CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE 
MID-TERM EVALUATION 
FINAL REPORT 
SEPTEMBER 9, 2011 
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International 
Development. It was prepared by Indochina Research Ltd (IRL) under subcontract to DAI. 

This page left intentionally blank for double-sided printing.
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE 
MID-TERM EVALUATION 
FINAL REPORT 
Program Title: Strengthening Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises in Cambodia 
Sponsoring USAID Office: USAID/Cambodia 
Contract Number: EEM-I-00-07-00009-00/04 
Contractor: DAI 
Date of Publication: September 9, 2011 
Authors: Emmanuel Santoyo Rio, IRL 
 
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United 
States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT i 
CONTENTS 
ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................. IX
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
SURVEY IMPLEMENTER: INDOCHINA RESEARCH LTD ................................................................ 1
II. CAMBODIA MSME PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN AND 
INDICATORS........................................................................................................................ 3
III. MID TERM SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ........................................... 9
METHODOLOGY FOR PIG, FISH AND BRICK AND TILE VALUE CHAINS ....................................... 10
IV. BASELINE STUDY RESULTS ...................................................................................... 11
1. PIG VALUE CHAIN ............................................................................................................. 11
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 11
Building Cambodia Swine Industry Competitiveness in Turbulent Times ....................... 11
1.1 PIG PRODUCERS ............................................................................................................. 16
Demographic profile ...................................................................................................... 16
1.1.1 Value of Investments by Project-Assisted Enterprises .......................................... 17
1.1.2 Volume of Production of Project-Assisted Enterprises .......................................... 18
1.1.3 Value of Sales of Project-Assisted Enterprises ..................................................... 19
1.1.4 Costs of Project-Assisted Enterprises ................................................................... 20
1.1.5 Income of Project-Assisted Enterprises ................................................................ 22
1.1.6 Other Productivity Indicators on Pig Producing Enterprises .................................. 23
1.2 PIG TRADERS ................................................................................................................. 24
Demographic profile ...................................................................................................... 24
1.2.1 Value of Investments by Project-Assisted Enterprises .......................................... 25
1.2.2 Volume of Production of Project-Assisted Enterprises .......................................... 26
1.2.3 Value of Sales of Project Assisted Enterprises ..................................................... 26
1.2.4 Cost of business of Project-Assisted Pig Traders ................................................. 29
1.2.5 Income of Project-Assisted Enterprises ................................................................ 31
1.2.6 Other Productivity Indicators for Project-Assisted Enterprises .............................. 31
1.3 PIG INPUT AND SERVICE PROVIDERS, INCLUDING VETERINARIANS ..................................... 32
Demographic profile ...................................................................................................... 32
ii CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
1.3.1 Value of investments by Project-Assisted Enterprises .......................................... 34
1.3.2 Volume of Production of Project-Assisted Enterprises .......................................... 36
1.3.3 Value of Sales of Project/Assisted Enterprises ..................................................... 38
1.3.4 Cost of business of Project-Assisted Enterprises .................................................. 39
1.3.5 Income of Project-Assisted Enterprises ................................................................ 40
1.4 OVERALL PIG VALUE CHAIN PMEP INDICATOR RESULTS ................................................. 41
2. FISH VALUE CHAIN ...................................................................................................... 45
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 45
2.1 FISH PRODUCERS ........................................................................................................... 45
Demographic profile ...................................................................................................... 45
2.1.1 Value of investments by project-assisted enterprises ........................................... 47
2.1.2 Volume of Production of Project-Assisted Enterprises .......................................... 48
2.1.3 Value of Sales of Project-Assisted Enterprises ..................................................... 49
2.1.4 Cost of Business of Project Assisted-Enterprises ................................................. 50
2.1.5 Income of Project Assisted-Enterprises ................................................................ 51
2.1.6 Other Productivity Indicators for Project-Assisted Enterprises .............................. 52
2.1.7 Fingerling Producers ............................................................................................ 53
2.2 FISH TRADERS ................................................................................................................ 59
Demographic profile ...................................................................................................... 59
2.2.1 Value of Investments by Project-Assisted Enterprises .......................................... 60
2.2.2 Volume of Production of Project-Assisted Enterprises .......................................... 62
2.2.3 Value of Sales of Project-Assisted Enterprises ..................................................... 62
2.2.4 Cost of Business of Project-Assisted Enterprises ................................................. 63
2.2.4 Income of Project-Assisted Enterprises ................................................................ 63
2.2.5 Other Productivity Indicators for Project-Assisted Enterprises .............................. 64
2.3 OVERALL FISH VALUE CHAIN PMEP INDICATORS RESULTS .............................................. 64
3. BRICK AND TILE VALUE CHAIN .................................................................................. 67
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 67
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 67
3.1 BRICK AND TILE MAKERS ................................................................................................ 68
3.1.1 Value of Investments by Project-Assisted Enterprises .......................................... 68
3.1.2 Volume of Production of Project-Assisted Enterprises .......................................... 69
3.1.3 Value of Sales of Project-Assisted Enterprises ..................................................... 70
3.1.4 Cost of Business of Project-Assisted Enterprises ................................................. 71
3.1.5 Income of Business of Project-Assisted Enterprises ............................................. 72
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT iii 
3.1.5 Other Productivity Indicators for Project-Assisted Enterprises .............................. 73
3.2 OVERALL BRICK AND TILE VALUE CHAIN PMEP INDICATOR RESULTS ............................... 74
4. POVERTY ASSESSMENT TOOL (PAT) ........................................................................ 77
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 77
RESULTS.............................................................................................................................. 78
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 81
ANNEX A: SURVEY MATERIALS ..................................................................................... 83
ANNEX B: SAMPLING TOOLS .......................................................................................... 91
STAGE 1: SAMPLING PLAN: VALUE CHAIN ACTORS DISAGGREGATED BY METHODOLOGY (CENSUS /
RANDOM SAMPLING) ............................................................................................................ 91
STAGE 2: FINAL SAMPLE (N=1101) DISAGGREGATED BY PROVINCE / VALUE CHAIN. ............... 91
STAGE 3: ACHIEVED SAMPLE SHOWING ORIGINAL QUOTA / SUCCESSFUL INTERVIEWS. ......... 95
ANNEX C: ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUES FOR PIG, FISH AND BRICK AND TILE 
ENTERPRISES ................................................................................................................... 97
ANNEX D: ADDITIONAL REPORT TABLES ................................................................... 101
iv CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLES AND FIGURES 
TABLE
Component 1: Strengthen Selected Value Chains ....................................................................................... 4
Component 1: Strengthen Selected Value Chains ....................................................................................... 5
Building Sector Competitiveness – Swine Value Chain .............................................................................. 12
Table 1: Cambodia MSME Sample Pig Producer Location Profile ............................................................. 16
Table 2: Cambodia MSME Sample Pig Producer Demographic Profile ..................................................... 17
Table 3: Pig Producer Total Volume of Production ..................................................................................... 19
Table 4: Pig Producer Income .................................................................................................................... 23
Table 5: Cambodia MSME Pig Productivity Indicators: Feeder Pigs .......................................................... 23
Table 6: Pig Productivity Indicators: Pig Mortality ....................................................................................... 23
Table 7: Pig Trader Location Profile ........................................................................................................... 25
Table 8: Pig Trader Demographic Profile .................................................................................................... 25
Table 9: Pig Trader Investments ................................................................................................................. 26
Table 10: Pig Trader Volume of Trades ...................................................................................................... 26
Table 11: Pig Trader Value of Trades ......................................................................................................... 28
Table 12: Pig Trader Costs of Business ..................................................................................................... 30
Table 13: Pig Trader Income....................................................................................................................... 31
Table 14: Pig Productivity Indicators: Feeder Pigs (Traders) ..................................................................... 31
Table 15: Pig Productivity Indicators: Pig Mortality (Traders) ..................................................................... 32
Table 16: Cambodia MSME Sample Pig Input & Service Provider Location Profile .................................. 33
Table 17: Cambodia MSME Sample Pig Input & Service Provider Demographic Profile .......................... 34
Table 18: Pig Input & Service Provider Volume of Sales ............................................................................ 37
Table 19: Pig Input & Service Provider Income .......................................................................................... 41
Table 20: Mid-term study results for the Pig Value Chain: All Actors ......................................................... 41
Table 21: Mid-term study results for the Pig Value Chain By Actor ............................................................ 43
Table 22: Fish Producer Location Profile .................................................................................................... 46
Table 23: Fish Producer Household Demographic Profile .......................................................................... 46
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT v 
Table 24: Fish Producer Income ................................................................................................................. 51
Table 25: Fish Producer Productivity Indicators ......................................................................................... 52
Table 26: Fish Producer Mortality Indicators .............................................................................................. 52
Table 27: Cambodia MSME Sample Fingerling Producer Location Profile ................................................ 53
Table 28: Cambodia MSME Sample Fingerling Producer Demographic Profile ........................................ 54
Table 29: Fingerling Producer Investments ................................................................................................ 55
Table 30: Fingerling Producer Volume of Production of Fingerling for Sale ............................................... 56
