USAID - ANGOLA
RURAL GROUP ENTERPRISES AND 
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING IN 
ANGOLA (RGE/AMOA)
Mid-Term Evaluation Report
July 2004
Funded by the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID)
Submitted by:
Elsa Mapilele
Gomes Cambuta
Jerry Brown
Cooperative Agreement No. 654-00-00065-00
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
2
Executive Summary
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
3
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the literally hundreds of farmers, NGO representatives, USAID 
and other government officials, business representatives, and CLUSA staff who made 
this report possible. However, we take responsibility for any mistakes in the report and 
for the report’s conclusions and recommendations. 
Acronyms 
CS Service Centers
CLUSA Cooperative League of the United States of America
IDA Agriculture Development institute
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
MINADER Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
NGO Non-governmental organization
RGE Rural Group Enterprise, also referred to as a farmers’ association 
RGE/AMOA Rural Group Enterprises and Agricultural Marketing in Angola 
(the name of CLUSA’s program in Angola)
UCANA National Farmers Union
USAID United States Agency for International Development
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
4
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
Acknowledgements iv
Acronyms iv
1. Background 1
2. Evaluation Objectives 4
3. Evaluation Methodology 5
4. Project Implementation Approach 6
4.1. Geographic Focus 6
4.2. Project Beneficiaries 17
4.3 Gender Considerations 20
4.4 Statement of Project Results 22
4.5 Project Cost Effectiveness 28
5. Partnerships 30
6. Project Management and staff 32
7. Lessons Learned 33
8. Recommendations 42
9. References 42
10. Appendixes 42
Annex A. Scope of Work: Rural Group Businesses 43
Annex B. Contacts, Field Visits and Key Documents 50
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
5
1. Background
Context:
The almost three decades of civil war in Angola destroyed the agriculture sector, 
disrupted the production systems, credit schemes and market network. As such, farmers 
were left with no productive assets to support production. Such a trend created three 
smallholder agricultural sectors:
· One that was and is still relief dependent;
· One that is stable but primarily oriented toward subsistence production; and 
· One that has a traditional orientation toward commercial markets, but lost the 
share of market it had gained in the past.
Therefore, this project was developed to address production and marketing concerns in 
selected locations that were relatively secure or conflict free during war time. 
Since in spite of poor infrastructure, Angola has the potential to create a much more 
efficient and productive agricultural sector that can provide benefits to smallholders as 
well as urban and peri-urban poor, an important feature of the project was to create more 
economic opportunities to the rural farming families by assisting them to improve access 
to markets both for the purchase of inputs and the selling of their produce.
Project objectives:
The overall objective of this project was and is still to improve food security and increase 
incomes of small-scale farmers in targeted communities. In order to accomplish this 
objective, the project concentrates on activities that contribute to increasing effectiveness 
of agricultural production and marketing. 
Project proposed components:
This project encompasses three principal components as described bellow:
1) Producer Organization Development and Training
The starting point for breaking the vicious cycle affecting most small producers is the 
development of reliable markets. To sell into these markets, the producers must
become dependable suppliers, capable of meeting the quality, volume, and timeliness 
requirements in a cost-effective manner. Producer associations are the key to this type 
of effective supply. By grouping individual small farmers together, critical mass and 
economies of scale can be achieved in input distribution and crop marketing. 
Effective member screening and improved loan recovery minimizes risk, increasing 
access to production and investment credit. Producer organizations also provide the 
framework for a cost-effective system for introducing new technology. 
 2) Agricultural technology transfer
This component focuses on transfer of agricultural technology to small-scale producers.
CLUSA uses a market driven, hands on, small farmer oriented, learn-by-doing approach 
to technology transfer. Although the project still emphasizes the production of vegetable 
crops which are perceived to be high value crops, great emphasis was expected to be put 
on off-season production support services as a means to take advantage of high demand 
for vegetables at the time of scarcity. Such a scheme was regarded to offer greater 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
6
opportunity for profitability. There was also an attempted to introduce conservation 
farming practices in Huila as part of the technical assistance component. 
 (3) Market linkages and establishment of service centers
This component focuses on collection and dissemination of market information, 
facilitation of access to credit, establishment of service centers, identification of market 
opportunities and negotiation of contracts, development of production/business plans. 
The aim of this component of the project is to assist producers to achieve more surplus 
production for the market, revitalize rural economy and improve their capacity to capture 
a larger share of the Angolan market. 
Expected results:
This project anticipated the following set of results:
· Increased food security and farmer’s incomes
· Improved farmer organization
· Increased business opportunities and services for small-scale producers
Skill enhancement 
2. Evaluation Objectives
The evaluation has two main objectives which are stated as follows:
a) assess project compliance with the original project design, particularly in relation 
to geographic focus, project components, proposed activities and expected results.
b) assess progress and make pertinent recommendations for the remaining period of 
the life of project.
3. Evaluation Methodology
This evaluation was conducted using the following methodology:
a) field visits;
b) interviews with groups of farmers/producers getting assistance from the project
c) literature review; and
d) interviews with CLUSA field staff, core team, and partners.
4. Project Implementation Approach
The CLUSA Angola program, Rural Group Enterprises and Agricultural Marketing in 
Angola (RGE/AMOA), started operating in September 26, 2001. However the first six 
months were for establishment and identification of opportunities. Therefore the effective 
project operation activities only started in April 2002, when the implementation plan was 
designed. The project will end in December 2005.
