................................................................................................................... 45 Annex Two ..................................................................................................................................................... 62 2 ACRONYMS Acronyms and Abbreviations AEC Asian Economic Community AFA Asian Farmers Association AFAC ASEAN Farmers’ Advisory Council ASF ASEAN Seafood Federation AFSIS ASEAN Food Security Information System AIFS ASEAN Integrated Food Security Framework ASF ASEAN Seafood Federation AMAF ASEAN Ministers on Agriculture and Forestry ASEC ASEAN Secretariat ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASWGC ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Crops ASWGFi ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Fisheries BFS USAID Bureau of Food Security CSO Civil Society Organizations FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization FIA Food Industry Asia – a private association FTF Feed the Future -- The U.S. Government’s Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative GAP Good Agricultural Practices GAqP Good Aquaculture Practices IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract -- a USAID contracting mechanism ISEAL ISEAL Alliance Code of Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards, http://www.isealalliance.org/our-work/defining-credibility MARKET Maximizing Agricultural Revenue through Knowledge, Enterprise Development, and Trade project NACA Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific PPD Public-Private Dialogue (includes CSOs) PPP Public-Private Partnership (includes CSOs) RATE ASEAN Regional Agricultural Trade Environment Assessment RDMA Regional Development Mission for Asia SEACON Southeast Asian Council for Food Security & Fair Trade SEAFDEC Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center SFP Sustainable Fisheries Partnership a sustainable fisheries non-profit organization and a proposed MARKET partner in aquaculture zonal management SOM AMAF Senior Officials Meeting of the Ministers of Agriculture and Forestry (SOM￾AMAF) (under the AMAF with 10 working groups) SOW Scope of Work SPA-FS Strategic Plan of Action on Food Security in the ASEAN Region TF ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture TFFA Thai Frozen Food Association TOR Terms of Reference USSEC U.S. Soybean Export Council 3 U.S.TATF U.S. Technical Assistance and Training Facility VASEP Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers VNFU Vietnam Farmers Union 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Maximizing Agricultural Revenue through Knowledge, Enterprise Development, and Trade (MARKET) project is a 3.5-year, $8 million initiative with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to strengthen food security for the organization’s citizens and contribute to ASEAN integration. This mid-term performance evaluation of MARKET assesses the performance of the project against its goal and objectives. A key part of MARKET’s design is to promote more direct involvement of the private sector and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in ASEAN’s deliberations that had previously tended to be among governments only. This mid-term evaluation was conducted in Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam in June and July 2013. The core objectives of the evaluation were to: 1. Assess project implementation to date toward performance targets and project objectives of regulatory improvement and stakeholder engagement; 2. Describe what project actions work well, need improvement, should be discontinued, or should be replicated or scaled up; 3. Recommend specific opportunities to enhance project effectiveness and sustainability. The evaluation was designed to answer these specific questions: 1. Which activities have been perceived to effective, or ineffective, in advancing the MARKET objectives of regulatory/policy improvement and stakeholder engagement? Why? 2. How much value do participants see in the regional public-private dialogues (and public-private taskforce), and why? The development hypothesis underlying MARKET is that private sector engagement combined with public-private dialogue will lead to regulatory improvement and new private sector investment, and thereby increase intra-regional trade – which will in turn increase food security, and reduce poverty and hunger in Southeast Asia. Although the causal relationship between MARKET and outcomes such as intra-regional trade, poverty, and hunger in Southeast Asia cannot be assessed, this evaluation examines progress at the input, output and outcome levels that are likely to advance the broader goals of MARKET – i.e., agreements, policies advanced, perceptions of private-public dialogue process, and perceptions of MARKET’s work from private enterprises, the ASEAN Secretariat, CSOs and other key informants. 5 MARKET’s Work In response to requests from ASEAN, MARKET refined its work on the regional food trade environment by zeroing in on the formation and formalization of a new ASEAN advisory/dialogue group -- a public-private entity called the ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture. MARKET workshops have brought a range of stakeholders together to discuss crucial issues. MARKET’s structuring workshops on participation of the private and CSO communities in ASEAN discussions both responded to the instructions to MARKET to do so, but more importantly provided practical demonstrations of the value of private-public dialogue to ASEAN. ASEAN had typically involved government to government agencies with minimal private sector participation in meetings and virtually no CSO direct involvement. Respondents from the private sector, CSOs, the ASEAN Secretariat, and ASEAN Member State governments commented positively on the need for private-public dialogue. Evaluation surveys revealed a high percentage of respondent satisfaction with the dialogues. Respondents found them “helpful” and useful for their work. However, a number of respondents also reported a need for more clarity and organization of the workshop content. ASEAN Aquaculture Standards One focus point prioritized at the aquaculture workshops was a harmonized ASEAN Good Aquaculture Practices (GAqP) standard. The standard would contribute to food security in two major ways: First, through the income effect of improved purchasing power garnered by access to new markets and higher prices on higher quality produce. Second, through improved sustainability practices ensuring that aquaculture livelihoods will be protected into the future. In the long run, a certification program would complement the GAqP standard by formally instituting best practices. The twenty eight respondents in Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia who were interviewed regarding the creation of an ASEAN aquaculture standard and certification unanimously agreed that it is an important priority for the aquaculture sector. All respondents highlighted that an ASEAN standard would embody a homegrown solution that would allow producers to address their unique set of regional challenges. The ASEAN standard and certification would provide a platform to address these and other regionally-specific challenges that are not currently addressed in existing schemes. The ASEAN standard could act as a stepping stone to unite ASEAN producers under one umbrella and begin to acclimate smallholders to the idea of standards. The standard would be the first step to encouraging lower-capacity producers to move in a more sustainable and profitable direction. MARKET has the potential to add value by facilitating the process of creating an ASEAN aquaculture standard and certification system. The existing country GAP standards and the planned ASEAN shrimp standard are not legitimate under the international framework for 6 standards as they lack criteria such as inclusiveness and transparency in the formulation process. Experts interviewed reaffirmed these criteria expressing that standards are only credible when an independent party convenes the dialogue in a neutral setting. Thus, MARKET could add value by bringing private sector and other stakeholders into the dialogue surrounding certification through a steering committee or other mechanism. MARKET is ideally positioned to negotiate the intricacy of including government actors in the discussion tactfully without delaying implementation. In the project’s first year and a half, MARKET spurred public-private dialogue at the ASEAN level by convening stakeholders to identify and discuss priorities. MARKET can build on this discussion and capitalize on its organizational strength by mediating between the current unilaterally developed country standards and the many other stakeholders that would need to be incorporated in the creation of a credible standard. Within the framework of public-private dialogue, aquaculture industry representatives can potentially use the certification process to underscore to government the importance of effective resource management, labor standards, feed practices, biosecurity, community interaction and biodiversity impacts. It is recommended that MARKET use the certification process as an opportunity for dialogue between government and industry as to what is required for ensuring the long-term sustainability of marine resources. While the cost of drafting a standard will be minimal, the preceding stage of creating a certification process will require costs for staff, implementation and monitoring. MARKET does not have the capacity to undertake the above-mentioned tasks; however, the project should create a clear exit plan to determine how such a system will be sustainable after the project’s exit. To achieve this goal, MARKET should work with the standards setting committee early on to develop the detailed timeline, planned budget and funding plan for the implementation of the program. Disease Management MARKET plans to work with the Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia (NACA), the ASEAN Network of Aquatic Animal Health Centers and ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture to establish an ASEAN aquatic animal health management task force. An effective taskforce would be able to promote measures to improve biosecurity, enhance food safety, and promote compliance for sustainability. For example, this activity would organize an ASEAN disease information management and alert system established for improved surveillance and reporting of important and emerging aquatic animal diseases. Respondents from ASEAN Member States government technical staff and from a research organization independently recommended NACA as a good co-implementer of this with capability to drive this forward in a sustainable manner. NACA also confirmed its planning and interest, and necessary expertise, in undertaking this activity and should be funded to move forward on this. 7 Sustainable Aquaculture Feed Management Practices MARKET intends to engage private sector entities including the U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC) and SEAFDEC to promote regional dialogue and action on the development and use of sustainable feed for aquaculture. This activity area will include MARKET support for public￾private demonstration projects for small-scale aquaculture farmers to experiment with feed diets and establishment of partnerships with research institutions. As of the date of this report, MARKET has yet to work out a specific agreement with SEAFDEC and U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC). SEAFDEC submitted a Concept Note, but MARKET is holding off further refining the activity subject to RDMA approval to proceed. MARKET has had an initial discussion with USSEC and is awaiting feedback from the USSEC Aquaculture Director on specifics of collaboration. Promoting Zonal Management Policies MARKET anticipates working with partners such as the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP) to catalyze zonal aquaculture improvement projects. The activity will address smallholder issues such as certification, compliance with chemical regulations, and water use. MARKET has received a proposal from SFP but is waiting for approval from RDMA to produce a detailed SOW. An ASEAN Member State technical staff member however warned that: “Zonal management is complicated, and a project in this area will take longer than 18 months.” If MARKET moves forward with this activity, the development of a detailed timeline and handover plan for activity implementation is needed. Supporting the Enactment of a Revised Food Law in Laos This activity is in the final stage of completion. The draft amended food law was presented and discussed at a workshop in Vientiane Laos on 7 March 2013 at a MARKET-funded public-private sector consultation implemented by the LUNA-Lao project. The new Food Law will be enacted by the Government of Laos Parliament in the very near future. This was a discrete stand-alone task that has been satisfactorily completed. Summary and Conclusions In the last 20 months MARKET has generated momentum; it has formed alliances; it has provided demonstrations of the value to ASEAN of including the private sector and CSO in ASEAN discussions; and MARKET staff has gained valuable experience. The first half of the project has been a process of exploration and creation. The second half should be one of single-minded concentration on implementation and achievement of projected results. 8 INTRODUCTION The Maximizing Agricultural Revenue through Knowledge, Enterprise Development, and Trade (MARKET) project is a 3.5-year, $8 million initiative with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to strengthen food security for the organization’s citizens and contribute to ASEAN integration. It began in September 2011 and will end in March 2015. This mid-term performance evaluation of MARKET aims to assess the performance of the project against its goal and objectives and to identify changes in the project’s design and implementation so as to enhance its effectiveness and impact for the remainder of MARKET's tenure. MARKET was designed following the 2007-2008 world-wide food crisis, and was intended to address the counterproductive policy responses that lead to a lack of open market for trade in food commodities in the ASEAN region. The project is part of the U.S. Government’s global hunger and food security initiative, Feed the Future (FTF), and is implemented under Task Order 5 of the ADVANCE IQC,1 which focuses on ASEAN regional integration. Integration increases market access for agricultural outputs and inputs, which in turn improves producers’ ability to make sustained investment in agricultural technologies. MARKET aims to promote well-organized markets and low-cost trade on a regional-level within ASEAN by strengthening private sector engagement and encouraging the sector to apply its supply chain management “know how” and marketing “know who”. A key concept in MARKET’s design is to promote more direct involvement of the private sector and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in ASEAN’s deliberations that had previously tended to be among governments only. The goal of MARKET is to strengthen the ASEAN institutional platform for improving regional food security by: (1) harmonizing the regulatory environment for food trade; and (2) increasing private sector and civil society engagement in regional agriculture. 1 ADVANCE is an integrated development assistance framework to support the establishment of the ASEAN Community by 2015. It is the main U.S. mechanism for supporting ASEAN and is funded by both USAID and the U.S. Department of State. ADVANCE began in October 2007 as an IQC mechanism to provide technical assistance to support ASEAN. ADVANCE was implemented through five task orders, the first four of which will be completed in 2013. MARKET is the fifth Task Order. The Task Orders are the following: 1. ASEAN- U.S. Technical Assistance and Training Facility; 2. ASEAN Single Window Project; 3. The Value Project; 4. Laos-US International and ASEAN Integration Project; and 5. MARKET. Source: ADVANCE Brochure cover. 