Table 31: Fingerling Producer Total Volume of Production ........................................................................ 56
Table 32: Fingerling Producer Value of Sales ............................................................................................ 57
Table 33: Fingerling Producer Costs of Business ....................................................................................... 57
Table 34: Fingerling Producer Income ........................................................................................................ 58
Table 35: Fingerling Productivity Indicators: Fingerling Mortality ............................................................... 59
Table 36: Cambodia MSME Sample Fish Trader Location Profile ............................................................. 59
Table 37: Fish Trader Demographic Profile ................................................................................................ 60
Table 38: Fish Trader Investments ............................................................................................................. 61
Table 39: Fish Trader Volume of Trades .................................................................................................... 62
Table 40: Fish Trader Value of Sales ......................................................................................................... 63
Table 41: Fish Trader Cost of Business ...................................................................................................... 63
Table 42: Fish Trader Income ..................................................................................................................... 64
Table 43: Fish Trader Productivity Indicators ............................................................................................. 64
Table 44: Mid-term study results for the Fish Value Chain: All Actors........................................................ 65
Table 45: Mid-term study results for the Fish Value Chain ......................................................................... 66
Table 46: Brick & Tile Maker Location Profile ............................................................................................. 67
Table 47: Brick & Tile Maker Demographic Profile ..................................................................................... 68
Table 48: Brick & Tile Maker Income .......................................................................................................... 73
Table 49: Brick & Tile Maker Productivity Indicators .................................................................................. 74
Table 50: Mid-term study results for the Brick and Tile Value Chain .......................................................... 75
Table 51. Poverty Levels by Program Activity ............................................................................................ 78
Table 52: Poverty Levels by Urban and Rural Classification ...................................................................... 79
vi CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
Table 51: Estimated Total Cambodia MSME Client Value of Sales ........................................................... 97
Table 52: Estimated Total Cambodia MSME Client Cost of Business ....................................................... 98
Table 53: Estimated Total Cambodia MSME Client Income ....................................................................... 98
Table 54: Estimated Total Cambodia MSME Client Investment ................................................................. 99
Table A55: Pig Producer Investments ...................................................................................................... 101
Table A56: Pig Producer Volume of Production of Pigs for Sale .............................................................. 102
Table A57: Pig Producer Value of Sales ................................................................................................... 102
Table A58: Pig Producer Costs of Business ............................................................................................. 102
Table A59: Average Pig Death Caused by Cases and diseases.............................................................. 103
Table A60: Description of Symptoms or the name of diseases ................................................................ 105
Table A61: Pig Slaughterhouse Location Profile ...................................................................................... 106
Table A62: Pig ISP Veterinarian/VLA Investments ................................................................................... 107
Table A63: Pig ISP Input Supplier Investments ........................................................................................ 107
Table A64: Pig Input & Service Providers Value of Sales ........................................................................ 108
Table A65: Pig Input & Service Provider Costs of Business ..................................................................... 109
Table A66: Impact of working with MSME Project on Their Business Growth and Development ............ 111
Table A67: Sharing Knowledge Learned from MSME With None-client business people ....................... 112
Table A68: Fish Producer Volume of Fish Production for Sale ................................................................ 112
Table A69: Fish Producers Total Volume of Production ........................................................................... 113
Table A70: Fish Producers Value of Sales ............................................................................................... 114
Table A71: Fish Producer Cost of Business ............................................................................................. 114
Table A72: Impact of working with MSME Project on Their Business Growth and Development ............ 115
Table A73: Sharing Knowledge Learned from MSME With None-client business people ....................... 116
Table A74: Brick & Tile Maker Investments .............................................................................................. 116
Table A75: Brick & Tile Makers Volume of Production for Sale................................................................ 117
Table A76: Brick & Tile Makers Value of Sales ........................................................................................ 117
Table A77: Brick & Tile Makers Cost of Business-Brick Making............................................................... 118
Table A78: Brick & Tile Makers Cost of Business-Tile Making & Total .................................................... 120
Table 79A: Mid-term summary study results for the Pig Value Chain: All Actors ..................................... 121
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT vii 
Table 80A: Mid-term summary study results for the Fish Value Chain: All Actors ................................... 121
Table 81 A: Mid-term summary study results for the Brick and Tile Value Chain .................................... 121
Table 82A: Mid-term summary study results for All Value Chains............................................................ 122
FIGURE
Figure 1: Pig Producers Investments .......................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2: Volume of Production of Pigs for Sale – Pig Producers .............................................................. 18
Figure 3: Value of sales of pig producers ................................................................................................... 20
Figure 4: Costs of pig production ................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 5: Pig ISP Veterinarian/VLA Investments ........................................................................................ 34
Figure 6: Pig ISP Input Supplier Investments ............................................................................................. 36
Figure 7: Value of Sales of Pig Input and Service Providers ...................................................................... 38
Figure 8: Input and Service Provider Costs of Business ............................................................................ 40
Figure 9: Fish Producer Investments .......................................................................................................... 47
Figure 10: Volume of Fish Production for Sale by Fish Producers ............................................................. 48
Figure 11: Total Value of Production by Fish Producers ............................................................................ 49
Figure 12: Value of Sales of Fish Producers .............................................................................................. 50
Figure 13: Costs of Business for Fish Producers........................................................................................ 51
Figure 14: Brick and Tile Maker Investments.............................................................................................. 69
Figure 15: Volume of Production for Sales of Brick and Tile Makers ......................................................... 70
Figure 16: Value of Sales of Brick and Tile Makers .................................................................................... 71
Figure 17: Costs of Business for Brick and Tile Makers ............................................................................. 71
Figure 18: Costs of Business for Brick and Tile Makers ............................................................................. 72

CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT ix 
ABBREVIATIONS 
AI Artificial Insemination 
CEDAC Cambodian Centre for Study and Development 
DAI Development Alternatives, Incorporated 
DCED Donor Committee for Enterprise Development 
GIS Geographic Information Systems 
IRL Indochina Research Limited 
ISP Input and Service Provider Enterprise 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 
MSME 2/BEE Micro Small and Medium Enterprise 2/ Business Enabling Environment 
NTFP Non Timber Forest Products 
PMEP Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 
SME Small and Medium Enterprise 
TAMIS Technical and Administrative Management Information System 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 

CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 1 
I. INTRODUCTION 
The Cambodia Micro Small and Medium Enterprise 2/ Business Enabling Environment (Cambodia 
MSME) project currently implemented by DAI in 17 provinces in Cambodia, has interrelated mandates, 
namely to improve the ability of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) to operate in 
Cambodia, while improving natural resource management, and access to safe water and sanitation. The 
project has the main objectives of i) directly supporting the growth of enterprises and linkages in industry 
value chains; ii) strengthening the ability of the private sector to advocate for itself and; iii) strengthening 
the ability of the public sector to respond to private sector needs as well as the demands of the 
international trade regime. The underlying assumption of this program is that progress on all of these 
areas will enable Micro Small and Medium Enterprise (MSMEs) to thrive, grow, and create jobs. 
This project implements a range of activities under three main components: 
• Component One: Strengthening Selected Value Chains 
• Component Two: Strengthening Private Sector Voice 
• Component Three: Strengthening Public Sector’s Ability to Improve the Business Environment 
This report presents results from a Mid Term survey/report of MSMEs implemented under Component 
One: Strengthening Selected Value Chains. Data was gathered for each of the project-assisted value 
chains in accordance with the indicators listed in the project Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 
(PMEP). As of the date when this report is prepared, surveys have been conducted for 4 value chains 
including pigs, fish, bricks and tiles, on which this report focuses. Besides presenting the results obtained 
through mid-term survey conducted from December 2010 to March 2011, the report also provides a 
comparison with those presented in the baseline as a benchmark for reference. 
The report is structured as follows: Section I is this Introduction. Section II provides an overview of the 
Cambodia MSME performance monitoring and evaluation system. It also explains the context for the Mid 
Term study. Section III presents the objectives and methodology of the study. Section IV presents the 
results of the Mid Term survey for the pigs, fish, brick and clay tile value chains. 
The aim of this report is to summarize enterprise performance mid-way through the project intervention 
(after 2 years) against key indicators. Background information for each value chain is provided to orient 
the reader. This report does not include detailed information on production processes and productivity 
challenges which are covered by other studies.1
SURVEY IMPLEMENTER: INDOCHINA RESEARCH LTD 
The survey was implemented by Indochina Research Ltd (IRL) under subcontract to DAI. With a Phnom 
Penh office operating since 1995 and 4 regional offices, IRL offers a broad range of marketing research 
and brand consultancy services to a diverse range of clients operating in all key business and not-for 
 
1
 Recent studies produced by the project in February 2011 include Impact Assessment of Training Communities on Feed Making by 
Nabanita Sen, Impact Assessment of Training VLA and Pig Producers Training by Nabanita Sen, and Impact Assessment of Fish 
Producers and Fingerling Producers Training by Marina Krivoshlykova. 