CLUSA Angola proposed itself to use basically a three tier strategy to reach out 
smallholder farmers and build their capacity to ensure that the groups of farmers 
participate in and benefit from competitive high value markets. The first strategy, 
capacity building, is the foundation of all sustainable smallholder participation in 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
7
competitive markets and consists of establishing and or strengthening existing network of 
democratic producer-owned and controlled rural group enterprises [and or cooperatives –
strategy to copy with the problem of legalizing associations] and provides them with 
necessary tools to be able to identify potential markets. The second strategy, improve the 
quality of existing crops through facilitation of access to inputs and technologies. The 
third strategy consists of identifying and facilitating linkages between smallholder farmer 
producers and buyers and agribusinesses required for smallholders to be able to sell their 
product(s) in reliable and high value markets.
4.1. Geographic focus
i) Mission recommended geographic focus
Intermediate Result 5.2; “High Value Crops Produced and Marketed More Effectively”, 
is the focus of this project. USAID/Angola envisioned this IR to be implemented in the 
relatively secure and developmentally accessible areas such as Cabinda, Luanda, 
Benguela, and Kwanza Sul and in western Huila province. These stable areas have 
offered better access conditions into the rural areas, safer movement and available 
transportation of goods and people, larger land holdings per family allowing for 
production of fruit and plantation crops, increased irrigation availability and increased 
production of non-staple food. The IR 5.2 focuses on more developmentally oriented 
activities primarily in the field of improved marketing and farmer association 
development while maintaining the overall emphasis on the small holder producers rather 
than the large commercial farms.
ii) CLUSA selected geographic focus
CLUSA carried out a detailed study of the potential target areas, leading to the
identification of Humpata, Chibia, Riovale, Palanca, Tchvinguiro and Neves. in Huila 
Province and Dungo, Boa Esperança and Cabiri-Mabuia. 
in Bengo Province as the most suitable areas for the start-up of the CLUSA activity.
The study conducted by CLUSA revealed the following important characteristics which 
together with the agriculture potential contributed for the selection of those locations:
· Both provinces have always been secure and would allow for a wide intervention 
of the program.
· Both provinces have a strong tradition of small scale agricultural production for 
emerging markets and have a number of operating producer organizations;
· It was assumed that each of the provinces had a good road network and a 
reasonable processing and institutional agriculture support infrastructure;
In addition, the selection of Bengo, part of Luanda's green belt, was seen as a key strategy 
for CLUSA and the farmer organizations to get to know better the Luanda market and 
identify reliable buyers for small scale agriculture production. This was going to be 
critical for the expansion of the program to Benguela and Kwanza Sul in year 2.
iii) Current status
The project has been implemented in the above mentioned CLUSA selected locations. 
However, while implementation was initiated in Bengo and Huila and is currently being 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
8
gradually expanded into Benguela and Kwanza Sul provinces, it has also been expanded 
into Northern municipalities of Kalukembe and Caconda. Those two municipalities offer 
great potential for rain-fed production of maize and beans. The expansion into Northern 
municipalities was supported with the establishment of two in-kind rotating credit 
schemes; one for maize and bean seed and another one for provision of animal traction 
and plows. Despite the fact that reliance on rains for agriculture production has proved to 
be inefficient to promote food security and rural poverty alleviation, the provision of 
cattle for animal traction will enable farmers expand their areas under cultivation, which, 
if complemented with appropriate packages such as input supply, modern agriculture 
techniques and strong rural based community organizations, this intervention is likely to 
offset the disadvantages of reliance on rains. To accomplish this result there has to be a 
strong emphasis on market information, commodity grading so that farmers are guided by 
viable commercially oriented systems 
While the production support services are proving to serve the purpose of increasing 
production levels, thereby generating production surplus and stimulating the market, 
there is still an enormous challenge to be addressed, in relation to the effectiveness of 
informal vs. formal markets to purchase local production and pay a competitive price.
Although the agriculture potential of selected locations is high, spreading resources thinly 
across too many locations is proving difficult for CLUSA to consolidate presence, have a 
stronger program and meet targets.
4.2. Project beneficiaries
The project targeted mainly three groups of beneficiaries: small scale producers 
organized into existing associations, cooperatives or producer groups; medium-scale 
farmers who are currently producing high value crops but have difficulties accessing the 
market; and private enterprises (traders, processors and agribusinesses) that purchases 
commodities from rural group enterprises. For the later group, only the ones who are 
willing to provide technical assistance to producers complementary to the services 
provided by CLUSA and demonstrated a willingness to deal with farmers should be 
assisted.
The criteria used for selection of beneficiaries were: the producers must be located in 
landmine free and secure areas, a minimum of ten farmers in the existing group or cluster 
of farmers, have at least two years of experience growing that specific crop, have land 
under cultivation and water available, and reasonable assurance that a market exists for 
the crops of the producer group or association.
The evaluation team met with the two main groups of beneficiaries: smallholder farmers 
and the medium sized commercial farmer. Overall, the producers feel that the CLUSA 
project has brought to them several benefits including: access to high productivity inputs 
and technologies, access to credit, and training activities. One of the farmers mentioned 
that with CLUSA support he was able to purchase a bicycle that facilitates his contacts 
with other farmers. Another one mentioned that with CLUSA support he was able to 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
9
build a new concrete house. The increase in income generated by activities promoted by 
CLUSA has allowed farmers to purchase cattle, bicycles, cabritos, carroca and to build 
houses.
According to the Cooperative Agreement between USAID and CLUSA, it was estimated 
that by the end of the project period CLUSA activities will benefit directly 9,000 
producers and 47,600 indirect beneficiaries (see table bellow).
No. Direct 
Beneficiaries
Family 
members
Total 
Beneficiaries
Existing 
associations
10 300 5 1,500
New Groups/ 
associations
300 groups/ 
30 assoc.