9 EVALUATION APPROACH This mid-term evaluation was conducted in Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam in June and July 2013. See Annex One for the Evaluation SOW. The core objectives of the evaluation were to: 4. Assess project implementation to date toward performance targets and project objectives of regulatory improvement and stakeholder engagement; 5. Describe what project actions work well, need improvement, should be discontinued, or should be replicated or scaled up; 6. Recommend specific opportunities to enhance project effectiveness and sustainability. The evaluation was designed to answer these specific questions: 3. Which activities have been perceived to effective, or ineffective, in advancing the MARKET objectives of regulatory/policy improvement and stakeholder engagement? Why? 4. How much value do participants see in the regional public-private dialogues (and public-private taskforce), and why? A major aim of this performance evaluation was also to provide recommendations for specific opportunities to enhance project effectiveness and sustainability, which included: A. Ways in which MARKET activities, or components thereof, can be strengthened or re-targeted. B. Potential changes to the regional public-private dialogue process which may improve stakeholder engagement and self-sustainability of the process by 2015 (end of MARKET funding). C. Sectors beyond fisheries and aquaculture that appear ripe for public-private dialogue, which can be implemented through MARKET. D. The regional-level policy reform work was de-emphasized in the Year 2 Work plan. The approach changed to focus on areas which MARKET felt it could make a concrete impact within the remaining two years of the project – for example, in working on food law in Laos. Secondly, aquaculture was identified as the commodity of focus. Are there other opportunities to support regional policy reform or opportunities to support other commodities that have been overlooked, and on which significant progress could be achieved by 2015? Are there other 10 opportunities to achieve impact in Cambodia,2 the main Feed the Future focus country in ASEAN? E. Other opportunities for MARKET to support food security in Asia (with or without ASEAN) that have not been pursued to date, and the role MARKET – or another project – might play? Are there opportunities to support food security in Cambodia? F. Gender implications in programming. Evaluation Methods and Data Sources As per the USAID Evaluation Policy, a triangulation approach to data collection and analysis was utilized with a broad range of stakeholders and beneficiaries to ensure independence of the evaluation process, as well as accuracy and completeness of the subsequent conclusions, lessons learned, and recommendations. Data was collected by using the following main sources of evidence: Document Review. The team conducted an extensive desk review of documents provided by USAID and the project staff including: the award contract and its modification, Year 1 and Year 2 Work Plans, Annual, Quarterly and Weekly Reports, MARKET Performance Management Plan (PMP) and other M&E reports (Feed the Future Monitoring System), Project Activity Reports, and Project Communication Materials, the ASEAN Integrated Food Security (AIFS) Framework and Strategic Plan of Action on Food Security in the ASEAN Region (SPA-FS) 2009 -2013, and the Regional Mission for Asia (RDMA) Feed the Future Multi-Year Strategy 2011- 2015, in which MARKET plays a large role. Key Informant Interviews. 87 interviews were conducted with ASEAN Member State (AMS) government officials and private sector representatives, USAID/RDMA, USAID/Indonesia, USAID/Vietnam, USAID/Cambodia, MARKET staff, the ASEAN Secretariat, research organizations, and CSOs in Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand, in groups as well as individually. Phone interviews were conducted where in-person interviews were not possible. Project Outputs and Targeted Results. The evaluation team examined MARKET indicators of outputs and targeted results to gauge progress. Quantitative Surveys. The evaluation team obtained the evaluation surveys of MARKET workshops from MARKET. Supporting the ASEAN Secretariat’s Own Food Security Priorities MARKET aims to work through a demand-driven strategy by providing technical assistance to 2 Cambodia is the only FTF focus country in ASEAN, and regional FTF projects, such as MARKET, should ideally support the investments of country FTF projects. 11 the ASEAN Secretariat to support the Secretariat’s own food security priorities, as outlined in the ASEAN Integrated Food Security (AIFS) framework, and associated Strategic Plan of Action for Food Security (SPA-FS). This framework and associated plan of action, even at the strategic￾thrust level to “Promote Conducive Food Market and Trade and “Encourage Greater Investment in Food and Agro-based Industry to Enhance Food Security” are very broad, outlining general priorities for ASEAN. DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS & LIMITS OF EVALUATION The development hypothesis underlying MARKET is that private sector engagement combined with public-private dialogue will lead to regulatory improvement and new private sector investment, and thereby increase intra-regional trade – which will in turn increase food security, and reduce poverty and hunger in Southeast Asia. Although the causal relationship between MARKET and outcomes such as intra-regional trade, poverty, and hunger in Southeast Asia cannot be assessed, this evaluation examines progress at the input, output and outcome levels that are likely to advance the broader goals of MARKET – i.e., agreements, policies advanced, perceptions of private-public dialogue process, and perceptions of MARKET’s work from private enterprises, the ASEAN Secretariat, CSOs and other key informants. 12 MARKET PERFORMANCE TO THE MID-POINT This section covers MARKET’s startup phase, evolution in project focus, summary of major activities and progress to date with interview respondents’ comments, findings and recommendations. Project accomplishments up to this point are all intermediate, characterized by refining issues, establishing contacts and partnerships. MARKET’s use of workshops is described, as a principal tool for MARKET to introduce and put into practice the concept of dialogue between the public sector, private sector and civil society organizations3 to identify issues and to refine approaches to address identified issues. MARKET’s Focus on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture and the ASEAN Farmers’ Advisory Council In response to requests from ASEAN, MARKET refined its work on the regional food trade environment by zeroing in on the formation and formalization of two new ASEAN advisory/dialogue groups: (1) a public-private entity called the ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture (with the acronym TF in this paper for Taskforce); and (2) an advisory group called the ASEAN Farmers’ Advisory Council (AFAC). In agriculture, MARKET will also support ASEAN by holding four workshops to have public-private sector discussions about improving agriculture technology. MARKET is continuing its approach of organizing a collection of special groups either into a body intended to inform and advise ASEAN and MARKET or by facilitating custom workshops. Throughout, MARKET is maintaining its core approach of promoting dialogue among government, the private sector and CSOs. MARKET is committed to the application of the public-private-CSO dialogue (PPD for public-private dialogue, which includes CSOs), consistently using PPD in all of its workshops. Both private sector and CSO input are important in representing producers, as they have common interests and direct motivation to effect improvements. The structure of the TF and the AFAC include public, private and CSO components. The ASEAN Regional Agricultural Trade Environment Assessment (RATE) RATE was intended to identify in detail specific issues impeding cross border food trade in the ASEAN region. The RATE products would then enable MARKET to act on one or more of the issues identified by RATE as a specific case to address and make tangible progress toward resolution of the trade barrier or other issue from the items identified by RATE. MARKET 3 For the purposes of this report, the “private sector” refers to for-profit businesses, and “civil society organizations” is used as a broad, inclusive category that includes any organization that is outside of the state and operates on a non-profit basis to provide benefits, services, or political influence to specific groups within society; CSOs include business forums, faith-based associations, labor unions, local community groups, NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and think tanks, but exclude government agencies and legislators, individual businesses, political parties, and the media. 13 required a small number of constrained and well identified sub activities that were feasible for the project to undertake (1) within its time and capability envelope; and (2) with a high probability of producing tangible and value added product. The RATE SOW however was very broad, specifying that RATE would look at the:  Economic policy, the legal and regulatory framework, and the institutions that implement them. The analysis [will be] conducted from the “top down.” Assessments will be done through desk research and in-country interview and investigation.  Effectiveness of the policy, legal and institutional landscape from the perspective of the private sector. The result will be a written evaluation of the agriculture and food trade enabling environment in each AMS. The RATE Evaluation will require advanced desk research into the policy, regulatory, institutional, and economic environments in each Member State; in-country visits by legal/regulatory and business environment experts to conduct interviews The in-country evaluations will look at legal framework and implementing institutions (top down, policy driven), supporting institutions and social dynamics. The SOW failed to follow through with a design and direction capable of producing the intended list of impediments to trade and a detailed look at the trading across borders enabling environment, for a specific set of critical commodities/value chains in all AMS. RATE emphasized legal aspects, approaching the work from the top down with a heavy reliance on desk research. Discovering and developing adequate information about impediments to trade for a specific set of commodities/value chains is not “top down,” it is not amenable to desk research and the legal/regulatory environment is only marginally relevant. The task does require extensive field research at the ground level to discover and investigate in depth an impediment. It is not an easy undertaking; there are few if any documents or easily accessed written documents and in some cases people are hesitant to talk. The impediments may be official regulations and many can be rent seeking or anti-competition arrangements, either large scale (an import cartel) or small informal practices. Specific cultural aspects can be a trade impediment, but it typically requires considerable time investment to discover and define the issue. The RATE activity had six months to complete its work, with a total 14 person weeks allocated to field work. Of the ten RATE topical reports,4 the two that are most relevant to MARKET are Non￾Tariff Barriers and Food Security. (The papers on infrastructure, informal sector and finance were the most removed from MARKET.) The Food Security paper includes a suggestion for 4 The RATE topical reports were on: Gender, Competition, Trade Facilitation, Non-Tariff Barriers, Infrastructure, IPR, Transparency, Access to Finance, Food Security, and Informal Economy. 14 creation of an ASEAN Farmers Association (p. 18) among its action opportunities. The most potentially relevant RATE paper on non-tariff barriers lists the following opportunities for action addressed to ASEAN and AMS, not to MARKET.  Strengthen institutional cooperation and transparency in identifying and addressing NTBs.  Streamline and accelerate food standard harmonization.  Coordinate food standard harmonization with implementation of the ASEAN Single Window.  Promote public dialogue and local research on GMOs.  Continue to promote trade in services, including agriculture-related services. The points offer sound advice to ASEAN but none of the points is sufficiently specific and constrained for MARKET to take on as a sub-activity. The evaluation team asked several knowledgeable persons about their impressions of RATE and its value: One respondent noted “Maybe RATE was overambitious. They didn’t drill down enough, they were skimming.” He noted that the RATE team did not feel they had enough time to do the work they wanted to do. One respondent said he “did not find RATE useful and he could not see the connections with MARKET. It was never clear what the intent was or who was the audience.” He did not think there was close communication between the MARKET and RATE teams. Another respondent said, “MARKET focused too much on relationship-building and networking, not enough on analytical work. For example, they should have used the RATE assessments to hone their thinking on strategy, to decide how to aim their policy work.” A respondent at the ASEAN Secretariat said he was still waiting for the results of the RATE assessment and had not heard back. “The follow up is not good.” A MARKET staff respondent commented that RATE “was not a success. It was run by the home office. They did not deliver, reports were too general, [and had] some inaccuracies. The reports did not add to the existing stock of information. Most importantly they did not identify specific regulations, non-tariff barriers or other issues for MARKET to work on.” In sum, the RATE SOW described an end product that may have been used to direct MARKET’s ensuing program, but its directions called for a broad description of ASEAN Member State systems, from the top down, with the main effort directed to desk research which did not yield the detailed information and field work that had the best potential for turning up useful outputs. RATE was intended to provide MARKET with viable candidates for action to address specific impediments to food trade issues. However, RATE’s lack of focus, and communication 15 difficulties between MARKET and RATE staff, led to difficulties in establishing MARKET’s direction. Closer communication or direction was needed to ensure the activity was on course and responsive to MARKET’s purpose. Workshops & Public-Private and Civil Society Organization Dialogue Starting in 2012, MARKET supported seven public-private dialogue workshops and one gender workshop: 6-7 Sept 2012 Preparatory Workshop for 2nd AMAF Meeting, Bangkok, Thailand 27-Sept 2012 Second AMAF - Private Sector Dialogue on Food Security, Vientiane, Laos 6-7 Dec 2012 ASEAN Public-Private Dialogue on Fisheries, Bangkok, Thailand 27-28 Mar 2013 First Meeting of the ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture, Bali, Indonesia 2-3 Apr 2013 Lao Food Law review, Luang Prabang, Laos 4-5 Apr 2013 Gender Workshop for Thailand and Laos, Udon Thani, Thailand 4 June 2013 Laos business focus Food Law review, Vientiane, Laos Workshops have been one key way for MARKET to support ASEAN by formally bringing stakeholders together to discuss issues and elicit feedback. MARKET made public￾private-CSO dialogue (PPD) the organizing principle for the design and running of the workshops. MARKET’s structuring workshops with participation of the private and CSO communities in ASEAN discussions both responded to the instructions to MARKET to do so, but more importantly provided practical demonstrations of the value of public-private dialogue (PPD) to ASEAN. Although PPD may have been practiced at the national level (within countries), ASEAN had typically involved government to government agencies with minimal private sector participation in meetings and virtually no CSO direct involvement. Respondents from the private sector, CSOs, the ASEAN Secretariat, and ASEAN Member State governments commented specifically and positively on the need for PPD: “Normally ASEAN is a government to government organization. We don’t bring in private sector groups. MARKET helped bring in the private sector. MARKET is supporting AIFS trade facilitation and strategic private sector engagement.” (ASEAN Secretariat) “At the Bangkok workshop it was good to get ASEAN countries together to discuss issues. It was the first time government, private sector and associations [CSOs] did this… Dialogue is important. The private sector can inform a lot.” (ASEAN Member State government representative) “The private sector representatives at the meeting drove points forward that we wouldn’t have otherwise. We tend to talk… they want action. That is good.” (another ASEAN Member State government representative) 16 “The transnational firms are not trusted by government officials, they are viewed as salesmen. If the ideas [are seen as coming] from farmers there is power to move forward… USAID brand is powerful to help regulation… MARKET helped put us in contact with [key individuals in ASEAN], which has opened doors for us.” (private sector representative) “I found MARKET to be of value because they include the private sector and communities. So far we are just working on the government to government level.” (donor organization representative working at the ASEAN level) Besides remarking on the strong representation of the private sector, a few respondents commented positively on the presence of CSO