2 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
profit sectors. In Cambodia, IRL has full nationwide coverage, with a workforce of over 50 full time staff 
and 150 part-time staff. 
For the implementation of the survey in the pig, fish, brick and tile value chains, 50 of IRL’s most 
qualified interviewers were sent in the field along with 12 fieldwork supervisors for coordination 
purposes. One field supervisor was assigned to a maximum of 5 interviewers in order to insure quality 
checks. Interviewers, who had previously been trained to survey techniques, were selected from among a 
pool of short-term staff members with extensive fieldwork experience. All interviewers participated in a 
four-day training on the survey objectives, methodology, and questionnaire. This training followed a 2-
day briefing attended by fieldwork supervisors before the survey questionnaire was pre-tested in Kandal 
province in order to ensure full understanding and accuracy. The survey team covered 14 provinces of the 
project – Phnom Penh, Kampong Cham, Battambang, Kampong Speu, Kratie, Prey Veng, Pursat, Takeo, 
Kampong Thom, Kampot, Kandal, Svay Rieng, Banteay Meanchey, and Siem Reap. Face-to-face 
interviews lasted for one hour or so, and used a structured questionnaire (see Annex A). 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 3 
II. CAMBODIA MSME 
PERFORMANCE MONITORING 
AND EVALUATION PLAN AND 
INDICATORS 
The Cambodia MSME Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (PMEP) provides detailed 
information on indicators that assess project performance. The Cambodia MSME team, in collaboration 
with IRL and USAID/Cambodia, developed the PMEP. 
The PMEP includes performance indicators and lays out a conceptual framework through causal models 
for each project component. The tables presented here show the causal model and indicators for activities 
related to Component One: Strengthening Selected Value Chains. In accordance with the PMEP, the 
Cambodia MSME team monitors the progress of activities and outputs on a regular basis to evaluate 
outcomes and impacts. 
In addition to performance monitoring tools, the Cambodia MSME monitoring and evaluation system 
contains an impact assessment component. The project conducts a longitudinal study, using survey tools 
to track and evaluate changes in project-assisted enterprises over time against performance indicators. 
Impact assessment activities involve a baseline survey of project-assisted enterprises (or producer 
households, where appropriate) conducted at the beginning of the project, and follow-up surveys of the 
same respondents to be conducted at mid- and end-points of the project. 
Following this methodology, baseline surveys were conducted for project-assisted value chains during 
Cambodia MSME’s first year (or Year 1). The results are summarized in this report along with the results 
of the latest follow-up survey conducted at the end of the second year (Year 2). 
4 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
COMPONENT 1: STRENGTHEN SELECTED VALUE CHAINS 
Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts Program element/sub-element 
Broaden activities to include 
more enterprises 
Expanded work into new 
geographic areas and value 
chains, including NTFP and 
water 
Increased productivity, 
volume, quality, sales 
and incomes in 
selected value chains; 
Increased investment 
Greater sustainability, 
growth, income and job 
creation in MSMEs in 
selected value chains 
through expanded sales in 
domestic and foreign 
markets 
Private sector productivity; Strengthen 
microenterprise productivity 
Facilitate horizontal and 
vertical linkages to upgrade 
Cambodia MSME 
competitiveness, build 
business relationships, and 
increase market access 
Improved access to domestic 
and international markets 
Develop a common vision of 
integrated conservation and 
development in targeted CFIs 
Improved local and regional 
conservation awareness 
Increased land area 
under improved natural 
resource management; 
Increased economic 
benefits derived from 
Non Timber Forest 
Products (NTFP) 
Improved sustainability of 
natural resources 
management and 
production 
Sustainable natural resources 
management and production 
Support local and regional 
planning efforts that integrate 
sustainable development with 
sound biodiversity 
conservations practices 
Improved local and regional 
conservation practices 
Assess existing private Water 
Service Providers (WSPs) 
Increased private sector 
investment in water supply 
and sanitation businesses 
Improved productivity 
and efficiency of WSPs 
Improved access to safe 
water 
Safe water access and piped water 
Conduct value chain 
assessments on sanitary 
latrines 
Strengthened linkages in 
sanitary latrine value chain 
Improved productivity 
and efficiency of latrine 
providers 
Improved access to basic 
sanitation 
Basic sanitation 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM REPORT 5 
COMPONENT 1: STRENGTHEN SELECTED VALUE CHAINS 
Indicator Unit Definition Source Collection Method Frequency 4 year target Baseline Mid- Term Y1 target Y2 target Y3 targe t Y4 targe t +2* 
Number of 
enterprises 
benefiting from 
USAID 
development 
assistance*/** 
No. Total number 
of firms 
assisted (by 
value chain) 
MSME 
2/BEE 
Client 
profile/ 
Survey 
Annual/ 
biannual 
6,000 TBD 2,627 3,000 4,000 
(cumulat
ive) 
5,000 
(cum
ulativ
e) 
6,000 
(cum
ulativ
e) 
-- 
Number of 
provinces 
supported by 
MSME 2/BEE 
No. Total number 
of provinces 
assisted by 
MSME 2/BEE 
MSME 
2/BEE 
Project 
records 
Annual 12 6 14 12 12 12 12 -- 
Percentage of 
change in 
value of sales 
of project￾assisted 
enterprises* 
% Percentage 
increase in 
sales of direct 
beneficiaries 
(disaggregated 
by sex of head 
of enterprise) 
MSME 
2/BEE 
Client 
profile/ 
Survey 
Annual/ 
biannual 
75% TBD Pig= 
144% 
Fish= 
104% 
Brick 
and 
Tile= 
46% 
10% 30% 15% 20% 22% 
Percentage of 
change in 
income of 
project￾assisted 
enterprises* 
% Percentage 
increase in 
income of 
direct 
beneficiaries 
(disaggregated 
by sex of head 
of enterprise) 
MSME 
2/BEE 
Client 
profile/ 
Survey 
Annual/ 
biannual 
100% TBD Pig= 
103% 
Fish= 
63% 
Brick 
and 
Tile= 
77% 
15% 20% 30% 35% 25% 
Number of 
people with 
increased 
economic 
benefits 
derived from 
sustainable 
natural 
management 
No. The number of 
people 
engaged in 
forest 
management 
that derive 
improved 
incomes from 
NTFP value 
MSME 
2/BEE 
Client 
profile/ 
Survey 
Annual/ 
biannual 
1-5,000 
2- 2000 
TBD Pig= 
-47% 
Fish= 
-2% 
Brick 
and 
Tile= 
-13% 
1-800 
2-200 
1-4,200 
2-1,800 
 1-
5,000 
2-
2000 
6 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
Indicator Unit Definition Source Collection Method Frequency 4 year target Baseline Mid- Term Y1 target Y2 target Y3 targe t Y4 targe t +2* 
and 
conservation 
chains 
supported by 
MSME2 (1-
men; 2-
women) 
Number of 
people 
receiving 
USG￾supported 
training in 
natural 
resources 
management 
and/or 
biodiversity 
conservation 
No. Number of 
people that are 
trained in 
improved forest 
management 
and 
sustainable 
harvesting of 
NTFPs (1-men; 
2-women) 
MSME 
2/BEE 
Client 
profile/ 
Survey 
Annual/ 
biannual 
1-900 
2-300 
TBD 1-400 
2-100 
1-500 
2-200 
 1-900 
2-300 
Number of 
hectares in 
areas of 
biological 
significance 
under 
improved 
natural 
resource 
management** 
Hect
are 
(HA) 
Area of priority 
forest 
ecosystems 
that are 
managed by 
community 
groups 
supported by 
MSME2 
MSME 
2/BEE 
Survey/Geo
graphical 
Information 
System 
(GIS) 
Biannual 75,000 TBD 25,000 75,000 
(cumulat
ive) 
0 0 75,000 
Number of 
private sector 
water service 
providers 
No. Increased 
number of 
private sector 
firms providing 
water 
(disaggregated 
by sex of head 
of enterprise) 
MSME 
2/BEE 
Project 
records 
Annual 26 TBD 3 26 
(cumulat
ive) 
0 0 0 
Number of 
people with 
improved 
access to 
drinking water 
No. Increased 
number of 
individuals 
connected to 
piped water, 
MSME 
2/BEE 
Project 
records/ 
Survey 
Semi￾annual/ 
biannual 
75,000 TBD 10,000 50,000 
(cumulat
ive) 
75,00
0 
(cum
ulativ
e) 
0 75,000 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM REPORT 7 
Indicator Unit Definition Source Collection Method Frequency 4 year target Baseline Mid- Term Y1 target Y2 target Y3 targe t Y4 targe t +2* 
as a result of 
USG 
assistance** 
disaggregated 
by sex of head 
of enterprise) 
Sales of point 
of use latrines 
No. Number of 
latrines sold 
with support 
from MSME 
2/BEE 
disaggregated 
by 
municipality/pr
ovince 
MSME 
2/BEE 
Project 
records 
Annual 5,000 TBD 2,500 2,500 0 0 0 
*DCED indicator/requirement **Operational Plan Indicator 

CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 9 
III. MID TERM SURVEY 
OBJECTIVES AND 
METHODOLOGY 
Cambodia MSME Component One looks to strengthen selected value chains through activities that 
increase enterprise productivity and income. The objective of this Mid Term report is to summarize the 
results of the survey conducted for a number of project-assisted value chains during the first two years of 
the project. This study used survey instruments including both closed and opened ended questions, to 
collect data on enterprise-level indicators established in the Cambodia MSME PEMP, and following the 
baseline survey conducted in 2009. 