9,000 5 45,000
Medium size 
farmers
20 220* 220
Total 9,520 47,600
* An average of 10 workers per medium size farm, excluding the seasonal labor.
4.3. Gender Considerations
In Angola women represent 51% of the total population of which 68% leave in rural 
areas (population census 1996). It is estimated that about 75% of them are engaged in 
agricultural production. In terms of household economic activities, subsistence 
agriculture or food crops tend to be an activity for which women are responsible 
especially for family consumption, while men tend to be responsible for cash crops 
production, industry and services. The surplus food crop production is sometimes sold in 
the local markets. Women also represent a major group of informal traders. CLUSA 
program proposed to overcome the constraints faced by women in rural areas, namely 
lack of access to land, credit, and technologies, by encouraging and supporting their 
participation in economic activities.
Boa Esperanca was the only one location that the evaluation team visited where of the 
number of producers assisted; few of themwere women which are also engaged in credit 
activities. In general women in those areas have smaller land and mainly produce under 
rain-fed conditions. They also mentioned about a group of 17 women, with 
approximately one hectare each, who are just getting started to produce horticulture. They 
have approached the service center to obtain training in horticulture production, credit 
management and marketing.
In general, technologies that are introduced to reduce the workload of agricultural 
production tend to favor men. For example, women’s access to price information is 
limited; agricultural credit or irrigation investments, when available, also targets cash 
crops for which men are typically responsible. Therefore, CLUSA should source 
technologies that also reduce the women workload.
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
10
4.4. Statement of project results
The sort of activities carried out by CLUSA in Angola supports the Mission Strategic 
Objective number 5, Enhanced Household Food Security in targeted Communities, 
specifically the Intermediate Results number one and two respectively, Vulnerable 
Households become Self-reliant and High Value Crops Produced and marketed 
Effectively.
To achieve the above mentioned results, CLUSA should report on the following main 
indicators:
· 30 % increase in total amount of high value crops that farmers’ association 
members sell or transport under contract by end of project.
· 30 % increase in number of agricultural commodities processed by producer 
associations.
· Gross sales by program assisted clients
· Number of producer groups, associations and members assisted per year
· Volume of credit reaching producers and repayment rates
· Number of companies and other enterprises doing business with producer groups.
The project proposed that by the end of the project period, 9,000 producers, representing 
at least 300 producer groups would be directly assisted by CLUSA.
The table bellow summarizes the achievements of CLUSA project as of June 2004:
Indicators EOP Goal
Level of Yr2 
Achievement %
Number of farmers accessing improved production technologies 9,000 5,967 66.3
Increased business opportunities and services for small scale 
producers 3000 3310 110.3
Amount of group sales faciliated to formal market 30% 158,669 kg N/A
Gross sales by program assisted clients ($) 30% $57,898.12 N/A
Number of producer-owned organizations created and assisted 300 382 127.3
Volume of credit reaching producers and repayment rates N/A $467,411.87 N/A
Repayment rates on credit (%) N/A $0.95 N/A
# companies and other enterprises doing business with producer 
groups 20 28 140.0
Source: CLUSA
Based on the results of the market study, the CLUSA implementation plan proposed to 
adopt the following strategy:
· Strengthen existing producer organizations and groups and support the creation 
of new producer groups capable of producing high quality products for pre 
identified markets;
· Improve the quality of existing crops;
· Identify and facilitate linkages with reliable buyers and agribusiness.
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
11
The results achieved will be therefore reported according to these three main categories:
(1) Strengthen existing producer organizations and groups and support the creation 
of new producer groups capable of producing high quality products for pre 
identified markets
Over the past 26 months since data has been accurately collected and compiled, 
smallholder associations have learned to track their members’ sales and reported making 
profits from selling high value agricultural commodities like potatoes, carrots, onions, 
tomato, cabbage, maize, etc. The project target of assisting 300 producer organizations/ 
solidarity groups by end of project (EOP) has been achieved and exceeded by 127% (382 
groups). CLUSA has managed to assist 6,650 direct beneficiaries has been achieved 
number of 5,967 (66.3%) and it is anticipated that the target of 9,000 be achieved in 
advance of the project’s completion date. Six cooperatives and associations have been 
created, of which two in Mabuia have been legalized and the one in Bengo and the three 
in Humpata are in process of being legalized. The Angolan cooperative law states that 
associations are not for profit organizations therefore, should not report revenues. 
However, cooperatives are for profit organizations.
The assistance provided to these farmer groups are mainly provided through the service 
centers. CLUSA has managed to successfully start 13 service centers in four provinces: 
Bengo (4), Huila (8), and Kwanza Sul (1). Service centers serve as suppliers of inputs to 
small-scale farmers, assess credit needs and repayment capacity, provide training and 
extension messages to producers, and serve as the main point for farmers to have access 
to market price information.
In partnership with MINADER, CLUSA has managed to have a weekly 15 minutes air 
time to disseminate market price information on a local radio with national coverage. 
They also produce a monthly leaflet that provides information about supply and demand 
for agricultural products, prices of products and respective transportation costs, sources, 
modalities and requirements for agricultural credit and other relevant information of 
marketing of agricultural commodities. The service centers represent the main 
mechanism to disseminate the information. The target groups for this information are 
producer organizations or groups and associations, governmental and non-governmental 
organizations, agribusiness companies, etc.
(2) Improve the quality of existing crops
Through promotion of high value crop production, usage of improved technologies, 
CLUSA assisted farmers are benefiting from increases in the income with the increase in 
productivity and quality of the products marketed. Most of the producers have managed 
to increase their surplus production through the usage of high quality inputs like 
improved seeds, fertilizers and pesticides and access to technologies: irrigation pumps 
and pipes, spraying tanks, etc.