representatives: “The experience was new and it was a pleasant surprise that the private sector affirmed the need for CSOs. The private sector and CSO groups differed on biotech (CSOs didn’t want it) but they got a good understanding of where each other stands.” (CSO representative) “The Laos workshop was the first of its kind. It [contradicted] the idea that the private sector and CSOs should not be lumped together.” (another CSO representative) However, many respondents from the private sector, CSOs, and ASEAN Member State governments complained about the lack of communication and follow up from MARKET staff after the PPD workshops: “I went to two MARKET workshops [in Bangkok and Bali]. They were quite useful but there was no follow up, no communication. I was surprised there was no follow up after the second workshop. There was no chance to communicate. We are doing the same thing as MARKET with our modular technical package. We want feedback.” (private sector representative) “The follow through process at the country level wasn’t spelled out. They haven’t been engaged with the organizations that attended or experienced any other outcome from the [Bali] meeting.” (CSO representative) “We don’t know what the next steps for the Taskforce are. We don’t know when the next meeting is. Better communications are needed to make people more involved.” (ASEAN Member State government representative) Respondents from CSOs and ASEAN Member States suggested MARKET should be careful in its selection of participants for private-public dialogue workshops. Respondents indicated that many participants were recommended by others, for example, from an ASEAN Member State, without a thorough selection process and alignment of common interests, nor consideration of roles and responsibilities for participants. A few of the workshop attendees the evaluation team contacted did not speak English very well. Some respondents indicated: “[We] did not have a good impression of the Bali meeting. We did not think the key players were adequately represented. The meeting was not relevant to them and it was not clear what 17 was expected of the participants at the meeting. For example, government participants believed that they were invited there to present projects that would be funded by USAID. When they eventually expressed this and were told that there were no plans to fund any of the projects . . . many of them left or got less interested in the proceedings.” (CSO representative) “If MARKET invites anybody who is interested in ‘sustainable fisheries’, you will get very eclectic and extreme players [who do not have common goals]. MARKET should be more selective about invitees to these workshops.” (another CSO representative) “I enjoyed the [Bali] workshop, but not much came out of it – it was disjointed and not focused on actions, just idea sharing…The next meeting should have more preparation. We should know what participants will attend. Some high level participants didn’t attend. The issues need to be pre-defined.” (ASEAN Member State government representative) “There was a smallholder farmer representative present at the [Bali] workshop who didn’t understand English… and sat through the entire workshop without understanding.” (another ASEAN Member State government representative) “There was no delegation of authority [for the Bali dialogue meeting to achieve meaningful results].” (private sector representative) Respondents came to the dialogue workshops for widely varying reasons, which suggest that common interests and objectives need to be taken into account in participant selection: “I came to the [Bangkok] workshop to get help in finding customers in Thailand and other ASEAN countries to market our coffee.” (CSO representative) One respondent at the Bangkok workshop indicated he came to the workshop because he wanted help from USAID to be linked with a post-harvest facility for fish: “We need a big freezer especially during low season. We also requested added value production systems.” (CSO representative) Respondents from donor organizations, ASEAN Member State governments, and the private sector suggested that (1) working level meetings should include technical staff as well as high level officials, and that projects must (2) elicit buy-in from an ASEAN Member State. They also emphasized preparatory meetings in more informal settings prior to formal settings, which MARKET provided. “[In the beginning] MARKET started at the top of ASEAN rather than organizing partners first and then bringing it to ASEAN. Identifying a lead country would be more effective. . . . Forming a project working group is a better place to start and even before that garnering a country's support to champion the project.” (ASEAN Secretariat staff) “[I attended] the Bangkok meeting in September with SOM-AMAF. [It was] not a successful meeting due to the dialogue with ministers who were too high up for any real discussion. 18 However [the meeting] did act as a stepping stone. They got the go ahead from some ministers but if you want anything done you have to get an ASEAN Member State to push it forward and it needs to be in closed door meetings not these big meetings.” (private sector representative) “Preparatory workshops are useful, and informal meetings with stakeholders outside of the workshops.” (ASEAN Member State government representative) Respondents also suggested the facilitation of workshops could be improved: “The major frustration is the continuation of the process and the facilitation and the governance of the [workshop] process. More specifically, the facilitator forced points on the group emphasizing his own agenda rather than addressing the more central yet contentious issues brought up by the groups [e.g., biotech, regulation, land reform and gender]. The facilitator took on his own personal view.” (CSO representative) “One MARKET guy talked fast and a lot. It was difficult to follow him [but] they are good listeners and we had very open discussion.” (ASEAN Member State government representative) Multiple respondents also suggest an action-orientation towards public-private dialogue process. As one respondent put it, “The dialogues should be more action-oriented now. What actions need to be taken? These are not clearly articulated or laid out anywhere [for dialogue participants to see]… It is valuable to do the getting-to-know-you that MARKET has done, and the relationship building, but they have concentrate on completing actions now.” Survey Findings Quantitative evaluation survey findings provide a broader overview of respondents’ satisfaction with MARKET’s public-private dialogue workshops, and their relevance to their own work. They also provide insight on where improvements can be made. The evaluation team obtained evaluation surveys from MARKET for the:5  ASEAN Public-Private Dialogue on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture, December 6-7, 2012, Bangkok, Thailand (85 participants); and the  First Meeting of the ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture, March 27-28, 2013, in Bali, Indonesia (71 participants) 5 A number of participants may have reported reversed scores on the evaluation forms for the Preparatory Workshop for the 2nd ASEAN Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (AMAF) – Private Sector Dialogue on Food Security, September 6-7, 2012, in Bangkok, Thailand. Because these results may have been inaccurate, the data have not been reported here. 19 ASEAN Public-Private Dialogue on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture, December 6-7, 2012, Bangkok, Thailand 85 participants (50 males, 35 females) attended the ASEAN Public-Private Dialogue on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture. A relatively high percentage of government officials attended this workshop: 44% of workshop attendees were government representatives; 27% were from the private sector; 13% were from farmer associations; 7% of participants were donors or international organizations; 2% were NGOs; and the remaining 7% were ‘other’. 47 participants filled out evaluation surveys of the workshop (55% response rate). 93% of respondents reported being either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the Dialogue on Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture. Moreover, 98% of respondents found the workshop “helpful”, and 100% found the workshop relevant to their work. However, 20% of respondents reporting dissatisfaction with the clarity and organization of the workshop content. Three open-ended questions were also included in this evaluation form: 20 1. What were the most valuable sessions or things you learned in the workshop? 2. What were the least valuable sessions/information covered in the workshop? 3. Other comments, if any.  Responses to the first question demonstrated a high regard for the breakout sessions. Ten respondents (out of 47; 21%) thought the breakout sessions were the most valuable part of the workshop. o Qualitative interviews revealed that participants preferred the less formal nature of breakout sessions, especially when communicating with the private sector, for more open discussion.  One respondent suggested that private sector presentations should be split into sub￾sectors, e.g., aquaculture, capture fisheries, and perhaps trade requirements, to further actions more effectively.  Three respondents called for follow-up action points after the workshop. First Meeting of the ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture, March 27-28, 2013, in Bali, Indonesia 71 participants (45 males, 26 females) attended the First Meeting of the ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture. As in the previous workshop, a relatively high percentage of government officials attended this workshop: 49% of workshop attendees were government representatives, only 2% of participants were donors or international organizations, 32% were from the private sector, 6% were from farmer associations, 6% were NGOs, and the remaining 4% were ‘other’. 44 participants filled out evaluation surveys of the workshop (62% response rate). Evaluation survey results revealed high satisfaction ratings. 93% of respondents found the workshop helpful, and 93% found the event relevant to their work. Clarity and organization however showed improved ratings in this workshop. 21 Participants were again asked to respond to the three open-ended survey questions: 1. What were the most valuable sessions or things you learned in the workshop? 2. What were the least valuable sessions/information covered in the workshop? 3. Other comments, if any. As in the previous workshop, a number of respondents (7 respondents; 16%) indicated that breakout sessions were the most valuable, particularly the capture fisheries breakout session (five respondents; 11%). Respondents also highlighted several constructive points in their comments. First, they suggested that planning for the workshops could be improved in that: “There was a lack of objectives to the taskforce workshop meeting.” “Concept notes should be circulated before meeting.” “An outline of the capabilities of the taskforce is needed, and what funding is available for concept note proposals.” Respondents also noted that: “Participants were not focused on public-private partnerships but on individual projects.” Similarly, two respondents noted that, “It was frustrating not to see a regional approach.” One respondent noted that “the ASEAN Secretariat was not as engaged as it could have been.” 22 The following points from the evaluation surveys were also underscored by qualitative interviews with respondents, that: “Informal meetings with private sector and NGOs are needed.” “Actions need to be taken quickly after the workshop.” Recommendation (1) Workshop or other multi-country meeting design should ensure that no participant is handicapped by his or her ability in English. Typical approaches include provision of written material in relevant languages, presentation or open discussion in multiple languages and parallel or breakout sessions conducted in a particular language. This is expensive and complicated but, given the multi-country makeup of the MARKET activity, the wide variance of English and the vital role played by workshops, language considerations are a priority concern. Recommendation (2) Multiple interviewees suggested that initial preparations and meetings should occur at the horizontal technical level, before bringing in high-level officials into the dialogue. The formality of the event was one factor that inhibited frank discussion and action in early workshops, and the inclusion of informal dialogue among private sector, public sector, and CSO groups is recommended. This is something MARKET has done in subsequent forums. Recommendation (3) Workshops and their effectiveness are so critical to the conduct of MARKET’s business that extreme care should be exercised in their design and conduct. Professional, experienced, and well-vetted facilitators are recommended to ensure successful dialogue to drive actions forward. Recommendation (4) Proper planning in choosing workshop participants should ensure representation by engaged private sector, public sector (ASEAN Secretariat and ASEAN Member State government representatives), and CSO representatives who be able drive MARKET activities forward in sectors where they have specific overlapping interests. Recommendation (5) Follow-up with dialogue participants in a timely manner is crucial for maintaining momentum and understanding of MARKET’s activities. Follow-up after workshops represents an opportunity for MARKET to reinforce explanation of its mission to the widespread and diverse ASEAN community and to cement key points from the workshops. Recommendation (6) Several respondents highlighted the need for better understanding of the private sector for planning and ensuring sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, and focus group discussions underscored the perception that private sector in these meetings drives progress because private sector representatives are very practical and tangible in presenting their thoughts, whereas government officials often talk around an action point. One recommendation, as suggested by multiple respondents, is for the private sector to be given more “stage time” at future workshops, and be encouraged to drive concrete action points forward, not only during the dialogue forums but also in follow-up meetings afterwards. Recommendation (7) Closer monitoring and evaluation of workshops, in terms of surveys and follow up interviews, would provide useful directions for improving future workshops. 23 MARKET SUPPORT TO ASEAN FISHERIES & AQUACULTURE The ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture Congruent with the project’s core strategy of promoting multisectoral dialogue, MARKET led two workshops with a focus on addressing regional food security concerns within the aquaculture and fisheries sector. During these workshops, stakeholders constructed a draft TOR and Operational Guidelines as a foundational step in the formation of an ASEAN Public￾Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture (TF). In addition, participants identified major sectoral issues to be addressed by the newly formed Taskforce. These sectoral issues – standards, disease, feed, and zonal management – are discussed in the following sections. The central goal of the TF is to mobilize an influential body of stakeholders from the private sector and CSOs to act as a formal consultative group to the ASEAN Sectorial Working Group on Fisheries (ASWGFi). 