These indicators include: 
• Change (in percent) in investments by project-assisted enterprises. 
• Change (in percent) in volume of production by project-assisted enterprises. 
• Change (in percent) in value of sales of project-assisted enterprises. 
• Change (in percent) in income of project-assisted enterprises. 
• Number of full-time equivalent jobs created. 
In each value chain, a sample of project-assisted enterprises or households was surveyed using 
instruments specific to that value chain. Questionnaires therefore varied from one value chain to another, 
although similar structure and objectives were used to lead the survey. A sample was drawn from one or 
several types of value chain actors with which the project engages. 
Additionally, the number and types of enterprises surveyed varied between value chains. For instance, the 
survey for the pig value chain included pig producers, pig traders, pig input and service providers. In the 
fish value chain, the sample included two value chain actors: fish producers, and fish traders. In the brick 
and tile value chain, only one actor was surveyed, namely the brick and tile makers. Survey 
questionnaires were tailored for each of these value chain actors. 
Sampling methodology differed for each value chain and is discussed in the next section. To ensure 
uniform data analysis, interpretation guidelines were created. For all indicators, the following definitions 
were used throughout the report, unless otherwise noted. 
• Investment is measured in U.S. dollars and includes assets such as equipment, infrastructure, inventory, 
transportation assets, etc. 
• Volume of production is measured in units specific to products in each value chain. 
• Value of sales is measured in U.S. dollars on either a daily or annual basis. 
10 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
• Income is defined as the value of annual sales minus the annual cost of business. Although not a 
separate PMEP indicator, cost of business was calculated when possible for assisted enterprises to 
determine income, and included operations costs such as labor, energy and production costs. 
METHODOLOGY FOR PIG, FISH AND BRICK AND TILE VALUE 
CHAINS 
As of the Mid Term survey implemented between February and May 2011, the Cambodia MSME Project 
had a total of 2,676 active clients in the pig, fish and brick and tile value chains. This represents a 
decrease from the 2,727 reported in October 2009. 
Indochina Research Limited (IRL) implemented a Mid Term survey of these three value chains, randomly 
selecting enterprises in 81 districts in 14 provinces, with a geographic distribution similar to that of all 
Cambodia MSME chain clients. The parent sampling frame for this Mid Term survey was all active 
enterprises that have been with the project for at least one year, and that had joined the project before 1 
December 2009. From the client list of 15 November 2010, 2,642 enterprises (out of 4,317) had joined the 
project before 1 December 2009. These 2,642 enterprises form the sample frame. Enterprises were 
questioned about their activities for the period 1 December 2009 to 1 December 2010. 
The sampling method was cluster random sampling whereby districts were randomly chosen for each 
value chain actor type and then all actors of that type were interviewed in the chosen districts. Minimum 
quotas were determined for each type of actor, aiming at a level of confidence in the results of 95 percent 
with a margin of error of +/-5 percent for pig producers and a margin of error of +/-10 percent for the 
smaller finite population of veterinarians and aquaculture producers. The sampling quotas take account of 
what is called the Design Effect which enlarges sample quotas to compensate for clustering. 
Data collection took the form of face to face interviews with Cambodia MSME enterprise owners, using a 
standard questionnaire designed by IRL and the MSME team. Further background checks with enterprises 
were conducted where necessary, following completion of interviews and preliminary data analysis. 
Cambodia MSME enterprises consist of a mixture of a majority of small-scale enterprises, and a minority 
of much larger-scale enterprises. Larger enterprises, while fewer in number, affect the overall sample 
mean in several types of value chain actors. The median, which gives in these situations a better 
indication of the profile of more typical small-scale enterprises, is also included in the results, and in 
tables in the Appendix. Project indicator results are based on the mean for all Cambodia MSME 
enterprises. 
The PMEP states that indicator measurements should be disaggregated by gender where appropriate and 
possible. In this Mid Term Report, for all value chain actor types, researcher report proportions of 
enterprises owned by women versus men, and enumerate male and female proportions of the enterprise 
labor force. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 11 
IV. BASELINE STUDY RESULTS 
1. PIG VALUE CHAIN 
METHODOLOGY 
The pig value chain is the major target of the Cambodia MSME Project support. In July 2009, this chain 
had 1,945 pig enterprises, representing 82 percent of all enterprise clients in Component One- supported 
value chains. Women owned 24 percent of these enterprises and men owned 76 percent. By October 
2009, the number of enterprises grew to 2,226. 
By May 2011, this chain had 2146 pig enterprises, representing 81 percent of all enterprise clients in 
Component One of the Cambodia MSME Project. Women own 24 percent of these enterprises and men 
own 76 percent of them. 
Pig enterprises in 81 districts and 14 provinces were randomly selected for this survey, with a geographic 
distribution similar to all Cambodian MSME pig value chain clients. The sample is composed of 717 pig 
producers, 194 pig input and service-provider enterprises (including veterinarians) and 2 pig trader 
enterprises. 
The study focuses on households involved in pig production as the main Cambodia MSME actor in the 
value chain. A sample of pig veterinarians was also included in the sample, proportional to the number of 
Cambodia MSME enterprises. A small number of pig traders and pig input and service providers (ISPs) 
are also included in this study. 
BUILDING CAMBODIA SWINE INDUSTRY COMPETITIVENESS IN TURBULENT TIMES 
The 2-year period from 2009 to 2010 covered by this mid-term report was an incredibly difficult and 
challenging time for Cambodian swine raisers. Individual pig farmers could not compete with illegally 
imported pigs from Thailand and Vietnam that were often dumped on the Cambodian market at 
significantly less than the production cost. As shown in the chart below, the swine industry in Cambodia 
regularly made the news in this period, as shown by news highlights in the first column. These events, 
characterized by import restrictions, disease outbreaks, wild price fluctuations, and inconsistent 
government policies, had deep and far reaching effects on the swine industry in Cambodia, as highlighted 
in column two below. Building the competitiveness of the local swine industry within this unpredictable 
environment has been both the MSME Project’s biggest challenge and its greatest success, as shown in 
column three below. Significantly, the project’s work in the swine value chain made integrated progress 
among all three project components – strengthening selected value chains, strengthening the private sector 
voice, and strengthening the public sector’s ability to improve the business environment. 
12 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
BUILDING SECTOR COMPETITIVENESS – SWINE VALUE CHAIN 
In the Cambodian Press Cause of Problem and Effect on the Swine Value Chain in Cambodia Response by the MSME Project, Its Swine Value Chain Clients, and Government 
December 22, 2009 – Beginning in October 
2009, “Thai pigs have flooded the Cambodian 
market, resulting in lower prices and the failure 
of hundreds of hog farms. The annual import 
quota for Thai pigs has gone from just 2,000 
pigs in 2007 to 300,000 in 2008 and 2009, said 
Curtis Hundley of the Cambodia Micro, Small 
and Medium Enterprise Strengthening Project, 
which is funded by USAID. 
• Thailand faced a growing swine surplus due to 
Thai market price ceilings; they could sell pigs 
above Thai ceiling in Cambodia. 
• Vietnam was suffering from several disease 
problems and annual flooding, prompting 
dumping of piglets and pigs in Cambodia at one￾half the cost of production in Cambodia. 
• Because all swine was smuggled, they avoided 
the cost of Cambodian transportation and 
sanitation permits. 
• The Effect: Cambodian swine raisers could no 
longer sell their swine in the local markets 
because their production costs were relatively 
more expensive. Many swine raisers went 
bankrupt and those that stayed in significantly 
reduced their herd size. 
• Future local production capacity is reduced 
which further encourages traders to seek 
sources outside Cambodia. 
• Organized Swine Community Interest (IGs) and 
Working Groups (CWGs) in all 12 provinces as the first 
step toward competitiveness and policy advocacy. 
• Facilitated embedded technical trainings from input 
suppliers and veterinarians to IGs and CWGs to 
improve competitiveness and market relationships. 
• Facilitated discussions in 12 provinces to identify ways
to improve the Cambodian-raised swine brand in local 
markets. 
• Facilitated provincial workshops to prepare the private 
sector to lobby for their interests at the National Swine 
Forum. 
• Facilitated National Swine Business Forum for 226 
private sector and government officials to discuss 
dumping issues. 
• Provided a training program on anti-dumping 
procedures to the multi-ministerial trade remedies 
team. 
February 6, 2010 – Mong Reththy, president 
of Mong Reththy Group, a company which 
breeds young pigs to sell to Cambodian 
farmers for rearing, said Wednesday that 
demand for pork in Phnom Penh has 
increased about 20 per cent in the past year. 