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
12
CLUSA smallholder farmers’ associations are also engaging in producing more lucrative 
off-season vegetables on a constant mode throughout the year to increase their income. 
This effort includes support credit from Banco Sol. For example, CLUSA managed to 
leverage half a million dollars worth of credit with a commercial bank, Banco Sol, by 
providing a loan guarantee of $25,000 USD, representing 50% risk sharing on the 
approximately 10% of the non recovered loans.
At the service centers, producers explained to the evaluation team that most of the credit 
that they receive is basically from three sources: Institute for Development Agriculture 
(IDA), from Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, which is channeled to them 
through CLUSA at 10% interest rates for four months period. The second source of 
financing is Banco Sol which provides input credit as well as credit for irrigation 
equipment also at 10% interest yearly to be repaid in six months period. The third source 
of financing was through an input supplier, Agroinsumos, which provided credit on a 
pilot basis to a Lubango association to be repaid in three months time. For the period 
 Grand Total0 TD5632.7 Tw (i -13.5 ent9 Tj
186 0 TD24419 .5 0 ) Tj
034.5 0 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
13
Assisted farmers have mentioned that with the extra income that was generated by using 
good production inputs and technologies, they were able to extend they production areas, 
acquire more production equipment, build new houses, acquire transportation means, and 
support their families.
(3) Identify and facilitate linkages with reliable buyers and agribusiness
CLUSA strategy for reaching out this objective is to work with existing agribusinesses 
and processors to ensure that market exists for small-scale producers.
The evaluation team found out that for the first two years of project activities CLUSA 
assisted RGE only realized $57,898 in sales. This amount means that out of the total 
surplus production that producers managed to have only the ones that the farmers had 
contracts with a buyer and/or processor was recorded. 
It was also found out that producers do prefer to sell their production on their own 
because, according to them, they can sell in the informal market which is not very 
selective and pays higher prices that the formal market.
CLUSA assistance in concentrated in promotion of vegetables and fresh fruits, which are 
highly perishable goods, the joint marketing activities through the service centers is very 
weak. One of the reasons given was that the centers do not have the required facility to 
store fresh produce. However, even in the rain fed areas, marketing activities are almost 
non existent.
4.5. Other activities:
Under the policy scenario, CLUSA has initiated discussions with IDA, Agriculture 
Development Institute and CDP, Project Development Cooperative, issues related to 
legalization of farmers associations and cooperatives. One example on legalization of a 
cooperative is with Dungo Cooperative that has been taking over six months now and 
they have spent approximately $5,000 USD for the process. The second area of concern 
is trying to strengthen the partnership with the Government to ensure that farmers’ 
market access roads become also government’s priorities.
CLUSA has undergone some partnership relationships with the private enterprises, local 
and international NGOs, local government, and financial institutions. These partnerships 
are further discussed in the section six bellow. Some examples existing organization
partnerships include:
1. IDA – provided credit (Agriculture Development Support Fund – FADA) to the 
service centers for land preparation and establishment of the centers and provision 
of inputs (fertilizers) that were capitalized by the centers for rehabilitation 
activities.
2. WVI – provision of maize and bean seeds to farmers groups as in-kind credit. The 
reimbursement served as incentives for the animators.
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
14
3. CRS – CLUSA to train four technicians of CRS in association development, 
marketing and credit management.
4. CARE and Save the Children – rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructures and 
warehouses and seed multiplication.
5. ADRA – will work in partnership with CLUSA to joint implement a EU funded 
food security project (production and marketing).
Coordination with DAPs: 
ACTIVITIES MONTH A M J J A S O N D J F M
Sign MOU with interested DAPs 
TA and Monitor visits to DAP areas 
Assessment of areas for expansion of 
the program - Benguela and Kwanza 
Sul
Discussion of findings with mission, 
DAPs and partners
Final decision on expansion discussed 
with the mission, DAPs and other 
partners
Training activities
CLUSA has trained 2,002 people in different training subjects and 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
15
CLUSA Training modules and number of beneficiaries
Training module
No. 
events No. Beneficiaries
Association 
Development
Association 
Development/ 
Marketing 15
372 producers, 76 
animators, staff and 
service center managers
Service Center 
Management 7
90 service center 
managers, partners, staff, 
producers
Production Safe pesticide usage 4
11 staff and partners, 20 
producers
Production and 
Multiplication of 
cassava 1 50 producers
Cassava stake 
selection for 
multiplication 1 5 producers
Conservation farming 1
34 service center 
managers
Preparation of 
production business 
plans 1 60 producers (10 groups)
Marketing
Marketing of 
agricultural products 2 351 producers
Credit Credit Management 10
933 service center 
managers, partners, staff, 
producers
4.6. Summary of strengths and weaknesses of the CLUSA project 
A summary of the three key strengths of the CLUSA project is as follows:
· There are clear evidences from the field visits that assisted farmers are managing 
to increase income through high quality products as well as increase in 
productivity due to the usage of improved inputs and technologies.
· Credit management is another area where CLUSA has been achieving good 
results with repayment rates above 95%. The credit is sourced for purchase of 
inputs and equipments through a well established local commercial bank. Other 
credit schemes were also utilized. For example, in-kind credit through a rotating 
seed scheme (maize and beans); land preparation credit in partnership with IDA.
Profits generate through agricultural activity are one of the direct benefits of 
credit. The second benefit is the seed that can be stored to plant in the next season. 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
16
This allows farmers to generate more income in the second year without having to 
pay for more credits.