6 Ultimately, the TF will build consensus on key issues to guide ASEAN in making more inclusive and effective regional policy decisions in the arena of food security. MARKET is also developing a website in collaboration with the Thai Frozen Food Association (TFFA) to support information sharing within the TF. The concept of a TF was widely championed by respondents to this evaluation. One respondent stated that this type of dialogue between public, private and CSO organizations “is something we have never done before. If we can do it, it will be very valuable. It is still at the potential stage, but it does have potential.” (private sector representative) Another respondent suggested that MARKET “complete the TF mission. It’s the door to everything. Make it more functional.” (private sector representative) A third respondent emphasized the need for the TF, stating: “We need an independent group to push the governments. If you want to achieve something, the group must be able to influence ASEAN governments. . . . The best approach is different from what the governments and business want to do. MARKET needs to make the Task Force independent.” (private sector representative) While all respondents agreed that the TF has potential, many also noted that, as of yet, it lacks the implementation power to be effective. MARKET anticipates that the ASWGFi will 6 From 26-28 March, 2013, MARKET supported the ASEAN Secretariat and the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of Indonesia to implement the 1st Meeting of the ASEAN Public-Private Informal Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture. Fifty-two ASEAN government officials and representatives from businesses, fishermen and fish farmers met and agreed to the formation of an ASEAN Public-Private Informal Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture in the upcoming months. The terms of reference and operational guidelines of the taskforce were submitted to the ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Fisheries (ASWGFi) for endorsement in July 2013. (MARKET 6th Quarterly report, p. 10) 24 endorse the Operational Plan and TOR by August 2013. (MARKET email from July 16, 2013). This endorsement is a necessary first step for the TF to achieve credibility. Other factors crucial to the TF’s credibility and future success include: formation of a governance structure (including election of Joint Chairs), confirmation of a plan for sustainability, and determination and procurement of financing requirements. Without a solid structure including a clear definition of roles, responsibilities and financing requirements, the TF will be unlikely to affect meaningful change. Another determinant of the TF’s success will be its ability to achieve results in the four focus points (standards, disease, feed, and zonal management) identified during the Aquaculture and Fisheries workshop. Recommendation (1) It is unclear how MARKET’s four aquaculture focus points (discussed in the following sections) connect into a cohesive strategy. MARKET states that the aquaculture activities “will be sustained by the TF.” However, the TF itself is not yet a sustainable entity. It is vital that MARKET articulate a clear plan regarding how the activities around the four focus points will be governed and managed under the TF. Recommendation (2) The management structure of the TF secretariat should be formalized as soon as possible to increase the odds of a functioning TF secretariat after the project close out. Recommendation (3) A fisheries and aquaculture website could provide a low-cost solution for coordinating and distributing information among the ASEAN Member States. It enables the TF secretariat to expand its capabilities at minimal extra cost. Recommendation (4) It would be helpful to obtain an idea of what activity(ies) ASEAN might request of MARKET regarding open catch fisheries for MARKET and RDMA planning purposes. More information of possible TF involvement in open catch would also be useful in gauging ASEAN and ASEAN Member State support for the TF after 2015. ASEAN Aquaculture Standards As previously mentioned, one focus point prioritized at the aquaculture workshops was a harmonized ASEAN Good Aquaculture Practices (GAqP) standard. This standard would contribute to improved food security in ASEAN countries by serving as a mechanism to guide aquaculture producers towards more environmentally friendly and socially responsible practices. The standard would contribute to food security in two major ways: First, through the income effect of improved purchasing power garnered by access to new markets and higher prices on higher quality produce. Second, through improved sustainability practices ensuring that aquaculture livelihoods will be protected into the future. In the long run, a certification program would complement the GAqP standard by formally instituting best practices. The evaluation’s comprehensive literature review and interview process found a lack of existing in-depth analysis of ASEAN producers operating in fisheries that have certification. As a result, there is a relative dearth of empirical evidence as to the actual costs and benefits that 25 could accrue to producers. However, the twenty eight respondents in Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia who were interviewed regarding the creation of an ASEAN aquaculture standard and certification unanimously agreed that it is an important priority for the aquaculture sector. One ASEAN Member State government official noted: “We are thinking long-term about sustainable development. We want to establish a national standard – a minimum – for long term development. We need a workshop to develop an ASEAN standard.” Similarly, a private company representative noted that: “ASEAN producers are more inclined to use an ASEAN standard. It will help sustain the resources and help small-scale fishers.” Importantly, all respondents highlighted that an ASEAN standard would embody a homegrown solution that would allow producers to address their unique set of regional challenges. These regional challenges are not addressed in the existing certification schemes and therefore are problematic in the ASEAN developing country context. For example, the Global G.A.P. certification relies on high quality information for which many ASEAN countries do not yet have capacity. The lack of technical expertise, weak tradition of record-keeping and low level of literacy in these countries makes the existing chain-of-custody certification problematic. In addition, fisheries in the countries visited are largely fragmented and characterized by a large number of small-scale operators, with weak or non-existent producer organizations. The ASEAN standard and certification would provide a platform to address these and other regionally-specific challenges that are not currently addressed in existing schemes. Additional benefits described in interviews include:  access to new markets and, perhaps more importantly, continued access to markets from which small producers currently risk exclusion;  consolidation or expansion of market share in existing markets;  greater credibility with retail buyers  potential for more value-added products and product differentiation (niche market for environmentally friendly products);  improved management of fisheries resources and resulting guarantees of future production potential;  increased earnings through an assumed price premium for certified fish and seafood products;  allayed resentment stemming from the imposition of standards from European and American buyers;  progress towards the formation of an Asian Economic Community through the harmonization of standards and practices. Currently, producers in ASEAN countries are overwhelmed with over twenty different aquaculture standards ranging from national standards such as VietGAP, ThaiGAP and IndoGAP to international standards from the US and Europe such as the Marine Stewardship Council. The ASEAN standard should not duplicate efforts but rather house multiple standards (particularly the various country level GAPs) under one roof creating a more palatable and legitimate certification. MSC, the current market leader, only captures about 12% of the aquaculture market thereby leaving almost 90% of producers without a guiding standard. The ASEAN standard could act as a stepping stone that would not compete with current aquaculture standards but rather work to unite ASEAN producers under one umbrella and 26 begin to acclimate smallholders to the idea of standards. The standard would be the first step to encouraging lower-capacity producers to move in a more sustainable and profitable direction. Market’s Niche MARKET has the potential to add value by facilitating the process of creating an ASEAN aquaculture standard and certification system. The existing country GAP standards and the planned ASEAN shrimp standard are not legitimate under the international framework for standards as defined by ISEAL as they lack criteria such as inclusiveness and transparency in the formulation process. These standards are unilaterally defined, implemented and managed by the government without including other stakeholders in the formulation process. To be accepted as credible, the standard body must be independent of the auditor. Experts interviewed reaffirmed these criteria expressing that standards are only credible when an independent party convenes the dialogue in a neutral setting. Thus, MARKET could add value by bringing private sector and other stakeholders into the dialogue surrounding certification through a steering committee or other mechanism. MARKET is ideally positioned to negotiate the intricacy of including government actors in the discussion tactfully without delaying implementation. Respondents such as the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) and the International Collaborating Centre for Aquaculture and Fisheries Sustainability reinforced this idea in interview stating that MARKET is well positioned as a credible independent body to convene the many interests in this field. In sum, MARKET can facilitate a process that broadens the positive impacts on aquaculture and fisheries management by setting a bar for improvement. The involvement of national and local authorities as well as the wider aquaculture and fishing communities in the process is needed. For ASEAN countries, the pre-conditions for certification will take time to develop so it is an opportune time for MARKET to facilitate the debate. Recommendation (1) In the project’s first year and a half, MARKET spurred public-private dialogue at the ASEAN level by convening stakeholders to identify and discuss priorities. MARKET can build on this discussion and capitalize on its organizational strength by mediating between the current unilaterally developed country standards and the many other stakeholders that would need to be incorporated in the creation of a credible standard. Within the framework of public-private dialogue, aquaculture industry representatives can potentially use the certification process to underscore to government the importance of effective resource management, labor standards, feed practices, biosecurity, community interaction and biodiversity impacts. It is recommended that MARKET use the certification process as an opportunity for dialogue between government and industry as to what is required for ensuring the long-term sustainability of marine resources. Such a process could take a phased approach: 27 Phase 1. Garner buy-in from a core group mostly made of industry stakeholders from the private sectors, NGOs, and scientists. ASEAN and other government actors could be consulted with caution to ensure that such involvement does not slow the process. Phase 2. Host meetings in the target countries and invite participation to build groundwork and buy-in. Phase 3. Develop a draft standard certification scheme. Solicit and receive public feedback to revise the standards. Recommendation (2) While the cost of drafting a standard will be minimal, the preceding stage of creating a certification process will require costs for staff, implementation and monitoring. MARKET does not have the capacity to undertake the above-mentioned tasks; however, the project should create a clear exit plan to determine how such a system will be sustainable after the project’s exit. To achieve this goal, MARKET should work with the standards setting committee early on to develop the detailed timeline, planned budget and funding plan for the implementation of the program. Recommendation (3) Small producer training to meet standards is an important component of a successful ASEAN certification scheme. However, MARKET should focus on its strength of private public dialogue and coordinate with existing organizations that offer funds or loans to support developing countries to help offset the costs of certification (such as the WWF Community Fisheries Grants, the Sustainable Fisheries Fund, or Oxfam’s small fisheries project). MARKET should ensure these organizations are included in the dialogue. Recommendation (4) There is a wide variety of government and donor activity in the field of certification, and specifically ASEAN certification, at the present moment. Therefore, it is crucial that the project accurately map and coordinate to ensure an inclusive and non￾duplicative process. MARKET has begun such coordination with donor programs (IDH) and NGOs (SFP, WWF) and should expand the dialogue further. Disease Management MARKET plans to work with the Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia (NACA), the ASEAN Network of Aquatic Animal Health Centers and ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture to establish an ASEAN aquatic animal health management task force. An effective taskforce would be able to promote measures to improve biosecurity, enhance food safety, and promote compliance for sustainability. For example, this activity would organize an ASEAN disease information management and alert system established for improved surveillance and reporting of important and emerging aquatic animal diseases. Recommendation: Respondents from ASEAN Member States government technical staff and from a research organization independently recommended that NACA would be a good co￾implementer of this with capability to drive this forward, in a sustainable manner. NACA also confirmed its planning and interest, and necessary expertise, in undertaking this activity and should be funded to move forward on this. 28 Sustainable Aquaculture Feed Management Practices MARKET intends to engage private sector entities including the U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC) and SEAFDEC to promote regional dialogue and action on the development and use of sustainable feed for aquaculture. This activity area will include MARKET support for public-private demonstration projects for small-scale aquaculture farmers to experiment with feed diets and establishment of partnerships with research institutions. As of the date of this report, MARKET has yet to work out a specific agreement with SEAFDEC and U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC). SEAFDEC submitted a Concept Note, but MARKET is holding off further refining the activity subject to RDMA approval to proceed. MARKET has had an initial discussion with USSEC and is awaiting feedback from the USSEC Aquaculture Director on specifics of collaboration. (MARKET email from July 16, 2013) Recommendation (1) Multiple companies, universities and research institutes around the world are currently engaged on the issue of aquaculture feed. MARKET does not have the technical expertise to address the issue in a meaningful way. Thus, MARKET should ensure that its work on this issue justifies the use of resources and diversion of attention from other objectives. A clear understanding of MARKET’s value-addition in this activity is needed. Recommendation (2) MARKET should work carefully in its engagement with the USSEC on soy-based diets. Multiple respondents to this evaluation raised the point that many aquaculture organisms, with the clear exception of tilapia, have low tolerance for soy digestion. Thus, soy and other alternative diet recommendations must be approached with diligent scientific rigor in terms of precise formulation, lab and field testing, and farmer testing to ensure they have the tools, capacity and willingness to effectively employ alternative diets. Promoting Zonal Management Policies MARKET anticipates working with partners such as the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP) to catalyze zonal aquaculture improvement projects. The activity will address smallholder issues such as certification, compliance with chemical regulations, and water use. MARKET has received a proposal from SFP but is waiting for approval from RDMA to produce a detailed SOW. (MARKET email from July 16, 2013) An ASEAN Member State technical staff member however warned that: “Zonal management is complicated, and a project in this area will take longer than 18 months.” Recommendation: If MARKET moves forward with this activity, the development of a detailed timeline and handover plan for activity implementation is needed. 29 MARKET's progress, as demonstrated by indicator results To monitor progress towards MARKET’s objectives, the following indicators are tracked:  Number of people attending advocacy/listening session/ public-private dialogue events  Number of agreements signed among ASEAN Member States on action plan for the regulatory improvement  Number of Policies, Regulations, Administrative Procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USG assistance in each case: (Stage 1/2/3/4/5)  Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance  Number of private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance  Value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by FTF implementation  Number of new technologies or management practices in one of the following phases of development: (Phase I/II/III) Table 1 (from MARKET’s 7th Quarterly Report) shows that only one indicator (Number of people attending advocacy/listening session/ public-private dialogue events) is currently meeting its target. MARKET has not met its indicator targets on agreements, policies, nor on private enterprises (or other groups) receiving or applying new technological practices, to date; however this is in large part due to the changes in MARKET’s work plan since the indicators were established.7 7 The intra-regional trade indicator is a contextual indicator (not attributable to MARKET work), and the value of new private sector investment is not applicable for FY13, although this will be applicable for FY14. 