“We may face a serious shortage of pork at 
market in the future if the well-to-do in the 
country are not quick enough to invest their 
wealth in pig raising to help increase supply,” 
Mong Reththy said. 
• Thai and Vietnamese firms continue to dump 
(selling below production cost) swine on the 
Cambodian market. 
• The cumulative effects of the Fall 2009 
Cambodian swine industry meltdown are now 
becoming obvious in local markets. 
• As imports and smuggling of swine increased 
during the past months, the effect has been 
reduced pork prices, a correlated increase in 
demand, but, in-turn, a destruction of the ability 
of Cambodian producers and traders to 
compete. 
• Facilitated provincial trade fairs in 7 provinces that 
included swine raiser associations and feed and input 
suppliers. 
• Facilitated workshops on improving swine genetics, 
including purchasing new breeds and artificial 
insemination to improve breeding stock and reduce 
pork fat content. 
• Facilitated workshops on bio-security to reduce disease 
transmission. 
• Facilitated an international exposure trip to the 
Philippines to show the private sector and government 
how cooperatives work with government offices to 
improve national swine competitiveness. 
July 29, 2010 – Srun Pov, president of 
Association of Pigs Raising in Cambodia, says 
that about 1,000 pigs are illegally imported 
• Blue ear disease and others are rampant in the 
Vietnamese herds again this year leading to 
• Facilitated radio talk show discussion and one televised
panel discussion on the subjects of the Cambodian 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 13 
In the Cambodian Press Cause of Problem and Effect on the Swine Value Chain in Cambodia Response by the MSME Project, Its Swine Value Chain Clients, and Government 
from Viet Nam into Cambodia every day, and 
some of them are ill. 
dumping. 
• Srun Pov creates his own personal Association 
so he can be a spokesperson and is one of the 
four “registered” Thai swine importers chosen 
without competition by MAFF. 
• Vietnamese dumping and a huge surge in Thai 
imports has decimated the Cambodian industry 
again after it began to re-invest in Sprint 2010, 
once the Vietnamese ran out of pigs to dump. 
swine industry. Government and private sector 
representatives participated. 
• Facilitated cross-provincial meetings between new 
CWGs and existing, strong CWGs. 
• Facilitated discussions between leading swine industry 
representatives and MAFF; MAFF committed to 
quarterly meetings. 
• Facilitated provincial private-public dialog on improving 
slaughterhouse hygiene. 
August 1, 2010 – Hun Sen announced the 
suspension of pig imports after blue ear first 
spread to Cambodia in May, threatening the 
industry. 
• The result of private-public dialogs and a 
coordinated campaign to get the swine issues in 
the press, facilitated by the CWGs and MSME, 
have increased pressure on the government to 
respond. 
• The “imposed ban” is enforced for only a couple 
of weeks because the decimated swine industry 
cannot provide enough pigs to the markets and 
Thai imports continue. 
• MSME produces a five CDROM series on artificial 
insemination to promote improved breeds that grow 
faster and leaner. 
• Facilitated several private-public dialogs at the 
provincial level to gain support for the national 
initiatives. 
• Ramped up efforts to facilitate improved animal feeds 
cooperatives. 
• In partnership with the Royal University, developed 
training materials on how to improve the pork 
processing business. 
August 5, 2010 – Cambodia authorities on 
Wednesday imposed ban on import of pigs 
from neighboring countries, fearing the spread 
of disease.
• The government’s anti-import initiative has been 
used as a reason to institute additional 
restrictions on the transport of Cambodia-raised 
swine, which has increased transport costs and 
reduced the easy flow to market. 
• In partnership with CWGs and MAFF, developed a best 
practice swine raising poster and business-technical 
training manual. 
• Analyzed the new transport regulations and 
disseminated analysis to CWGs so they could engage 
in discussions with provincial authorities to reduce fees 
and time. 
August 11, 2010 – Demand for pork in 
Cambodia plummets following a ban on Thai 
and Vietnamese pig imports, amid consumer 
fear of diseased meat. 
• The four “licensed” Thai swine importers have 
actually increased imports and have negotiated 
with authorities to discourage the import into the 
Phnom Penh slaughterhouses of Cambodia 
swine. 
• The Svay Rieng CWG, the strongest in the 
MSME client base, are fast to react to the 
restrictions and together with their provincial 
government officers, they communicate their 
displeasure with the increased transport 
• Facilitated meetings with the CWGs to understand the 
increased transport restrictions. 
• Facilitated several meetings between swine industry 
leaders and MAFF Department of Animal Health and 
Production to discuss issues. 
• Facilitated radio talk shows and programs to 
disseminate information about the truth that there is no 
danger eating Cambodian pork products if heated 
properly. 
14 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
In the Cambodian Press Cause of Problem and Effect on the Swine Value Chain in Cambodia Response by the MSME Project, Its Swine Value Chain Clients, and Government 
restrictions and the closing of the unofficial 
Phnom Penh slaughterhouse access. 
February 10, 2011 – Despite a six-month ban 
on pig imports, Cambodia’s pig industry is still 
struggling and has drastically decreased due 
to the continued illegal importation of 
Vietnamese pigs and Thai imports, experts 
say. In mid-2010, blue-ear disease ravaged 
the Vietnamese and Cambodian pig industry, 
killing thousands of swine in both countries. 
At the time, many experts expected the 
moratorium to help develop pig production in 
Cambodia. However, many pig producers are 
not investing because smuggling has kept 
prices low. 
• The four “licensed” Thai swine importers are 
importing and estimated 2-3,000 head of swine 
per day; almost 100% of Cambodia’s needs. 
• Vietnam begins to sell to swine and pork to 
China, decreasing dumping in Cambodia. 
• Cambodia’s swine industry is at its lowest 
production point since 2005. 
• Herds have been reduced at big producers; 
many small producers have stopped. 
• By mid-year, the government, concerned that 
production has stopped, and at the behest of the 
private sector, eliminates all transportation 
permits until 2012. 
• Facilitated a series of provincial private-public dialogs 
to discuss transport, import, smuggling and bio-security 
issues with MAFF’s Department of Animal Health and 
Production. 
• Facilitated two strategic communications workshops to 
improve skills at investigating and presenting issues to 
the government by the private sector. 
• Continued to make progress on the Trade Remedies 
Law drafting using a multi-ministerial approach; this will 
include anti-dumping measures. 
• All other value chain activities continue with an 
emphasis on rebuilding the industry. 
July 3, 2011 – Thailand suspends exports of 
live pigs to neighboring countries in a bid to 
bring down domestic retail pork prices. 
The ban was imposed after finding that a large 
number of pigs were being exported to 
Cambodia and Vietnam, to be sold at higher 
prices. The ban intends to bring the down the 
price of pigs in Thailand within two weeks and 
eventually lower retail pork prices. 
• Yielding to inflationary pressure, the Thai 
government suspends all official imports of 
swine. 
• Smuggling of smaller quantities of Thai swine 
continues, but Vietnam swine smuggling has 
nearly stopped. 
• Swine prices increase dramatically during the 
summer of 2011 and both large and small 
producers reinvest in their herds. 
• Cambodia’s swine industry has invested in 
better breeds, better feeds and can now get 
swine to market faster; they are much more 
competitively positioned than at any time since 
2005. 
• Facilitated increase numbers of embedded technical 
trainings, cross-provincial missions for feed producing 
CWGs and Feed Cooperatives, and less formal and 
private sector driven provincial discussions between 
CWGs and government officials. 
• Provided analysis of the new Animal Health and 
Production Law and disseminated the analysis to 
USAID and to all donors interested in the sector. 
• Analyzed the new Cooperatives Law and facilitated 
meetings between private sector and government to 
improve understanding and promote cooperative 
formation. 
August , 2011 – Cambodia’s swine industry 
has proven its resilience. Swine operators who 
had reduced herds or ceased operations have 
invested and reopened; Cambodian producers 
can now supply about 75 to 80% of market 
requirements. 
There are no reports in the press about 
• The reduced imports and smuggling, combined 
with improved bio-security and business 
services supplied by veterinarians has 
rejuvenated the Cambodia swine industry. 
• CWGs have invested heavily in new production 
facilities, improved breed, and local feed 
production. 
• Increased activities to improve sustainability of past 
MSME-facilitated activities. Provided CWGs with lists of 
input suppliers and directed them to contact the input 
suppliers for further training. 
• Decreased financial support for all project activities and 
required the private sector to significantly increase their 
contributions. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 15 
In the Cambodian Press Cause of Problem and Effect on the Swine Value Chain in Cambodia Response by the MSME Project, Its Swine Value Chain Clients, and Government 
imports, smuggling, transportation issues, or 
disease outbreaks. • CWGs and a nascent National Swine Raisers Association have continued to improve 
provincial and national dialog to present and 
solve issues. Communications are very good. 
• The new Animal Health Law was placed on hold due to 
donor-related pressures. 
• Facilitating more comprehensive provincial private￾public dialog through CWGs. 