· The establishment of 13 Service Centers in the targeted communities. These 
centers serve as the main sources of input supply and technology transfer to 
small-scale farmers, facilitate linkages with buyers, negotiate contracts, serve as 
location for group meetings, training, and dissemination of market price 
information, analyze credit needs and repayments, provide TA to farmers. They 
also provide farmers with basic information on governance and democracy as 
well as generate employment.
A summary of the three key weaknesses of the CLUSA project is as follows:
· The baseline survey was never finalized and therefore it is almost impossible to 
realize any progress that CLUSA is making since we do not have the premises. 
The collection of data as well as the processing of the existing ones was not 
finalized.
· The project is not emphasizing the long term needs of the service centers. Most of 
the sourcing for buyers, as well as financing are done through CLUSA central 
office with very little involvement from the service center managers and/or 
producers.
· The criteria used by the project to decide on geographic areas coverage and crops 
to be promoted is not clearly defined and the roles of each staff member at the 
central level is also not clearly defined and keeps changing over time.
4.7. Implementation Strategy
CLUSA’s implementation strategy has undergone some changes in this first two years of 
operations resulting mainly from the different socio-economics trends that the project did 
not anticipate. These were:
· Realized that the majority of the assistance is focused in increase production and 
productivity in order to ensure that there is enough surplus production to be 
marketed.
· The marketing of fresh vegetables and fruits requires that the service center have 
a cold storage facility to ensure that production reaches the market in fresh 
conditions. Since these centers do not have those facilities, and because the 
centers do not want to bare the risk of carrying such highly perishable goods, 
most of the marketing activities are done through informal trade. In the few cases 
were there is a signed contract, then the trade is done through the formal markets, 
who according to the producers, are very selective and pay less than the informal 
market. Informal markets pay more than the formal ones and are less careful 
about quality and selection of the products which is a non incentive to promote 
quality. However, if long term relationships are to be built between farmers and 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
17
buyers, then formal market transactions have to be promoted.
· The program proposes to work basically in two provinces, Bengo and Huila, for 
the first year and expand to other two, Benguela and Kwanza Sul, later on during 
the project implementation. However, the project has expanded into Quenguela, 
where there is a processing plant. CLUSA is assisting farmers with the production 
technologies to provide raw material to the plant.
· In the Chibia region, CLUSA proposed to work in the livestock sector by 
promoting joint marketing of farmers’ associations’ cattle. The project realized 
that cattle marketing were not a good intervention area since producers do not sell 
them, rather they exchange for other products that they may need.
· Value added processing market linkages – activities should include development 
of value-added processing capacities and building linkages between small and 
medium scale producer organizations and buyers/processors. All the activities in 
this area were only concentrated in linking farmers with processors. For example, 
maize production for processing in Lubango, cassava production in Quenguela in 
partnership wit IITA for cassava development and low quality fruits for alcoholic 
processing in Lubango.
These implementation changes produced mixed results. (Which results?)
4.8 Project Cost Effectiveness
CLUSA’s Cooperative Agreement with USAID was for an amount not in excess 
$3,998,000 million of federal funds for activities to be carried out from September 2001 
through December 2005. The amount of funds obligated up to date is $2,997,044. 
According to the financial budget, by the end of year three CLUSA should have spent a 
cumulative total of $ 2,948,744. The total expenditures till March 04 was $2,469,262.27 
which means than until December 2004, CLUSA has only $ 479,482. Considering an 
average burn rate of $73,000 per month, then we can conclude that CLUSA is 
overspending. The project is considering reducing the monthly burn rate to an amount not 
in excess of $40,000. However this strategy may have severe implications in the 
achievement of CLUSA’s results: reducing the geographical coverage, reduce field level 
advisers, etc.
CLUSA agreed to raise another $1,201,500 million in non-federal funds. The program 
has already leveraged $762,000 (63.4%) in matching funds till June 2004, namely 
$600,000 (OFDA), $100,000 (IFAD), and 62,000 (EU/PMA) and has additional non￾federal funds commitments, from BP, IITA, ESSO, Chevron that may result in the 
program’s achieving and/or exceeding its match requirement. 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
18
5. Partnerships
5.1 Partnerships, alliance building and networking demonstrate new approaches to 
development the Agency has promoted over the last eight years. These approaches 
underpin participatory development strategies and projects contributing to “the new way 
of doing business” at USAID. 
5.2 Five categories of alliances, at least for this evaluation, directly contribute to 
agriculture enterprise and agriculture sector development. These categories serve as 
criteria to determine the breadth of partnership CLUSA has developed over the last two 
years in Angola. The categories are:
· Scientific research and technology transfer partnerships 
Usually developed between International Agriculture Research Centers, 
universities, non government organizations (NGO), this type emphasizes moving 
technologies and knowledge across geographic areas to address off farm 
development relief and small scale commercial production in order to introduce, 
for the most part, new seeds, improved nutrition, low input cultural practices, and 
locally produced equipment. When the private sector joins this alliance, small 
scale commercial farmers increase their productivity permitting them to compete 
in areas of quality assurance, price and consistence of supply on local, regional 
and extra-regional markets. Examples: Seeds of Freedom, Southern Africa Roots 
and Tuber Network
· Public and Private Sector Alliances in support to agriculture enterprise 
development. This category takes many forms and directions. The most 
frequently proposed in Africa provides access to formal markets to small scale 
commercial producers. While private industry may subcontract to small 
enterprises (farmers, food processors, transporters, etc), more often than not, 
larger firms will commit technical assistance, mentoring, agricultural inputs, 
funding or in-kind contributions. Example: Cabinda Agribusiness Development 
Alliance 
· Partnering to Strengthen Civil Society Maturity. This category may include 
NGOs, international donors and producer groups and other participants. NGOs 
assist international donors and government to strengthen producer groups to 
manage finances, improve governance, deliver demand driven services and 
formalize communication linkages – all necessary for organizational development 
and maturity. Example: National Farmers Association of Malawi. Zambia 
National Farmers Union
· Private Foundations, Scientific Research/Technology Institutions and private 
industry alliances to strengthen emerging sub-sectors. This category of alliances 
provides innovative and cost effective approaches to empowering a broad 
segment of the agriculture sector. Fostering scientific based agriculture enterprise 
development approaches, small, medium and large scale food and agriculture 
producers benefit not only from strategically placed resources, but also from new 
concepts, information networks and technologies. Examples: Agribusiness in 
Sustainable Natural African Plant Products, Seed Development Program
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
19
· Information Networking. This category is broad, rich among alliance builders 
and endless value to well established and embryonic organizations. Examples: 
Environmental Information Network, CropNetwork.