30 Table 1. Summary of Indicator Results as of July 2013 (from MARKET 7th Quarterly Report) Standard Indicators Baseli ne FY 2013 Annual Target Q1 FY 13 Q2 FY 13 Q3 FY 13 Cumula tive FY13 Annual Performanc e Achieved to date (%) On Targ et Y/N Number of people attending advocacy/listening session/ public-private dialogue events 0 493 334 59 102 495 100+% Y Number of agreements signed among ASEAN Member States on action plan for the regulatory improvement 0 1 0 0 0 0 0% N Numbers of Policies, Regulations, Administrative Procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USG assistance in each case: (Stage 1/2/3/4/5) 0 7 0 0 2 4 57% N Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance 0 91 0 0 3 3 3% N Number of private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance 0 50 0 0 0 0 0% N Percent change in value of intra-regional trade in targeted agricultural commodities (for regional missions) 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by FTF implementation 0 N/A for FY13 $1.35 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 31 million for FY14 Number of new technologies or management practices in one of the following phases of development: (Phase I/II/III) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 N 32 Number of agreements signed among ASEAN Member States on action plan for the regulatory improvement: MARKET anticipates one agreement to be signed among ASEAN Member States on action plans for regulatory improvement as a result of its work, in FY13. Although MARKET has not yet met this indicator, it expects that this agreement will be based on the work on aquaculture standards, in the signing of a draft ASEAN aquaculture standard. Number of Policies, Regulations, Administrative Procedures in each of the following stages of development as a result of USG assistance (Stage 1-5) Although 16 policies/regulations/practices related to the harmonization of regional trade regulations were identified through the RATE assessments, MARKET chose not to work further on these policies, as the recommendations were deemed too broad or difficult to work with in the time allocated. MARKET identified 16 policies/regulations/practices related to the harmonization of regional trade regulations in five ASEAN member states, i.e.: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, and Vietnam as follows: INDONESIA • Company Law (2007) • Cooperative Law (1992) and Joint Decree on Cooperatives (2000) • National licensing regimes (i.e., food production and trade) • Import licensing requirements and restrictions (various) • Draft Trade Law • Law on Plant Variety Protection (2000) MALAYSIA • Competition Act (2012) • Competition Commission Act (2012) • Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act (2012) • Regulations pertaining to various aspects of food standards THAILAND  Agriculture Strategy (2012-2016)  Rice-pledging policy (2011) PHILIPPINES  New approach to PPP, including as a model for other ASEAN Member States  Adaptability of GMO guidelines for use in other AMS VIETNAM  Law on Food Safety (2010) Law of Goods Quality  Law on Standards and Technical Regulations 33 Progress on this indicator has been achieved through (1) MARKET’s support of the revision of the Food Law in Lao PDR through 3 Stages of policy development and (2) through MARKET’s review of aquaculture standards through the first Stage of policy development. 4 of the 7 targeted policies/regulations/administrative procedures have progressed in each stage of development as a result of MARKET assistance for FY13. Number of private enterprises or other organizations that receive or apply new technologies or practices & Number of new technologies and practices developed Although the following three indicator targets have not yet been met, these indicators are in the process of being revised to better fit MARKET’s work plan:  Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance  Number of private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations, women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance  Number of new technologies or management practices in one of the following phases of development: (Phase I/II/III) Although MARKET has only reached 3% of its goal in terms of number of private enterprises and other groups receiving assistance, MARKET reports that it anticipates that results will be realized through MARKET’s upcoming fisheries and aquaculture activities. Recommendation Monitoring of indicators should be conducted regularly. A review of the usefulness of current indicators as well as targets for indicators, and reasons for delays in progress, is recommended. Such a review should aim to inform a detailed plan for sustainability, and ensuing responsibilities for activity outcomes. 34 Examining the Results Framework The Results Framework from the MARKET PMP below depicts MARKET’s aims in progressing towards inter-regional trade and food security in Southeast Asia. Thus far, the Baselines have been completed and the Regional Public-Private Dialogue process has been put in place with the ASWGFi endorsement of the ASEAN Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture Taskforce. However, the private sector has not yet been trained on new technologies or management practices, an achievement that was originally planned for FY12. Nevertheless the planned outcomes (in pink: agreement signed, private sector investment, improved skills, implementation of improved regulation) in the Results Chain however have the potential to be achieved in FY14. The impact of MARKET activities on increased intra-regional trade and thereby reduced poverty and hunger (variables in blue) will not be possible to gauge and can only be viewed as contextual variables. 35 MARKET is in the process of developing an updated Results Framework, to align with current activities and objectives. For example, outputs such as “training of private sector” and “improved skills for the private sector” may be removed, as they are no longer planned. MARKET SUPPORT TO ASEAN AGRICULTURE ASEAN Farmers’ Advisory Council MARKET is in the very early stage of discussing the proposed ASEAN Farmers’ Advisory Council (AFAC) with the Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA) and the Southeast Asian Council for Food Security and Fair Trade (SEACON). It is anticipated that the AFA and SEACON will be members of AFAC. The objectives of the AFAC are to:  Provide feedback from farmers on farmer-related issues on the integration of the food and agriculture sector for the strengthening of regional food security, and the formation of the ASEAN Economic Community.  Identify priority issues and recommendations for consideration by the ASEAN Leaders. The specific composition and representation of the council will be discussed at national consultations with SOM-AMAF representatives and farmer stakeholders as well as in the regional dialogue between selected farmer leaders from national and regional farmers’ organizations. The expected outcome from organizing the AFAC is institutionalization of the AFAC as a regular dialogue mechanism between the AMAF and its sectoral working groups and farmers in ASEAN with dialogue directed toward regional issues affecting farmers. According to MARKET, the proposed activity to organize the AFAC is expected to require a one-year period, with a target end date of August 2014. The proposed activity and its implementing phases will be done under the leadership and guidance of the SOM-AMAF, AMAF, and the ASEC, with the support from MARKET and regional farmer organizations. Regional partners such as AFA and SEACON will serve as anchor organizations for the National Consultations. The idea to create AFAC was initiated by Malaysia which is also a collaborating national partner. MARKET has developed arrangements for formation of the AFAC including holding seven national consultations, including in Cambodia, to introduce and discuss the AFAC proposal. Formation of the AFAC is at an early stage, to date. Public-Private Workshops on Agricultural Productivity-Enhancing Innovations, Technologies and Practices Respondents were asked to comment on the agriculture technology workshops and potential influence: 36 “The [aim of the] upcoming workshops is to improve capability of officials. We have worked with MARKET to effect the workshop agenda. We can get the ASEAN officials thinking [about the potential gains from new agricultural technology]. That would not have been possible without MARKET. We [the private sector] don’t yet have direct engagement with ASEAN officials.” (private sector representative) “In the workshop agenda, introduce technologies but important to get [senior officials] to make field visits and see the future -- directly. The target audience is officials. [An additional] purpose is to build trust between the public and private sectors, to improve understanding by the public sector of what the private can do and that [the technologies] work and that we [companies] are genuinely concerned about farmers.” (private sector representative) “We want to translate opportunities from MARKET to real one on the ground. The policy part has been the focus [of discussion so far], the execution part is yet to start. We need to get them [Agriculture Ministers and senior officials] into the field and afterward, get them to reflect on what it means, what are the implications.” (private sector representative) MARKET reports that the ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Crops (ASWGC) identified the development, acceleration of transfer and adoption of new technologies as a priority area in the Strategic Plan of Action for the ASEAN Cooperation in Crops, 2011-2015. The suggestion for the agriculture productivity workshops originated with Malaysia. In response to the request from ASEAN, MARKET is arranging four agricultural workshops, one each to be conducted in Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and a regional workshop. The workshops will take place in last quarter of 2013 and a regional workshop in early 2014. Because ASEAN and in particular the ASWGC have received limited input on new technologies, the MARKET Agriculture Technology Workshops offer the opportunity to yield significant benefit. It is particularly noteworthy that the Agriculture Technology Workshops have good potential to add real substance to gender considerations. It is an open question as to whether or not there is anything to be gained from combining in any way the Agriculture Technology Workshops with the AFAC; it is something for MARKET to consider. Informal coordination between the two appears to make sense. There is also the possibility of eventually incorporating the workshops into the AFAC offering the potential to enhance the effectiveness of the two activities. The Agriculture Workshops may be a promising approach to informing the ASWGC-AMAF￾ASEAN using real physical evidence of what technology can do while directly serving the MARKET mission of building ASEAN capability. However, this is still in early stages of development. Supporting the Enactment of a Revised Food Law in Laos This activity is in the final stage of completion. The draft amended food law was presented and discussed at a workshop in Vientiane Laos on 7 March 2013 at a MARKET- funded public￾private sector consultation implemented by the LUNA-Lao project. The workshop was 37 conducted in collaboration with MARKET and was the first public-private meeting convened to comment on a draft law. At the workshop, representatives from the Government of Laos Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Justice and private sector companies reviewed and sought clarifications on the proposed amendments, and suggested modifications to be incorporated in the final law. The Lao PDR is now in the process of amending legislation pertaining to food and agriculture production and trade, within Laos and ASEAN. MARKET provided a legislative advisor to assist the Government of Laos to draft revisions of the current Food Law. The new Food Law will be enacted by the Government of Laos Parliament in the very near future. (MARKET 6th Quarterly Report, April 2013) The task to facilitate drafting of major amendments to the Lao Food Law was completed and a first of its kind public-private dialogue held to discuss the draft. This was a discrete stand-alone task that has been satisfactorily completed. GENDER INTEGRATION MARKET held a Gender Workshop for Thai and Lao participants in Udon Thani, Thailand, in April 2013. The purpose of the workshop was to bring stakeholders in the agribusiness sector to discuss the challenges and opportunities that women face in the agribusiness sector and potential linkages between national and regional women’s agribusiness groups and the creation of an ASEAN-level women farmers/agribusiness group. 40 participants (19 Thai and 21 Laotian participants) filled out evaluation surveys after the workshop. The evaluation surveys and interviews (with a random sample of participants from the private sector, government, and CSO sectors as well as both Lao and Thai participants) about the workshop showed that participants were largely satisfied with the workshop and enjoyed it. However, several respondents mentioned that there was no follow-up or any outcome produced as a result of the workshop – only a discussion of gender issues in agribusiness – although the workshop participants expected follow-up and actions to be taken after the workshop. Extracts from Interviews Regarding the Gender Workshop Responses from interview respondents who attended the April MARKET gender workshop provide a potentially productive insight into addressing gender issues. A Thai government official found the workshop to be useful because of the wide variety of participants. He said the workshop was an opportunity to gain more knowledge about the farmer’s side. He didn’t usually have this opportunity. An association president thought that the most attention should be paid to small and medium farmers and not just women’s’ organization. A respondent who been working on the role of women and men in coastal fisheries and farmers and had attended the April workshop observed that “there were many high-level participants but no local farmers. Discussion tended to be more industrial level than farmer level.” She 38 also suggested that [gender] workshops “should focus on the role of both sexes and on equality of genders not just someone leading the discussion with the answer in mind on what women should or can do.” She thought that men should participate to understand the issues. Recommendation (1) Target objectives should be established for gender work to be conducted in the future. Participants’ expectations in terms of further actions should align with clear objectives established from the beginning of the workshop. Recommendation (2) Future work on gender should be integrated into MARKET’s work plans. 39 MARKET STRATEGY FOR THE NEXT 19 MONTHS In the last 20 months MARKET has generated momentum; it has formed alliances; it has provided demonstrations of the value to ASEAN of including the private sector and CSO in ASEAN discussions; and MARKET staff has gained valuable experience. The first half of the project has been a process of exploration and creation. The second semester should be one of single-minded concentration on implementation and achievement of projected results. This aim is not a “low-bar” challenge. MARKET has identified in considerable detail the activities and outputs the project plans to produce and has identified and establish partnerships with the key implementing players. With implementation in mind and the key role MARKET’s partners will play, an important area for the project to emphasize is further development of working relationships with its partners. To this point, the development of MARKET’s partner relationships is a work in progress with some evidence suggesting room for improvement. MARKET will still be entering new territory as it pursues the many sub-activities. The preceding theme anticipates responses to the questions of MAKET making any more adjustments in the direction or taking on new sectors or activities. While MARKET is better positioned and prepared to implement its activity agenda, it also faces considerable challenges as discussed in Section Two. Its plate is full and is the reason to concentrate on implementation. The not-to- do list 8 Consistent with the argument above, in its remaining 19 months of operations MARKET should not seek out or engage:  sectors beyond fisheries and aquaculture even though they may appear ripe for public￾private dialogue which can be implemented through MARKET.  