16 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
1.1 PIG PRODUCERS 
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 
Women own 223 (31 percent) of the sampled enterprises. They are located in key rural areas, mainly 
around the Tonle Sap and Plains areas. Pig producers were interviewed in 14 provinces, with most located 
in Kampong Thom (15 percent), Prey Veng (12 percent), Siem Reap (10 percent), Kampot (10 percent) 
and Battambang (10 percent) provinces (see Table 1). 
TABLE 1: CAMBODIA MSME SAMPLE PIG PRODUCER LOCATION PROFILE 
Location 
Sample (Recent clients only) TAMIS (All MSME clients) 
(n) percent 
total No. F percent 
F No. percent 
total No. F percent 
F 
Rural/Urban 
 percent Rural 623 87% 190 85% 
 percent Urban 94 13% 33 15% 
Region 
Coastal 70 10% 30 13% 
Plateau/ Mountain 130 18% 34 15% 
Plains 190 26% 37 17% 
Tonle Sap 327 46% 122 55% 
Provinces 
Banteay Meanchey 0 0% 0 0% 5 0% 1 0% 
Battambang 74 10% 23 10% 175 9% 39 8% 
Kampong Cham 50 7% 8 4% 143 8% 30 6% 
Kampong Speu 25 3% 10 4% 84 4% 31 6% 
Kampong Thom 108 15% 44 20% 161 9% 67 13% 
Kampot 70 10% 30 13% 243 13% 75 15% 
Kandal 21 3% 4 2% 77 4% 9 2% 
Kratie 55 8% 16 7% 152 8% 53 10% 
Phnom Penh 0 0% 0 0% 8 0% 0 0% 
Prey Veng 83 12% 17 8% 239 13% 49 10% 
Pursat 64 9% 30 13% 149 8% 57 11% 
Siem Reap 71 10% 25 11% 190 10% 57 11% 
Svay Rieng 29 4% 1 0% 88 5% 10 2% 
Takeo 67 9% 15 7% 158 8% 32 6% 
Total Sample 717 100% 223 100% 1872 100% 510 100% 
Demographic data on Cambodia MSME households was collected using a standard USAID Poverty 
Assessment Tool. As Table 2 shows among pig producer households, 85 percent of heads of households 
are male (as opposed to 89 percent in 2009), with a mean age of 44 years and an average household size 
of 5.2 persons (See Table 2). 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 17 
TABLE 2: CAMBODIA MSME SAMPLE PIG PRODUCER DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 
Enterprise Household Profile Sample (n) Percent of Enterprises 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Demographics 
Male 495 609 89% 85% 
Female 60 108 11% 15% 
Mean household size (persons) 5.2 5.2 
Mean Age of household head 43.7 44.5 
No pers. >=18 yrs can read simple message 2.1 2.2 
Mean months in Cambodia MSME Project 3.4 21.3 
Total Sample 555 717 100% 100% 
1.1.1 VALUE OF INVESTMENTS BY PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Investments by pig producers consist of various assets and breeding stock, as presented in Figure 1. All 
sampled enterprises have invested in land for pig production, with a mean area of 92 m2 valued at $548. 
These figures include larger enterprises. This is significantly lower than 2009, when the mean area of land 
destined for pig production was 272 m2, valued at $2,902. Farmers largely attributed the reduction in land 
set aside for pig production as a consequence of the simultaneous outbreaks of swine fever and porcine 
reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), also known as blue ear disease. The outbreaks of both 
diseases had a devastating effect on the pig population throughout the region. Because roughly 1.2 m2 of 
land is needed per pig – the size of a pen – the reduction in the overall number of pigs due to disease 
required less land. 
As Figure 1 also shows, the vast majority of enterprises are still investing in other basic assets, such as pig 
pens, troughs and motorcycles to transport pigs. Interestingly, fewer enterprises have a cooking pan and 
cooker (65 percent as opposed to 70 percent in 2009) while slightly more enterprises (59 percent) have a 
water pump than in 2009 (52 percent). Investment in water pumps could also be related to the benefits it 
will bring to other agricultural activities carried out at the household (i.e. growing rice) and families 
consider investing in those things that will provide most benefit to several agricultural activities. 
Considerably fewer enterprises have invested in other equipment such as biogas (4 percent) or a truck to 
transport pigs (2 percent). This survey found no enterprises with a feed making machine, as opposed to 5 
percent in 2009. Furthermore, a considerable higher percentage of enterprises have artificial insemination 
equipment (10 percent) than in 2009 when only 2 percent of enterprises had them. Finally, 7 percent of 
enterprises invest in feed milk. This was not asked in the previous survey in 2009. 
Investment for breeding stock has been mostly on breeding sows (71 percent of enterprises in 2009 and 
74 percent in 2011), while only rarely for breeding boars (7 percent and 8 percent in 2009 and 2001 
respectively). Each enterprise owns a mean of 3 breeding sows, valued at $781 each. The mean value of 
all assets is $2,083 per pig producer enterprise, which is considerably lower to the $4,712 registered in 
2009. This reduction in mean value of assets can be mainly attributed to the reduction of invested land for 
pig production, which on average decreased in value from $2,902 in 2009 to $548 in 2011 and the 
reduction in value of motorcycles, which decreased from $619 to $356 respectively. 
18 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
FIGURE 1: PIG PRODUCERS INVESTMENTS 
1.1.2 VOLUME OF PRODUCTION OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Pig enterprises typically produce a mix of piglets and feeder pigs, with fewer boars and sows. In the 
PMEP, volume is defined as the mean total number of pigs of all types produced for sale per enterprise. 
This definition is linked to the PMEP indicator “value of sales” presented in the next section. The mean 
volume of production is 27 head of pig per pig producer enterprise supported by the Cambodia MSME 
program (See Figure 2). 
FIGURE 2: VOLUME OF PRODUCTION OF PIGS FOR SALE – PIG PRODUCERS 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 19 
Figure 2 also shows the breakdown of pig production by type of swine. For instance, fattening pigs are 
produced by 88 percent of surveyed enterprises (87 percent in 2009), with a mean of 20 sold per year. A 
mean of 23 piglets are produced and sold every year by 35 percent of enterprises, a slight increase from 
32 percent in 2009 (with a mean of 24 piglets sold). This survey revealed an important increase in the 
number of enterprises producing sows for sale (42 percent) as opposed to only 9 percent of surveyed 
enterprises in 2009. The mean volume of sales of sows in 2011 was 4, in contrast to only 2 in 2009. 
Overall, a mean of 27 head of pig for sale were produced by surveyed enterprises among all 717 surveyed 
pig producers. 
The survey also enquired about total production of pigs in each enterprise, not only those produced to be 
sold. Table 3 shows that most enterprises (98 percent) bred or bought piglets, with a mean of 28 head per 
enterprise, slightly higher than the 2009 mean of 25 head of pig per enterprise. Piglets are most 
commonly raised as fattening pigs for sale, while about one third (35 percent) will be sold off as piglets 
(See Figure 2). In addition, 42 percent of surveyed firms had fattening pigs in the weight gain stage before 
sale (a noticeable increase from 24 percent in 2009), with a mean of 8 head per enterprise (as opposed 
from 19 head per enterprise in 2009). These results indicate that while more enterprises are fattening pigs 
for later sale, they are raising fewer head per enterprise. At the time of this survey, pig prices were very 
low, in part caused by a lack of demand among consumers worried about disease. However, prices were 
already starting to rise, and indeed by April/May 2011, prices had doubled. Keeping fattening pigs for 
later sale is therefore a rational reaction to market forces. However, given that the future is never certain, 
as a risk mitigation strategy, farmers held on to a fewer number of pigs for future sale, causing them to be 
ready to take advantage of higher prices, but not leaving them completely vulnerable if prices stagnated or 
declined further. 
The sows and boars in production are most likely to be younger pigs retained and being raised to replace 
existing breeding stock. It is important to notice that there was an increase in the percentage of firms 
producing both boars and sows since 2009, from 3 percent to 8 percent of surveyed firms in the case of 
boars and from 21 percent to 66 percent in the case of sows. There was also an increase in the mean 
number of head produced between 2009 and 2011 among surveyed firms, from 2 to 3.5 head per 
enterprise in the case of boars, and from 3 to 4 in the case of sows. 
TABLE 3: PIG PRODUCER TOTAL VOLUME OF PRODUCTION 
Item Sample (n) percent Total 
Units 
Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Boars 16 57 3% 8% 1.9 3.5 1 2 
Sows 119 472 21% 66% 2.6 4.3 2 3 
Fattening Pigs (Fattening) 132 304 24% 42% 19.1 7.8 9 4 
Piglets (to Fattening Pigs) 540 701 97% 98% 25.5 28.2 17 20 
Total Sample/ Value 555 717 100% 100% 30.0 34.0 20 24 
1.1.3 VALUE OF SALES OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Figure 3 shows the value of sales of pigs per surveyed enterprise. The value of sales shows enterprise 
gross sales revenues. The mean value of sales of pigs is $3,514 with a mean of 27 head sold per year and 
an average value per unit of $148. Among pig producers, pig sales are the most common and valuable (88 
percent of surveyed enterprises sell fattened pigs), followed by sows with 42 percent, piglets with 35 
20 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
percent and boars with 3 percent. It is interesting to note the sharp increase in the number (percentage) of 
enterprises selling sows, which grew from 9 percent in 2009 to 42 percent in 2011, with an increase in the 
average number of sows sold from 2 to 4. As market demand for pork picked up after disease outbreaks 
waned and consumer fears eased, producers had limited supply of fattened pigs on hand due to reduced 
stocks. However, in response to a significant increase in market demand, the price for sows moved from 
$134 to $231 per head. Pig producers therefore chose to sell what stock they had available at the higher 
prices now offered by the market. 