5.3 CLUSA should be heralded for fully embracing the partnership approach to 
agriculture and agriculture enterprise development in Angola. With over 50 partnerships 
in at least four out of the five above criteria, CLUSA demonstrates that alliance building 
is not a slogan but the way it does business. The section sets out to describe the types and 
contributions partnerships provide to CLUSA utilizing the five aforementioned 
categories. More specifically, the aim is to identify how CLUSA beneficiaries, 
collaborators and staff benefit from alliance building. In some cases, it is possible to 
quantify how CLUSA leverages its financial resources and clout to benefit small scale 
farmers, private industry and other partners. (See CLUSA Partnership Table attached)
5.4 The Information Age forges the greatest number of alliances to the Program of Rural 
Group Enterprise and Agricultural Marketing in Angola. Moving from the largest to the 
smallest potential impact the biweekly radio program “Voices of the Field” disseminates 
market prices and general agricultural information though the Angolan National Radio. 
The outreach provided by this alliance permits regular exchanges about technical 
assistance, training, agriculture policy dialogue and socio-cultural information among 
organizations like the Institute for Agronomic Research, MAVICO, ADRA/Angola, 
Norwegian Popular Aid, Africare and ZOA (Dutch NGO). Conventional information 
sharing is not overlooked. CLUSA promotes the collection and dissemination of market 
information through monthly bulletins, Relampago.
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
20
Table 1 Information Partnerships
Institutions Type of 
Partnership* Partner Activities
Angolan National Radio I Biweekly radio program ‘Voice of the Field’ for 
disseminating market prices and agricultural 
information
Office of Food Security (GSA) 
/MINADER (The Ministry of 
Agricultural and Rural Development), 
Luanda
I Sharing market information and air time at 
Angolan National Radio
Provincial and local services of 
IDA/MINADER in all intervention areas
I, Identifying intervention areas, securing lands 
for small farmers, collecting and disseminate 
market information and CLUSA intervention 
models
Municipal and local administrative and 
traditional authorities
I Sharing information on intervention areas and 
methodologies
World Vision International (WVI) I,T,E Sharing information and training opportunities 
in marketing, credit, producer organizations and 
conservation farming; seed supply and 
multiplication
Save of Children Federation (US) I,T Information and experience sharing in Gabela, 
Kwanza Sul; Construction of irrigations dams 
and channels; Technical assistance to 
production 
Africare I Collaboration on procuring and using 
agribusiness volunteers through Land O Lakes; 
Sharing information and experience on training 
and TA
Angolan ADRA I Discussion on strategic partnership for policy 
reforms related to land tenure, legalization of 
cooperatives and agricultural credit; Sharing 
market information and training opportunities; 
Anticipated joint intervention under a food 
security project proposal submitted to EU in 
Ganda municipality, Benguela
AICF – International Association 
Against the Hunger, North of Huila
I,T Exchange of information and experience and 
willingness to design and implement joint 
project on food security with funds from EU 
and USAID
MAFICO – Lubango, Huila I Information and experience sharing
CARITAS- North of Huila I,T Participation in the literacy program in the 
North of Huila; Information and experience 
sharing in organizing in kind credits (seeds and 
animals for traction) and marketing activities
ACCORD, Lubango I Information sharing in Lubango, Huila
Source: Interviews with CLUSA Staff; I – (?), T – (?), E – (?)
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
21
5.5 While not as explosive as the fall out from the Information Age, alliances emanating 
from the private sector is respectful with potential long term impact and relationships. 
CLUSA/Angola orchestrates direct contact, in many cases for the first time, between 
small scale farmers and the formal business sector. And, as important, all parties 
engaged in the alliance benefit. For example, Ligalu, a small scale seed and agricultural 
inputs company benefits from its informal alliance with CLUSA gaining new small 
holder customers and providing access to small volume, affordable products. Small 
volume input providers are not common place in sub-Saharan Africa, therefore, Ligalu 
and companies like it, benefit from NGOs who organize small farmers to buy inputs in 
moderate volumes. This is obviously a “win- win” situation for CLUSA, small scale 
farmers and the input supplier. The same is true for all the input suppliers 
(AGRINSUMOS, NAVAROS, etc) partnering with CLUSA farmer associations.
CLUSA’s agriculture enterprise partnerships are numerous and have already begun to 
rack up financial, technical and household level intermediate results. Through verbal 
alliances and gentlemen’s agreement between CLUSA, Shop-Rite Supermarket, Sodispal 
and Rulal (supermarkets) and farmer associations, representatives from latter in 
Gabela/Kwanza Sul , Neves/Huila (1.5 tons in 2003), Humpata/Huila sell tons of 
potatoes, carrots and onion. Supermarkets foster the entrance of farmer association 
products into formal markets, therefore, facilitating price, quality and consistency in 
supply competition with suppliers from South Africa, France and elsewhere. In addition 
to diversifying their market base, the farmer associations, for the first time, focus on 
production costs and greater efficiency and productivity.