other opportunities to support food security in Asia (with or without ASEAN) that have not been pursued to date.  other opportunities to support regional policy reform or seek out or engage opportunities to support other commodities that have been overlooked, and on which significant progress could be achieved by 2015.  other activities and opportunities that it can influence within its the remaining time. As one respondent advised: 8 The bullet points were items listed in the MARKET Evaluation Scope of Work as points to consider. 40 “In terms of moving forward it is better not to start with anything new with ASEAN, rather follow up and continue what has already been started due to the consensus nature of ASEAN there is a long procedure for approval.” (ASEAN Secretariat staff) The single exception to the not-to-do list is the possibility that, if requested by ASEAN, MARKET could address capture fisheries so long as there is a reasonable chance of success and the activity is within the budget, scope and timeline of MARKET. Where MARKET can improve  Workshops: Moving forward, the most crucial aspect to improve is to increase workshop effectiveness in reaching small holder groups, because many small holders are women, this will help address gender issues as well.  RDMA should take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the proximity of the ASEAN economic community schedule. It is in RDMA’s interest that it be identified by the ASEAN as part of the solution by being associated with MARKET efforts to assist ASEAN respond to challenges in the aquaculture and agriculture sectors. MARKET Winners  The introduction and application of public-private dialogue is a winner as a means to improve the quality of information going to the AMAF and as a way to elevate the quality of the dialogue. PPD is a valuable tool for MARKET and MARKET is using the tool.  The ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture (TF) The TF is intended to provide ASEAN with a new and unique information and advice source on a major production sector and one that is confronting several serious challenges. The TF will enhance the AMAF ability to identify issues and do planning. For MARKET, aquaculture and the associated issues present a significant challenge; however, even achieving some results could be considered a good start.  The ASEAN Farmers’ Advisory Council (AFAC) has potential to provide the AMAF with more and better information to help the AMAF make well-informed decisions about agriculture in ASEAN and especially to deal with the new demands generated by ASEAN’s pending economic union. Cambodia The anecdotal evidence points to the conclusion that it is difficult for MARKET to initiate a meaningful activity in Cambodia that can be completed in the next 19 months. However, MARKET should continue to invite and support participation of Cambodian Government officials and organization representatives to participate in MARKET workshops or other activities as determined by MARKET. 41 If MARKET is not already doing so, and with the required approvals, MARKET should send all pertinent reports and materials about the TF, AFAC and agriculture technology workshops the Cambodian Agriculture Ministry or other Cambodian entities that MARKET sees as relevant, regardless of the attendance of any Cambodian representative at MARKET workshops or other meetings. USAID/Cambodia is supportive of food safety standards, and the creation of an ASEAN aquaculture standard with the goal of increasing trade in the region. Further discussion with USAID/Cambodia to support potential collaboration in ASEAN food safety standards, in aquaculture as well as agriculture, is needed. Respondent Suggestions Interview respondents suggested that MARKET concentrate on work on the seafood market with ASEAN: “Keep the scope narrow, encourage stronger links among members. ASEAN will become an economic community in 2015. We want Seafood to get organized first [before that happens].” “[We want] MARKET to continue work on the shrimp standard and development of the web site.” (private sector representative) In response to the question of what actions could MARKET move forward on in the next 18 months: “MARKET should review what’s already being done in the field, not gather issues for dialogue.” (CSO representative) In response to the question of whether MARKET should work on other activities, interviewees responded: “No, the time is too short.” (CSO representative) 42 OPPORTUNITIES AFTER MARKET ENDS (MARCH, 2015) TO SUPPORT ASEAN The role for RDMA is more strategically significant and demanding than ever. As RDMA continues to work with ASEAN, it would be helpful to RDMA to differentiate clearly whether a future project is to assist ASEAN and the ASEC directly or to work in collaboration or association with ASEAN on an activity in the ASEAN region. MARKET has developed an ASEAN demand driven approach that works on the periphery of the ASEAN organization to develop associated entities that in turn support ASEAN. This could be a workable approach in that its gets around direct involvement with ASEAN and the ASEC. The first step in response to the challenges of regional food security is to sort through all the possibilities. As RDMA is well aware, large trends are working their way into the ASEAN region and the influence of most will increase over time. Some of the trends are the following:  Economic integration of the ASEAN region  The effects of population growth and in some cases aging populations  Growing middle class and growing middle class incomes  The China influence on the region  The likely major expansion of the Myanmar economy and Myanmar’s reentry as a trading partner in ASEAN  Technology change  Environmental issues aside from  Depleting natural resources, e.g., fisheries, and  Climate change Obviously, there is broad awareness of the trends and a lot of work has been or is being done to gauge and forecast their effects but there remains ample scope for more analysis, engagement and planning. The Lower Mekong Initiative is already looking at climate change effects in that area. RDMA may want to consider applying the general LMI approach to other areas or countries. For example there is a high probability climate change will exert a strong effect on Bangladesh with its already vulnerable population. What are the implications of climate change working through Bangladesh on its neighbors and Myanmar in particular where border issues have been a major source of trouble for decades? Full or even substantial, economic integration of the ASEAN region will take years. The European Union started to form decades ago and it is still in the process. This subject alone is huge and the process a long term one. There is a high probability ASEAN will want assistance to address issues. One particular issue among many is the national cartels in some AMS that impede (or virtually stop) imports, including many products and technologies that can increase agricultural productivity and incomes and significantly increase food security. Of course with a common interior tariff regime and, if economic integration is to mean anything, the import cartel issue will have to be resolved and barriers torn down. 43 Trade facilitation is another approach to facilitating creation of the ASEAN common market. Trade facilitation has the advantage of not attempting directly changing countries’ trade policies but trade facilitation can go a long way toward reducing or even removing trade barriers. Because trade facilitation is a significant part of WTO and bilateral trade agreements, there is ample precedent and model material to apply. An RDMA activity might provide the technical guidance to support trade facilitation in an ASEAN effort to build its common market. It is highly likely that any effort to address trade facilitation region wide would require extensive consultation with ASEAN and the AMS. Intellectual property rights (IPR), genetically modified organisms (GMO), harmonization of food regulations among ASEAN states all need to be addressed and have large implications for food security in the region. It is doubtful that an “IPR project” for example, would be workable. However if, say bilateral or multilateral negotiations were to lead to agreements in principle, RDMA is well positioned to provide technical assistance to the region to develop the technical and legal/regulatory machinery to implement a new IPR regime. Such a TA activity would be somewhat similar to the STAR project in Vietnam. IPR is purely an example, however there are probably other issues, such as an agreement to manage fisheries in the South China Sea that require international negotiations to get launched, but require technical assistance to put the solution in place. Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar are traditionally placed in the same category because they are least developed but least developed is about all they have in common. 9 Each has strong individual characteristics, some of which make it challenging to come up with potentially productive initiatives. Myanmar because of the large size and variety of its resource base and the fact that the country has been in isolation for decades, offers large potential. But starting to develop the potential depends critically on how quickly the government moves to liberalize its regime. If progress does continue there is, for example, a vast array of potential activities to facilitate creation of the legal and regulatory machinery of a modern state. PP is typically part of the modernization process. PP, by itself offers significant potential to benefit development in the three countries. Another option is continue to work on some of the issues MARKET is addressing now. For example, environment change as it relates to food production and food production’s impact on the environment and sustainability of some kinds of food production are and will continue to be pressing issues in the ASEAN region into the indefinite future. The MARKET RATE summary topical reports and associated opportunities for action provide another list of potential project areas and illustrate the large, and also well known, set of potential subject areas. The RATE report titles are as follows: 9 Vietnam has traditionally been included in this group but Vietnam is rapidly emerging as a country with substantial capacity to identify and devise solutions to the problems it faces. In this discussion, Vietnam is not included in the least developed group. 44  Access to Finance  Food Security  Infrastructure  Intellectual Property Rights  Transparency and accountability  Gender  Competition  Trade Facilitation  Informal Economy The first step in the search and winnowing process is to assemble a list of candidates both as large as those in the preceding lists, but more specific if available. The second step is to narrow the list using criteria set by RDMA. The third step is to refine the subject area by identifying more specific topics within the area that are feasible to address with a project. This is not a trivial task. Many subjects have merit but may not permit meaningful work. An illustration of a relatively specific problem for RDMA’s consideration: Anti competition practices with country applications in ASEAN Anti-competition practices - remove incentives to producers to respond to market incentives and reduce producers’ incomes - stop or inhibit introduction and adoption of new productivity technologies from reaching producers RATE and respondents to evaluation team interviews in Thailand and Vietnam noted anti￾competitive behavior (in Vietnam for fish produced in the north west) by traders buying product from small holders. Monopolistic practices are common in many specific agriculture and aquaculture markets and tend to be more common in remote areas. Collusion among traders adversely affects small holders. Low farm gate or pond gate prices are a detriment to farmers and aquaculture producers. Rent-seeking authorities also create or contribute to anti competition behavior. Multiple respondents recommended a private-public engagement focus on problems of trafficking and labor migration in aquaculture. 45 ANNEX ONE USAID/RDMA Statement of Work for a Midterm Performance Evaluation of the Maximizing Agricultural Revenue through Knowledge, Enterprise Development and Trade (MARKET) Project RFP-486-000040 USAID/Regional Development Mission for Asia General Development Office Statement of Work for Midterm Performance Evaluation of MARKET Project I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A) Identifying Information 1. Project: Maximizing Agricultural Revenue through Knowledge, Enterprise Development and Trade (MARKET) 2. Award Number: AID-486-TO-11-00009 3. Award Dates: September 28, 2011 – March 27, 2015 4. Total Estimated Cost: $9,974,233 5: Implementing Organization: Nathan Associates Inc. 6: COR: Sylvie Doutriaux The Maximizing Agricultural Revenue through Knowledge, Enterprise Development, and Trade (MARKET) project is a 3.5-year initiative with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to strengthen food security for the organization’s citizens and contribute to ASEAN integration. It began in September 2011 and will end in March 2015. This mid-term performance evaluation of MARKET will assess the performance of the project against its goals and objectives and will identify, as appropriate, changes in the project’s design and implementation so as to enhance its effectiveness and impact for the remainder of MARKET's tenure, through 2015. B) Development Context 1. Background and Problem Addressed Despite the historical gains from the Green Revolution and the dynamic macro-economies in the region, nearly two-thirds of the world’s 1.4 billion poor live in Asia, including 84 million in Southeast Asia alone. Food security emerged as a priority issue following sudden spikes in the prices of basic food staples over 2007-08. Asia was the epicenter of this worldwide crisis, and the severity in this region was primarily due to a lack of a sophisticated and open market for regional trade in food commodities. 46 The price fluctuations, influenced by a variety of factors, exposed the fragility of Asia regional commodity trade markets. Strong regional markets allow food to flow quickly, efficiently and in just the right quantities, increasing food availability and reducing the volatility of food prices. A top priority in the Asia region is to prevent counterproductive policy responses to price movements in the future and deepen its intra-regional markets for food commodity trade. In general, international trade – and agricultural trade in particular – (1) increases economic growth, creates employment prospects and increases the income earning capacity of the poor; (2) increases domestic food supplies to meet consumption needs; (3) reduces overall food supply variability; (4) makes more efficient use of world resources; and (5) permits global production to take place in those regional more economically suited to it. Wide and open trade can be the best guarantor of regional food security. Integration increases market access for agricultural outputs and inputs, which in turn improves producers’ ability to make sustained investment in agricultural technologies. Economic integration through regional agreements can also reduce the risk of reversion towards protectionism, locking in reforms already made and encouraging a trend toward further free market policies. MARKET aims to promote well-organized markets and low-cost trade within ASEAN by strengthening private sector engagement and encouraging the sector to apply its supply chain management “know how” and marketing “know who.” Regional integration is a key component of this project. Political boundaries create economic and institutional fragmentation, which acts as a major constraint to the elevation of poorer states to the level of economic development of their richer neighbors and prevents expanded access to regional markets. One key aspect of regional coordination is the design and promotion of sound public policy. In terms of food security, the need for a rationalized food commodity trade policy in Southeast Asia is urgent. One way to address trans-boundary challenges from a regional platform is to work through regional institutions to build their capacity and effectiveness. For MARKET, the most important regional government body in Southeast Asia is ASEAN. MARKET works through a ‘region-led’ strategy by providing quality technical assistance to the ASEAN Secretariat to support its own food security priorities, as outlined in the ASEAN Integrated Food Security (AIFS) framework, and associated Strategic Plan of Action for Food Security (SPA-FS). In addition, MARKET works with ASEAN to improve the enabling environment for trade in the region by focusing on policy and regulatory reform, as well as by establishing a platform for private sector engagement in regional agriculture. 