FIGURE 3: VALUE OF SALES OF PIG PRODUCERS 
1.1.4 COSTS OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
The costs of pig production include costs of bought stock and the costs of goods and services used during 
pig production cycles. The mean overall cost of pig production per enterprise is $2,081, which is almost 
18 percent higher than in 2009 ($1,775). This can be mainly attributed to the increase in the cost of boars 
and feed for pigs. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 21 
FIGURE 4: COSTS OF PIG PRODUCTION 
Figure 4 shows that while enterprises breed pigs for sale, some also buy stock to supplement production 
and sale. The mean cost of stock was $512, which is considerably higher than the $414 mean cost of stock 
reported in 2009. This can be attributed to the rise in cost of boars. This cost represents 25 percent of all 
the costs of a pig production business, which is higher than the 23 percent it used to be in 2009. 
In comparison with 2009, when 50 percent of surveyed firms bought an average of 14 piglets each for 
fattening at a cost of $484, in 2011 only 37 percent of surveyed firms bought an average of 13 piglets 
each at a cost of $489. Only 8 percent of surveyed enterprises (as opposed to 15 percent in 2009) bought 
an average of 11 feeder pigs for fattening and sale, while 52 percent of surveyed enterprises (in contrast 
with only 10 percent in 2009) bought an average of 2.4 sows at a total cost of $502. Only 6 percent of 
surveyed pig production enterprises bought an average of 2.4 boars at a cost of $706 .This represents an 
increase from the 1 percent of surveyed enterprises that bought an average of 1.4 boars in 2009. 
Pig production costs include expenditures for a range of goods and services, such as feed, transportation, 
vaccines and other veterinary related costs and technical services. Among the 717 surveyed enterprises, 
the mean total cost of these goods and services amounted to $1,569 per enterprise, representing75 percent 
22 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
of the total costs of these businesses. The most common and largest cost for pig producers was pig feed. 
Feed costs include the cost of buying feed and the cost of cooking feed for pigs. 
In 2011, almost all enterprises incurred in homemade and manufactured feed costs (99 percent and 96 
percent respectively), with a mean value of $673 and $394 respectively. More importantly perhaps, is the 
fact that surveyed pig producers increased the amount of homemade feed considerably between 2009 and 
2011. Pig producers prepared an average of 7,866 kg of homemade feed in 2011, in contrast with only 
2,376 in 2009. This means that pig producers spent a total of $673 per enterprise in homemade feed in 
2011, a 48 percent increase from the average of $455 that they spent in 2009. However, in 2011 pig 
producers spent an average of only $394 in 1,132 kg of manufactured feed, while in 2009 they spent 
$1,347 buying 809 kg of feed. The total mean cost of both types of pig feed represents an average of 51 
percent of total business costs for all pig enterprises. 
New costs that were added to this survey included manufactured feed by the community in which 5 
percent of surveyed firms incurred and manufactured feed at the individual level in which 3 percent of 
surveyed enterprises incurred. 
Other common costs of goods and services among pig producers include vaccine costs (86 percent of 
enterprises with a mean of $18 for 26 vaccines per enterprise, other medicines (75 percent of enterprises 
with a mean of $17), and transportation costs (79 percent with a mean value of $20). It is important to 
note the increase in percentage of surveyed firms that claim to have hired full-time labor to work at the 
pig producer enterprise. While in 2009, only 3 percent of firms said that they hired part-time labor, in 
2011, 30 percent of enterprises claimed having hired part-time workers at a mean cost of $209 per year. 
Similarly, 25 percent of surveyed enterprises claimed to have hired part-time labor at a mean cost of $55 
per year/, while this only happened with 1 percent of enterprises in 2009 (with a mean value of $63). 
There was also a noticeable increase in the percentage of enterprises paying for electricity (62 percent), 
veterinary service fees (56 percent), hired transportation (37 percent) and water supply (15 percent). Each 
of these increases indicates increased participation by a greater number of value chain enterprises in the 
formal sector. Through training offered by the project, participating enterprises are better able to track 
costs and keep accurate records. The project has also facilitated access to private sector veterinary 
services in all project areas, as well as access to private sector water services in targeted areas. 
Specifying feed quantities and cost estimates is difficult for some producers, especially in relation to 
homemade feed and cooking costs. Assuming that the average of pigs sold per enterprise is 27, each pig 
would consume on average 333 kg of supplementary feed (manufactured and home-made) (without 
including feed manufactured at the community and individual level) over its growth cycle from piglet to 
sale live-weight. The project is actively promoting the local production of homemade feed, at a 
production cost which is estimated to be as much as 30 percent lower than importing feed from Thailand, 
the next most affordable option. Currently, approximately 90 client pig enterprises are producing 
homemade feed for themselves and for some of the 18 small pig associations that the project works with. 
1.1.5 INCOME OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Income is defined as the value of annual sales minus the annual costs of business. Table 4 shows the Mid 
Term income results derived from subtracting the costs of business from total value of sales. The mean 
value of income is $574 per pig producer sampled. This is considerable lower than the $780 reported in 
the baseline survey of 2009 and responds mainly to an average increase in costs of more than 35 percent 
mainly fuelled by input costs as highlighted above, despite the fact that the total value of sales also 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 23 
increased by around 37 percent. If we consider the median, the increase in costs represents an average 
increase in costs of 25 percent. Additionally, it was noted that pig farmers tend to spend more on 
veterinary services during a disease outbreak. However, once swine fever or PRRS (blue ear) are already 
virulent within a herd, regardless of size, a veterinary response is too late to be effective. 
TABLE 4: PIG PRODUCER INCOME 
Item Sample (n) Percent Total 
Values ($) 
Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
TOTAL VALUE OF SALES 555 717 100% 100% $2,555 $3,514 $1,382 $2,382 
TOTAL COST OF BUSINESS 555 717 100% 100% $1,775 $2,939 $1,020 $2,081 
TOTAL SAMPLE / INCOME 555 717 100% 100% $780 $574 $312 $250 
1.1.6 OTHER PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS ON PIG PRODUCING ENTERPRISES 
As in the 2009 baseline survey, this Mid Term survey includes productivity indicators that are considered 
important but are not included in the PMEP indicator matrix. These are two indicators, namely feeder pig 
productivity and pig mortality. Table 5 illustrates two productivity indicators related to feeder pigs. The 
first indicator shows that the average feeder pig weight at time of sale is 66 kilograms live weight, which 
is exactly the same figure as in the baseline of 2009. This figure suggests that more has to be done by the 
Cambodia MSME Project if it is hoped that the average live weight increases to the 70-90 kg range. 
The average number of days to raise a feeder pig to 80-90 kilograms decreased from 157 days in 2009 to 
146 days in 2011. This is a positive sign if the Cambodia MSME Project aims to reduce the average 
number of days to 120 days, or four months. 
TABLE 5: CAMBODIA MSME PIG PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS: FEEDER PIGS 
Item Sample (n) Percent 
Total 
Units 
Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
AVG. FEEDER KG AT SALE 555 707 100% 99% 66 66 73 75 
AVG. DAYS FEEDER TO 80-90KG 501 717 90% 100% 157 146 150 150 
Average Kg fattening pigs at the start Bred N/A 459 N/A 64% N/A 19.1 N/A 18 
Average Kg fattening pigs at the start - Bought N/A 307 N/A 43% N/A 21.3 N/A 20 
Total Sample/ Value 555 100% 
Table 6 presents productivity indicators in terms of pig mortality, by type of pig. The first column shows 
a comparison of the number of firms claiming that one or more head of pigs died during the last year by 
type. 
TABLE 6: PIG PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS: PIG MORTALITY 
24 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
MORTALITY RATE: PIG 
PRODUCTION Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units 
Item Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Boars 0 18 0% 3% 0 59% 0 50% 
Sows 8 96 1% 13% 76% 55% 100% 50% 
Fattening Pigs 35 27 6% 4% 28% 29% 17% 20% 
Piglets 255 373 46% 52% 21% 24% 15% 17% 
Total Sample/ Value 555 717 100% 
The mortality rates are presented at the enterprise level as the percentage of each type of pig that died as a 
proportion of all pigs of that type produced by the enterprises. For instance, of the 18 enterprises that 
reported that at least one of their boars died, on average 60 percent of their boars died. Of the 96 
enterprises that reported that at least one of their sows died, on average 55 percent of their sows died. Of 
the 27 enterprises that reported that one or more of their fattening pigs died, 29 percent of their pigs died. 