5.6 Nevertheless the agriculture enterprise/market linkages partnership pale by 
comparison to the credit/financial services alliance building, the centerpiece of both 
production support services and market support services of the project. CLUSA skillfully 
manages the relationship between Banco Sol and 424 farmer associations in four 
provinces. Credit provision for land preparation, seeds, pesticides and fertilizer positions 
small scale farmers with as little as .10 hectares, through solidarity group lending 
schemes, clear as much as $700 per growing season from Irish potato production. And it 
is duly noted, that farmers in Huila Province cultivate three crops annually.
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
22
Table 2 Rack up of Leveraged Funds
Organization Type of Partnership Funds leveraged
International Food and 
Agriculture Development
Enterprise Development/ 
Credit
$100,000
International Institute for 
Tropical Agriculture
Agriculture Enterprise 
Development
$50,000
European Union Technology Transfer $62,000
Banco Sol Enterprise Development/ 
Credit
$500,000
Banco Keve Enterprise Development $246,000
Office of Foreign Disaster 
Assistance
Technology Transfer $600,000
BP Enterprise Development $145,000
Government of Angola Enterprise Development/ 
Credit
Source: CLUSA Staff Interviews 
5.7 CLUSA leverages project funds to create credit for its farmer associations. After 
negotiating with Banco Sol on the conditions for credit, CLUSA leveraged $25,000 to 
create $500,000 available for loans. To date, solidarity groups have tapped credit totaling 
approximately $450,000. And most recently, a similar scheme negotiated with Banco 
Keve makes available a credit $246,000 to CLUSA farmer associations.
6.8 Civil society strengthening through collaboration with farmer associations, national 
government and other stakeholders is CLUSA’s trademark. While the model for building 
civil society alliances differs from country to country and project to project, the 
components of the model are the same. The models underline the importance of small 
groups of farmers working together towards a common goal. The common goal is 
researched and developed properly to allow the farmer groups to understand approaches 
and resources to obtain their goals and objectives. Business planning is an important step 
towards laying the building blocks of productivity and profit. 
The CLUSA/Angola farmer association portfolio is irregular. Not only because the 
associations differ in size, management, resources and affiliation, but also it appears, they 
also differ in purpose and results. Here are some observations:
1) The Program of Rural Group Enterprise and Agricultural Marketing have three 
strategic foci: to generate and strengthen farmer associations; to assist farmers to 
access inputs and technology and finally, to secure market linkages. However, it 
is clear that CLUSA field staff spend as much if not more time providing 
production support services (identifying seeds, pesticides and fertilizer, providing 
extension services, and doing whatever it takes to improve yields). The emphasis 
on production support services diverts human and financial resources from the 
project’s strategic focus and stretches already thin project funding.
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
23
2) Marketing efforts are limited to high value crops (HVC). HVC, however, are not 
defined, at least not along economic or market driven data. Therefore, carrots, 
potatoes, onions appear to be the primary high value crops. Very little market data 
was provided to support the selection of these crops. Therefore, it will be difficult 
to determine if the results, intermediate or final, obtained by the farmer 
associations are, or will be based on the best possible information.
3) New farmer association identification, collaboration and strengthening emerge 
from ad hoc processes. Farmers in Quenguela, for example, were identified as 
collaboration through casual conversation. No assessment was done to determine 
the needs or intended results from working with farmers in this area.
6. Project Management and Staff
The CLUSA project only started project activities si months after the signature of the CA 
because an assessment of the agriculture and marketing potential needed to be conducted. 
In the following six months, however, the addition of most of the project personnel took 
place and has facilitated better relationships with existing NGOs, local government, 
producer groups, private sector actors and other development organizations working in 
the country.
There were some complaints by project staff about a lack of management focus, lack of 
participatory planning, and poor management of deliverables. Observations included a 
lack of regular staff meetings, management’s tendency to change priorities midstream, 
and the frequent interruption of meetings by routine project management issues. Staff is 
also called upon to be present at key strategic planning sessions with no preparation time. 
The CLUSA project certainly has some creative, qualified individuals on staff that would 
benefit from more focused project management.
CLUSA project staff need more training and technical capacity building themselves in 
order to realize project objectives and fulfill demands from the associations for business 
training, technical assistance and marketing. It will be a challenge to invest in and build 
project staff capacity in the last year of the project; yet some level of staff training –
particularly around the skills needed to improve association marketing activities and 
market linkages – will be essential in order to complete these project goals within the 
time frame remaining. 
Were the project not in its final year of implementation, the evaluation team would 
recommend that CLUSA project revise its hiring methodology, have clear TORs and job 
description for each personnel. 
There should be more focus by the project on achieving results. Any changes and or 
modifications to the original implementation plans should only be done after an 
assessment has been conducted and following a CA amendment. 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
24
7. Lessons Learned
8. Recommendations
(1) Scientific based enterprise development alliances are innovative and provide long 
term benefits. CLUSA should investigate, at least in Huila and Luanda, 
opportunities to work with national agriculture research stations and schools of 
agriculture. Linking technology development and transfer with research centers 
accompanied by modest financial and human resources will improve 
opportunities for small scale farmers to access technologies and information 
necessary for improved farm level quality control and improved productivity. 
Finally, private foundations have begun to discern the value of funding research 
institutions. In Southern Africa, Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation are 
working with national research systems to improve linkages between research 
and small scale producers. Such linkages would complement well the 
professionalization of farmer associations undertaken by CLUSA.