2. Target Areas and Groups MARKET provides assistance to ASEAN as an organization and to the seven ASEAN Member States that are assistance-eligible: Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, 47 Thailand, and Vietnam.10 Feed the Future’s priority country in ASEAN is Cambodia. Below is a general map of ASEAN for reference. The key target groups for MARKET are government officials (ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Member State officials, members of the relevant ministries in targeted countries), private sector stakeholders (agriculture and food-related private companies, large and small, as well as individual farmers), and other entities such as regional civil society and non-governmental organizations (CSOs and NGOs). On a larger scale, by facilitating intra-regional trade, MARKET may potentially benefit business and entrepreneurship in all ASEAN member states in general, by providing opportunities for economic growth. C) MARKET Approach and Implementation & Intended Results MARKET is intended to provide flexible and demand-driven support to the ASEAN Secretariat and ASEAN Member States to implement the AIFS framework and the SPA-FS, with a particular focus on Strategic Thrusts: (2) Promote Conducive Food Market and Trade; and (5) Encourage Greater Investment in Food and Agro-based Industry to Enhance Food Security. The overall goal of MARKET is to strengthen the ASEAN institutional platform for improving regional food security. 10 Brunei and Singapore are not assistance-eligible, and Burma is currently not assistance-eligible through U.S. Government Development Assistance funds. 48 The project has two coordinated and mutually supportive objectives. The first focuses on improving the enabling environment for trade through the ASEAN Secretariat, while the second focuses on private sector involvement in the regional food trade regime: Support ASEAN to harmonize the regulatory environment for food trade. Increase private sector and civil society engagement in regional agricultural policy making. The development hypothesis underlying MARKET is that private sector engagement combined with public-private dialogue will lead to regulatory improvement and new private sector investment, and thereby increase intra-regional trade, increase food security, and reduce poverty and hunger in Southeast Asia. The project provides a combination of technical assistance, training, and facilitation to ensure progress toward these objectives, and it aims to achieve the following kinds of successes as a result of its combined efforts with other related activities in the region: Select regional policies are reformed and key transnational constraints to trade are addressed through regional coordination, leading to an improved enabling environment for trade and agricultural production. The relationship between ASEAN and the private sector is strengthened; a formal mechanism to enhance private sector engagement is established, with suitable consideration of the interests of small businesses. Regional CSOs, NGOs, and others, benefit from increased access to ASEAN decision-makers and are in a stronger position to advocate for regional food security needs on behalf of the population of ASEAN Member States. The goals of MARKET are closely aligned with the aims of ASEAN as well as the objectives of the Feed the Future Presidential Initiative. MARKET aims to enhance regional integration for food security and networking between civil society, private sector, and governments to sustainably reduce poverty and growth through country-led regional approaches that establish lasting foundations for economic growth and improved nutrition. MARKET is also aligned with the overall objective of the RDMA Feed the Future Program to “expand intra-regional food commodity trade in Southeast Asia.” The RDMA FTF Program aims to achieve this objective through a two-pronged approach focused on (1) improving the enabling environment for trade and (2) increasing the availability and access to information and new technologies through increased private sector involvement in the regional food trade regime. MARKET is guided by a Results Framework and a Results Chain that outlines goals in terms of outputs, outcomes, and impacts (see MARKET PMP in Annex 1). 49 Although the approach above outlines the context and high-level goals MARKET aims to achieve through the Results Framework, please note that this performance evaluation will not be expected to assess causality and impacts of the project, nor of the progress of ASEAN throughout the region in food security. This evaluation will however examine progress at the input, output and outcome levels that are likely to advance the goals of MARKET (e.g., trade investments, drafts of agreements, perceptions of private-public dialogue process). D) Existing Documents and Data Evaluators will have access to the following documents and data in order to understand the project context: the award contract and its modification, Year 1 and Year 2 Work Plans, Annual, Quarterly and Weekly Reports, MARKET Performance Management Plan (PMP) and other M&E reports (Feed the Future Monitoring System), Project Activity Reports, and Project Communication Materials. These materials will be provided after award. The evaluation team will also have access to the ASEAN Integrated Food Security (AIFS) Framework and Strategic Plan of Action on Food Security in the ASEAN Region (SPA-FS) 2009 -2013, which is publicly available through the internet. The Regional Mission for Asia (RDMA) Feed the Future Multi-Year Strategy 2011-2015, of which MARKET is a large part of, is also available publically. The MARKET Results Chain is in Appendix 1. II. EVALUATION RATIONALE A) Evaluation Purpose, Audience, and Use This mid-term project performance evaluation will: Assess project implementation to date toward performance targets and project objectives of regulatory improvement and stakeholder engagement; Describe what project actions work well, need improvement, should be discontinued, or should be replicated or scaled up; Recommend specific opportunities to enhance project effectiveness and sustainability. The evaluation will emphasize certain activities – namely Activities 1, 4, and 5 – in the MARKET Year Two Workplan; however not to the exclusion of the remaining workplan activities. Activities 1, 4, and 5 are the core MARKET activities, and the others are support activities. Activity 1 focuses on strengthening and institutionalizing ASEAN public-private sector engagement on food security. Activity 2 identifies and targets priority issues that affect ASEAN’s food and agricultural trade and investment enabling environment. Activity 3 supports enactment of a new food law in Laos. Activity 4 focuses on identifying and addressing barriers to cross-border trade and investment in key food and agriculture value chains. 50 Activity 5 focuses on facilitating effective public-private sector dialogue on sustainable fisheries for food security. Activity 6 shares ideas for improving regional food security issues through public-private workshops and field visits. Activity 7 identifies gender-specific food security constraints and opportunities through public￾private sector engagement and conducts a commodity analysis. The primary user of this evaluation will be USAID/RDMA/GDO and the MARKET implementing partner Nathan Associates, as the information and recommendations garnered in this evaluation will be of assistance to them for understanding the project’s strengths as well as areas where technical, administrative and management efforts could be improved. Secondary users may include the ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Member State officials, and regional CSOs and NGOs for their own understanding and learning for future programming in facilitating regional trade policy for ASEAN. Relevant private sector members may also gain from an improved understanding of engagement with ASEAN. Other USAID Missions and other donors in the region that support similar regional trade programming (e.g., GIZ, AusAID) may also find this evaluation relevant. Lastly, organizations (e.g., ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Fisheries) that helped to organize MARKET public-private dialogues may benefit from this evaluation – as indicated in the table below. These stakeholders should be included in the dissemination plan for the evaluation report and out-briefing as appropriate. Table 1. Target Evaluation Users Stakeholder Benefit from Evaluation USAID/RDMA/GDO Project oversight and management Clearer gauge of implementing partner performance Recommended focus areas for future project implementation MARKET Implementing Partner (Nathan Associates) Project oversight and management Clearer gauge of progress in MARKET Information to inform further programming ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Member State officials, Regional CSOs Programmatic learning on strengthening ASEAN trade policy facilitation Relevant private sector members Programmatic learning on engagement with ASEAN Understanding opportunities for engaging in innovative ways with government and regional bodies Other USAID Missions and other donors in the region that support similar programming in trade facilitation Programmatic learning on strengthening regional trade policy Senior Officials from the ASEAN Ministers of Agriculture and Forestry, ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Fisheries, Southeast Asian Fisheries Programmatic learning on private-public sector dialogues 51 Development Center, ASEAN Seafood Federation, and regional organizations who assisted in organizing public-private dialogues B) Evaluation Questions The evaluation will be designed to answer these specific questions, in order of priority: Which activities have been perceived to effective, or ineffective, in advancing the MARKET objectives of regulatory/policy improvement and stakeholder engagement? Why? How much value do participants see in the regional public-private dialogues (and public-private taskforce), and why? C) Key Recommendations from the Evaluation These performance evaluation questions focus on project implementation, and as such these evaluation questions are considered “descriptive.” While the evaluation should address past performance, a main goal of this performance evaluation is to inform recommendations for specific opportunities to enhance project effectiveness and sustainability. Therefore, evidence should be garnered not only to empirically answer the evaluation questions above but also to generate programmatic recommendations on the following critical issues. Recommendations should highlight: Ways in which MARKET activities, or components thereof, can be strengthened or re-targeted. Potential changes to the regional public-private dialogue process which may improve stakeholder engagement and self-sustainability of the process by 2015 (end of MARKET funding). Sectors beyond fisheries and aquaculture that appear ripe for public-private dialogue, which can be implemented through MARKET. The regional-level policy reform work was de-emphasized in the Year 2 Work plan. The approach changed to focus on areas which MARKET felt it could make a concrete impact within the remaining two years of the project – for example, in working on food law in Laos. Secondly, aquaculture was identified as the commodity of focus. Are there other opportunities to support regional policy reform or opportunities to support other commodities that have been overlooked, and on which significant progress could be achieved by 2015? Are there other opportunities to achieve impact in Cambodia, the main Feed the Future focus country in ASEAN? Other opportunities for MARKET to support food security in Asia (with or without ASEAN) that have not been pursued to date, and the role MARKET – or another project – might play? Are there opportunities to support food security in Cambodia? The evaluation must also address gender implications in programming. 52 III. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Evaluation Design and Methodology The evaluation methodology will be collaborative and participatory with input from USAID staff, the implementing partner--Nathan Associates, ASEAN staff, country government officials, and key individuals from the private sector and civil society. The majority of this evaluation will be performed through interviews (telephone and in-person) and document review. Surveys and site visits will also be conducted with MARKET regional and national beneficiaries and selected partners in the targeted ASEAN areas. As there will be a final evaluation for MARKET in approximately one-and-a-half years, survey and interview questions should be planned at this stage to gauge changes over time. A triangulation approach to data collection and analysis is expected. Both quantitative and qualitative data should be collected. The team will review the available reports and data, and then conduct surveys and interviews with key stakeholders. Key informant interviews and surveys will be critical sources of information and should be conducted with USAID staff and the implementing partner at an early stage of the evaluation. Telephone interviews will be arranged where appropriate to minimize travel. The evaluation team will be responsible for carrying out the evaluation and developing a detailed evaluation design to answer the evaluation questions. As we anticipate that a final evaluation of MARKET will take place in approximately one and a half years, data collection instruments for this mid-term evaluation should be designed with a longitudinal viewpoint – for example, in planning for survey questions to be repeated in the final evaluation, to allow for longitudinal analysis between the two data points. Data Analysis Methods Suggested data collection and analysis methods are listed below for illustrative purposes. The evaluation team will be expected to select a mix of quantitative and qualitative evaluation methodologies for the evaluation questions to be answered as rigorously and effectively as possible, given time and budget constraints. Data collection and analysis methods Desk Review of Materials: Review existing documents and information listed. Work with USAID/RDMA to acquire additional documents and information as needed. Internal Consultations: Meet with, or speak with over the telephone, key 53 internal stakeholders. These may include but are not limited to USAID/RDMA staff, the implementing partner Nathan Associates, and MARKET event organizers. Further interviews and data collection may be conducted again with these key stakeholders at a later stage if necessary. External interviews and focus group discussions: Conduct telephone and in￾person interviews and focus group discussions with collaborating partners, event organizers, and project beneficiaries – randomly selected from lists – amongst others, to allow for a range of perspectives. RDMA will provide preliminary lists of stakeholders to the evaluation team. Such consultations will be limited to individuals and organizations in key MARKET areas, to be prioritized based on mission and other stakeholder consultation. Qualitative data will be analyzed by using transcription and/or coding methods as appropriate. Quantitative surveys: Conduct surveys (via email, phone, or other means) will be conducted as necessary to gather quantitative information to provide initial input, confirm conclusions, or generalize findings on a larger scale. Evaluation Questions Illustrative Data Collection Method Illustrative Sampling or Selection Criteria Illustrative Disaggregation Which activities have been perceived to be effective, or ineffective, in advancing the MARKET objectives of regulatory/policy improvement and stakeholder engagement? Why? Key informant and in-depth interviews, surveys, focus group discussions, monitoring data review. Interviews with selected key informants (internal and external), surveys and interviews with randomized sample of activity participants, focus groups with available participants in target areas. By location, nationality and gender of participants, occupation of participants. How much value do participants see in the In-depth interviews, Interviews and surveys with By location, nationality and 54 regional public-private dialogues (and public￾private taskforce), and why? surveys, focus group discussions. randomized selection of participants, focus groups with select participants in target areas. gender of participants. IV. EVALUATION PRODUCTS Deliverables See Logistics and Schedules for an embedded list of deliverables. Reporting Guidelines The evaluation report will: Represent a thoughtful, well-presented, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in this project, what did not work, and why. Be a high quality technical report, in a professional writing style, which can be subjected to peer review and publication. Meet the criteria outlined in USAID’s Evaluation Policy. Address all evaluation questions included in this scope of work. Include all the key sections: cover sheet, table of contents and acronym list/glossary of terms, executive summary, introduction, background, evaluation objectives, evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions and lessons learned, recommendations, and any other sections requested. Include the scope of work as an appendix. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology, or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the technical office. Explain in detail the evaluation methodology, and include all the tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, check lists, and discussion guides in an appendix. Address relevant gender concerns within the project areas. Attention should be paid to gender issues during activity implementation and describe how both women and men involved were affected by the context or the work undertaken. Gender issues should be taken into account in the evaluation methodology. Disaggregate findings by gender and country (or other geographic category) as relevant. Disclose limitations to the evaluation, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g., recall bias, participant selection bias). Present evaluation findings as analyzed facts, evidence, and data – not as anecdotes, hearsay, or a compilation of opinions. Findings should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. Identify sources of information in an appendix. Clearly distinguish between conclusions, findings, and recommendations. 55 Present action-oriented, practical, and specific recommendations with defined responsibility for each action. Recommendations must be supported by a specific set of findings. Submit the final report to USAID/RDMA/PDO for the Development Experience Clearinghouse (report must be submitted to DEC within 90 days). With RDMA’s agreement, the document shall also be disseminated to target stakeholder users, as stated above, and it shall adhere to the criteria in the USAID Evaluation Policy for high-quality evaluations. V. TEAM COMPOSITION The evaluation team will consist of an independent Team Lead, an administrative assistant, and two technical staff from USAID, who have not been involved with the design nor implementation of MARKET to date. The Team Lead should have at least ten years of regional trade policy experience, including knowledge and experience related to agricultural policy and production, and public-private engagement, as well as at least two years of evaluation experience using both quantitative and qualitative methods. S/He must have at least a master’s level degree in a relevant analytical field, and a good understanding of the field of international development. It would be highly desirable for candidates to have experience working with and/or having intimate knowledge of regional international bodies such as ASEAN. S/He must be fluent in English and have exceptional organizational, analytical, writing, and presentation skills. Team management experience is also desirable. S/He will provide leadership for the team, finalize the evaluation design, coordinate activities, arrange meetings, consolidate individual input from team members, and coordinate the process of assembling the final findings and recommendations into a high quality document. S/He will write both the draft and final reports and will lead the preparation and presentation of the key evaluation findings and recommendations to USAID/RDMA and other partners. The Team Lead will be responsible for all deliverables. An administrative assistant will organize and manage data collection, conduct data entry, transcribe interviews, organize logistics for the evaluation team, and assist with data analysis as needed. Two USAID technical staff, one with experience in monitoring and evaluation and the other with experience in trade policy (neither of whom have been involved with the design nor implementation of MARKET) will also support the evaluation. They will provide guidance in evaluation design, methodology, and data analysis, conduct interviews, surveys, and focus groups, provide input into drafts of reports and presentations, and serve as the liaison between the Team Lead and USAID. The evaluation team will work together in a collaborative manner to implement the evaluation; all deliverables must reflect this joint effort in their narrative cohesion, analytical rigor and comprehensive coverage of the project evaluation. While the draft and final reports should include input from all team members, the Team Lead has ultimate responsibility for the quality 56 and timeliness of the final product. Coordination of activities, contacting, organizing, and facilitating of meetings with stakeholders can be distributed among the members of the evaluation team, under the leadership of the Team Lead. VI. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT A) Period of Performance This evaluation is expected to be conducted from approximately late June – early August 2013. Approximate Level of Effort for the Team Lead is 40 days (see Preliminary Schedule below). B) Logistics and Scheduling Preliminary Schedule Tasks Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 In-briefing, desk review, and preliminary meetings (any location*) Workplan / Methodology (any location*) Workplan / Methodology in person (Bangkok) Fieldwork & Analysis (Bangkok, Jakarta, Hanoi) Mid-point briefing (Bangkok) Draft report and presentation (Bangkok) Final report and virtual out-briefing 57 (any location)* *These may be conducted from any location, in collaboration with USAID/RDMA staff via skype or telephone. In-briefing, desk review, and preliminary meetings (4 days; from any location): The evaluation team will receive a briefing on the purpose of the evaluation from the MARKET COR and meet with other relevant USAID staff via skype or telephone. The team will review key project and related documents (see Existing Data above), and discuss the project and conduct evaluation planning with the MARKET Chief of Party and other key implementing partner staff. The evaluation team will conduct preliminary interviews and surveys as needed. Deliverable: An evaluation schedule will be submitted to the COR four business days after award. Workplan / Methodology (4 days; from any location): The evaluation team will develop appropriate methods for the evaluation, including interview questions and survey questions. The evaluation team will also agree on respective roles and responsibilities, people to meet, additional documents required, and other details. The evaluation methods should use participatory and consultative techniques, where practicable, and include collection and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data. A list of documents and potential initial interviewees will be provided to the evaluation team after contract signature. The evaluation team, however, will be responsible for expanding this list of interviewees as appropriate and for arranging the meetings and appointments so as to develop a comprehensive understanding of the project. The workplan and methodology will be discussed with the contractor and USAID staff. Feedback will be incorporated. Itineraries for field visits will be developed in conjunction with the contractor and USAID staff. Initial telephone calls and surveys will be conducted. Deliverable: Anticipated contacts (lists of key informants and potential interviewees and survey respondents) and draft data collection instruments will be submitted to the COR eight business days after award. The Team Lead will fly to Bangkok to meet the evaluation team in person. Workplan / Methodology in person (2 days; Bangkok): The evaluation team will meet in Bangkok to finalize workplan and methodology, and prepare for fieldwork. Field Work & Analysis (15 days; Bangkok, Jakarta, Hanoi): The evaluation team will conduct field work, as set out in the evaluation work plan and methodology in Thailand, Indonesia, and potentially Vietnam. Data entry and analyses will be conducted. 58 Deliverable: An update on progress in the field and preliminary findings will be submitted to the COR seven business days after start of field work. Mid-Point Evaluation Briefing (1 day; Bangkok): At the completion of the field work, the evaluation team will hold a mid-point de-briefing session to present initial findings, and seek feedback from USAID staff and other relevant partners on these preliminary findings. Draft Report Preparation and Presentation (8 days; Bangkok): The evaluation team will prepare a draft report and present their initial findings and recommendations to interested parties, including USAID/RDMA Mission Director, eight days after the mid-point briefing. Comments will be invited from the contractor and relevant USAID staff, including USAID/RDMA Mission Director. (See Appendix 2 for guidelines for the presentation.) Final Report Preparation and Virtual Out-Briefing (6 days; from any location): The evaluation team will incorporate changes and comments and submit a final written report six days after receiving comments on the draft report. The final report should be about 30-40 pages, excluding annexes, in line with Reporting Guidelines. Upon approval of the USAID evaluation COR, the contract is considered complete and will include the relinquishment to USAID of all notes, files, reports, and other materials used in preparation of the evaluation report. All soft data information including instruments and data in formats suitable for reanalysis will be transferred to USAID. Evaluation Criteria: The proposal received in response to this Request for Proposal for the “Team Lead” position will be evaluated in accordance with the technical evaluation criteria set forth below: Applicant’s ability to fulfill the requirements of the “Team Lead”, indicated above in Section V “Team Composition”; At least ten years of experience in regional trade policy, trade facilitation, agriculture and food security policy, private-public sector engagement, and international development; Demonstrated ability to plan, design, and implement results-based program evaluations, including coordinating a team to effectively facilitate technical meetings, discussions, surveys, and interviews; Possession of superior analytical, written, and verbal communication skills to synthesize and present evaluation findings into a draft and final report with recommendations; Experience working with a diverse range of actors including government agencies, private sector, NGOs, specifically experience with leaders of multilateral institutions (e.g. ASEAN) desired. Statements of interest for the “Team Lead” position must include (1) a cover letter, (2) 2-page CV, (3) three references, (4) one sample of a previous report for which the Offeror was the 59 main writer of the report, and (5) a short proposal (e.g. 2-3 page summary of how the Offeror would approach or design the evaluation if given the opportunity). Appendix 1. MARKET Results Chain 60 Appendix 2. GUIDE TO USAID/RDMA EVALUATION PRESENTATIONS This document is intended to serve as a guide to evaluation teams in their presentations to the USAID’s Regional Development Mission for Asia (USAID/RDMA). Once an evaluation has been completed, the team leader should convene a debriefing meeting with team members, including the appropriate USAID/RDMA staff to agree to the terms of the draft final report and formal presentation to the Mission. The evaluation team should debrief the technical team on items to be presented, including but not limited to: evaluation findings, results, prioritization of results, concerns and recommendations. The evaluation team should schedule this debrief no later than one day before the presentation. Below is a suggested format to evaluation presentations. Presentations should include, but are not limited to: PRESENTATION TOPIC TIME (estimated) 1) Introduction of Evaluation Team 5 2) Project Context & Overview Background Environment (i.e. context, including challenges) Project Objectives Project Main Activities Stage of Project upon Evaluation 5 3) Purpose/Focus of the Evaluation Purpose of Evaluation Evaluation Methodology Integration of USAID Evaluation Policy Standards 10 4) Evaluation Findings Summary of input from evaluation respondents Project Impacts Implementation Concerns 10 5) Overall Conclusions 5 6) Recommendations to USAID/RDMA, including recommended prioritization in light of overall programming context 10 TOTAL 45 minutes + up to 30 minutes of Q&A/discussion 61 General Tips and Considerations: Presentation should be clear and straight forward. Long text and reading off slides can lose the audience’s attention. Providing the appropriate USAID/RDMA staff a draft of the presentation slides at least one day in advance for comment is strongly recommended. The presentation should focus on the evaluation findings and conclusions and specifically link findings to decision-making steps. Consider distributing project and evaluation background to meeting participants prior to presentation. 62 ANNEX TWO MARKET Special Issue Aquaculture Areas and Implementing Partners MARKET Activity MARKET Partners or anticipated partners Establish an ASEAN Public-Private Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Fisheries (ASWGFi) Develop an ASEAN Good Aquaculture Practices (GAP) Standards Certification Scheme ASEAN Seafood Federation and/or other relevant organization including private sector groups, GSSI, FIT Fund Improve Regional, National And Farm-level Aquatic Disease and Health Management NACA, the ASEAN Public￾Private Informal Taskforce for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture (Informal Taskforce) Promote Sustainable Aquaculture Feed Management Practices South East Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC), U.S. Soybean Export Council, Informal Taskforce, other relevant organizations to be determined Promote Zonal Management Policies and Practices for Aquaculture Production Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP), private sector organizations, other donor projects Brief on two MARKET partners The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) http://www.seafdec.org/index.php/ The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) is an autonomous inter￾governmental body established in 1967. The mandate of SEAFDEC as endorsed by the 41st Meeting of the SEAFDEC Council is "to develop and manage the fisheries potential of the region by rational utilization of the resources for providing food security and safety to the people and alleviating poverty through transfer of new technologies, research and information dissemination activities". SEAFDEC comprises 11 Member Countries: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The Center operates through the Secretariat located in Thailand and has four Technical Departments, namely: the Training Department; the Marine Fisheries Research 63 Department; the Aquaculture Department; and the Marine Fishery Resources Development and Management Department. The Secretariat The SEAFDEC Secretariat is mandated to coordinate and oversee the general policy and planning of the Center, and acts as the focal point for channelling and implementing the decisions and resolutions of the SEAFDEC Council of Directors. In addition, the Secretariat also organizes regular SEAFDEC meetings to obtain directives and guidance from the Member Countries on the operation of the organization, as well as regional technical consultations and meetings on issues as recommended by the Member Countries. Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP) Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (VASEP) is a non-governmental organization, based on the principles of volunteer, autonomy and equality. VASEP members include leading Vietnamese seafood producers and exporters and companies providing service to the seafood sector. The association was established on June 12th 1998 to coordinate and link enterprises operations, based on mutual supports to improve value, quality and competitive capacity of Vietnamese seafood, enhance creating raw material for seafood export, represent and protect legal interests of members. VASEP members include enterprises of all economic forms, administrative agencies and authorities in seafood exporting and processing sectors of Vietnam, who accept VASEP rules and charter, voluntarily join the association and approved by executive committee. Most of VASEP members are prestige seafood producers and exporters, represent 80% of the total seafood exports of Vietnam; the others are service enterprises http://www.seafood.vasep.com.vn/148/OneContent/about-vasep.htm 64 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523