(2) Program of Rural Group Enterprise and Agriculture Marketing should develop a 
comprehensive alliance building strategy indicating benchmarks and types of 
partnerships. The purpose of this strategy is to set the stage for a farmers’ 
federation that will attract human, institutional and financial resources beyond the 
most support provided by AID/Angola. As the creation of a farmers federations 
falls within the medium term CLUSA planning, leveraged resources sets the tone 
and commitment from a variety of sources to build the federation. The CLUSA 
alliance building strategy in Angola is to include: a) linking production and 
marketing project interventions to regional scientific research and technology 
transfer activities SARRNET, INIHAB, Regional Seed Systems Development 
Project, European Union Agriculture Research Competitive Grant Fund, World 
Fish Center’s Zambezi River Basin Project and MSU/Partnership for Food 
Industry Development Project; b) initiate dialogue with Angolan based private 
companies desiring to assist in reestablishing rural based economies in Angola. In 
addition to Chevron Texaco, which is frankly over solicited, companies like 
EssoMobil, SONANGOL, British Petroleum, Coca Cola, Seaboard Inc, etc. In 
fact, CLUSA may wish to take advantage of the Internal Revenue Service Tax 
Code that obliges all U.S. companies that net more than one million dollars 
annually to contribute one percent of their earning to philanthropic activities. 
Therefore, it would be useful for CLUSA to include targeting all U.S. companies 
in its alliance building strategy. c) Private foundations fund, in many cases 
agriculture enterprise development activities relevant to what CLUSA does in 
Angola. A few examples include: Seed Development Project is funded by 
Rockefeller and promotes medium size seed companies in East and Southern 
Africa, who desire to service small scale commercial farmers. IDEA/Ford 
Foundation, focusing on Southern Africa, targets small scale farmers desiring to 
produce for formal and informal markets. Rockefeller Foundation and 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
25
AID/EGAT/AG have initiatives to improve the capacity of universities to product 
agriculture technical expertise in Africa. 
The idea is to invest in a comprehensive strategy and then make the strategy an integral 
part of accomplishing medium and long term project goals.
(3) CLUSA needs to return to basic economic research and analysis to make 
production and market oriented decisions. It is difficult to determine CLUSA 
progress in increasing crop yields, increasing small farmers market share of 
targeted high value crops (HVC), to understand how HVC were selected, to 
understand the rational for entering new geographic areas in Angola, or to 
understand how new crops and markets will be selected. First, CLUSA is 
requested to complete its crops and markets baseline study. Second, CLUSA 
needs to research and analyze the logic of working where it currently does and 
determine if the organization should continue to service these six geographic 
areas or move to new one. Huila and Luanda/Bengo clearly make sense. 
However, data needs to back up what looks obvious at first sight. Regarding the 
other provinces and sites, it is difficult to understand why they work at the sites 
and what level of effort is required to properly support the farmer associations.
(4) Further to the point of support to farmer associations, CLUSA should go back to 
the mission, in writing, and make clear how it supports farmer associations, why 
it supports farmers associations beyond the intent and parameters of the project 
and the additional costs involved to deliver the services, especially the production 
support services not found in the project design. This point has serious financial 
management and project cost over run implications.
(5) AID/Angola management has a responsibility to adhere to the cooperative 
agreement governing the Rural Group Enterprises and Agricultural Marketing 
Project. In a cooperative agreement, as the mission knows well, missions may 
provide input into three areas: selection of key personnel (chief of party, chief of 
operations for example, approval of the annual work plan and lastly, performance 
management plan. When the mission management desires to amend the project 
design and implementation plan, it is recommended that an economic assessment, 
first, be completed. The economic assessment would, therefore, permit the 
mission and CLUSA to determine financial, human and administrative expenses 
necessary to change project sites, add crops, decline to allow CLUSA to enter 
new geographic areas, etc. In fact, no change in the implementation plan should 
be made due to verbal recommendations. Mission management, in collaboration 
with CLUSA, should provide written justification to the contract officer and 
collectively decide follow the process for amending project direction.
(6) Strengthen the role of Service Centers, in taking on the marketing support
functions currently provided by CLUSA. In many respects, CLUSA is still the 
negotiator in identifying and establishing relationships with major buyers of 
agricultural commodities and input suppliers on behalf of RGE members. This 
role has to be gradually transferred to the centers. 
RGE/AMOA Evaluation Report July 2004
26
(7) On the gender aspect, it is clear that CLUSA assisted enterprises have very little 
participation of women. There was no specific targets set for gender; however, 
the evaluation team recommends that CLUSA should have an increased emphasis 
on increasing participation of women’s in business activities through promoting 
women participation in the decision making process within the assisted groups, 
promote women only groups, etc. 
(8) The primary conclusion of the report is that CLUSA’s Rural Group Enterprise 
and Agricultural Marketing Program continue to provide effective marketing 
services to producers in the five provinces assisted from August 2004 through 
December 2005, assuming that the recommendations provided above are 
implemented. The continuation of the program beyond 2005 is dependent on the 
levels of CLUSA achievements till then, to be assessed at the end of the project 
period.
(9) 
9. References
1. CLUSA Proposal for Rural Group Enterprises and Agricultural Marketing in 
Angola. August 2001.
2. Implementation plan for Rural Group Enterprises and Agricultural Marketing in 
Angola. April 2002.
3. CLUSA Angola Business Plan. Huila Produce Company.
4. Formal Market Access Strategy and Process. CLUSA Angola.
5. A Framework for transitioning to Rural Economic Growth in Angola. Final 
report. Dec 2003.
10. Appendixes
Annex A. Scope of Work: Rural Group Businesses 
Annex B. Contacts, Field Visits and Key Documents