Finally, of the 373 enterprises reporting that at least on their piglets died (representing 52 percent of the 
total sampled enterprises), on average 24 percent of their piglets died. 
Noticeably, there was a large increase in surveyed firms claiming that at least one of their boars and one 
of their sows died. In the first case, while in 2009 no enterprise reported having a dead boar, in 2011, 18 
percent enterprises reported having dead boars and an astonishing average of 59 percent of boars died. 
This is related to the re-emergence of swine fever and PRRS (blue ear) during the year. 
Also of notice is the sharp increase between 2009 and 2011 of the number of firms reporting at least one 
dead sow, from 8 enterprises to 96, or from 1 percent of surveyed enterprises to 13 percent of all surveyed 
enterprises. The percentage of sows dead per enterprises however, decreased from 76 percent on average 
to 55 percent. 
1.2 PIG TRADERS 
Pig trader enterprises are those that trade pigs for profit. Pigs are purchased from producers and then 
transported and sold to other pig producers, processors, wholesalers or retailers. As of July 2009, there 
were four traders in the value chain, one of them a female-owned enterprise. 
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 
A sample of two pig traders was included in this pig value chain survey. All are owned by men. One pig 
trader is located in Battambang province and one in Pursat province. These traders were from multi-role 
enterprises that are also pig producers (and are recorded in TAMIS as such). 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 25 
TABLE 7: PIG TRADER LOCATION PROFILE 
 Sample (Recent clients only) TAMIS (All MSME clients) 
Location (n) percent 
total No. F percent 
F No. percent 
total No. F percent 
F 
Rural/Urban 
 percent Rural 2 100% 0 0% 
Region 
Tonle Sap 2 100% 0 0% 
Province 
Battambang 1 50% 0 0% 1 17% 
Kratie 0 0% 0 0% 2 33% 2 67% 
Pursat 1 50% 0 0% 1 17% 
Siem Reap 0 0% 0 0% 2 33% 1 33% 
Total Sample 2 100% 0 0% 6 100% 3 100% 
The two surveyed pig-traders are enterprises who managed to survive since 2009 and as such are all male￾headed with a mean age of 44 years and an average household size of 5 members. They have an average 
of 2 adults with basic literacy skills. 
On average these households have been with the Cambodia MSME Project for 23.5 months at the time of 
the baseline survey. 
TABLE 8: PIG TRADER DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 
Enterprise Household Profile Sample (n) Percent of 
Enterprises 
Demographics 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Male 7 2 100% 100% 
Mean household size (persons) 5.3 5 
Mean Age of household head 36.1 44.5 
No. pers. >=18 yrs can read simple message 0.9 2 
Mean Months in Cambodia MSME Project 3.7 23.5 
Total Sample 7 2 100% 100% 
1.2.1 VALUE OF INVESTMENTS BY PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Table 9 shows that of the two surveyed firms only one has a motorcycle to transport pigs. As in 2009, 
none of the surveyed firms owns a truck for pig transportation and there is little investment in other 
assets. The Mid Term mean value of total investment per pig trader is $311, which is a significantly lower 
mean value than the $580 recorded in 2009. 
26 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 9: PIG TRADER INVESTMENTS 
INVESTMENTS: 
PIG TRADERS Sample (n) Percent 
Total 
Units Value ($) 
Item Mean Median Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Pig Transport￾Motorcycle 
7 2 100% 100% 1 1 1 1 $547 $267 $479 $267 
Pig Transport-Truck 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 $ - $ - 
Other Major Trading 
Assets 
7 2 100% 100% - - - - $32 $44 $17 $44 
Total Sample/ Value 7 2 100% 100% $580 $311 $503 $311 
1.2.2 VOLUME OF PRODUCTION OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Pig-trader enterprises do not produce pigs for sale but instead trade pigs. For pig traders, the PMEP 
indicator “Percentage of change in volume of production in project-assisted enterprises” equates to the 
percentage in change in volume of traded pigs. As Table 10 shows, there has been a great reduction in the 
average of traded pigs between 2009 and 2011. While in 2009, they traded an average of 516 per year, in 
2011 this number went down to 113. Even when comparing the median there has been a considerable 
reduction in number of traded pigs. 
The units traded per enterprise also declined drastically, with enterprises now trading on average only 13 
sows, 80 fattening pigs and 40 piglets, from much higher numbers in 2009. Anecdotic evidence suggests 
that this is a result of the swine fever and PRRS (blue ear) epidemics that affected pig farms during 2010. 
TABLE 10: PIG TRADER VOLUME OF TRADES 
Item Sample (n) percent Total 
Units per enterprise 
Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Boars 3 0 43% 0% 4.3 - 5 - 
Sows 3 2 43% 100% 21 13 10 13 
Fattening Pigs 7 2 100% 100% 143 80 70 80 
Piglets 4 1 57% 50% 844 40 1000 40 
Total Sample/ Value 7 2 100% 100% 516 113 180 113 
1.2.3 VALUE OF SALES OF PROJECT ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
The baseline value of the PMEP indicator “Percentage of change in the value of sales of project-supported 
SMEs” for pig traders is a mean value of trades of $14,148 per project assisted enterprise. This is a much 
lower mean value than in 2009, when it was $20,598 per project assisted enterprise. 
Table 11 shows the detail of how trade of pigs has declined among project supported pig traders. The two 
surveyed firms did not trade boars while the average number of sows traded declined to 13 per enterprise. 
The average number of fattening pigs also declined to 80 from 143 between 2009 and 2011, while the 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 27 
median value of fattening pigs increased from 70 to 80 in the same period. This perhaps reflects that it 
was the larger pig traders in this project that were hit the hardest by recent events. Fattening pigs are now 
traded at an average value of $11,285 and a price of $147 per head. The only enterprise that traded piglets 
during the last year, sold 20 piglets for $1,500 and a price per head of $38. 
28 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 11: PIG TRADER VALUE OF TRADES 
Item Enterprise percent Total Units Values ($) Unit Value/ Head ($) Sample (n) Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Boars 3 0 43% 0% 4 - 5 - $404 - $180 - $93 - $36 - 
Sows 3 2 43% 100% 21 13 10 13 $2,382 $2,113 $311 $2,113 $113 $119 $31 $119 
Fattening 
Pigs 
7 2 100% 100% 143 80 70 80 $12,119 $11,285 $10,890 $11,285 $85 $147 $156 $147 
Piglets 4 1 57% 50% 844 20 1000 20 $16,999 $1,500 $16,754 $1,500 $20 $38 $17 $38 
Total 
Sample/ 
Value 
7 2 100% 100% 516 113 180 113 $20,598 $14,148 $19,092 $14,148 $40 $109 $106 $109 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 29 
1.2.4 COST OF BUSINESS OF PROJECT-ASSISTED PIG TRADERS 
The costs of business for pig traders include costs of bought stock, transport and labor. The mean overall 
cost of business for pig traders is $7,752. Table 13 below shows the results reported by the two pig traders 
sampled in 2011. The major cost for pig traders is purchases on pig trading stock. For 2011, the two 
surveyed firms bought an average of 80 head (down from 144 in 2009) for a total cost of $4,250 per 
enterprise. The average cost of fattening pigs reduced considerably between 2009 and 2011. This can be 
attributed to the widespread introduction of new pig breeds from the USA, imported via Thailand. These 
imported pig breeds have a much better conversion rate, requiring only 2.5 or 3 kgs of feed to develop 1 
kg of pig weight increase, as opposed to the local breed, which requires 4 kgs of feed per kg of pig weight 
increase. The imported breed also fatten faster, leaner, and heavier – to 90-100 kg in 4.5 months (after 
being weaned at 6 weeks) as opposed to 8-10 months for the local breed. 
The two surveyed firms also bought an average of 20 piglets (down from 844 in 2009) for a total cost of 
$600. This also shows that the average price of a piglet almost doubled in this period. Fewer piglets were 
available because of the disease outbreaks. 
Pig traders also incur in other costs, such as hiring part-time and full-time labor, transport costs, licenses 
and fees and others, that are relatively smaller (See Table 12). 
Overall, the average cost of doing business for surveyed/project-assisted is considerably lower than that 
of the previous survey, mainly as the cost per head of fattening pigs reduced substantially. 
30 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 12: PIG TRADER COSTS OF BUSINESS 
Item Sample (n) percent Total 
Units Total Values ($) 
Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
BOUGHT TRADING STOCK 
Boars 3 0 43% 0% 4.3 - 5 - $535 - $653 - 
Sows 3 2 43% 100% 21 13 10 13 $442 $2,250 $431 $2,250 
Fattening Pigs 7 2 100% 100% 144 80 70 80 $10,523 $4,250 $7,539 $4,250 
Piglets 3 1 43% 50% 844 20 1000 20 $14,656 $600 $15,558 $600 
GOODS & SERVICES INPUTS 
Hired Labor Part-Time 1 2 14% 100% - - - - $191 $40 $191 $40 
Hired Labor Full-Time 0 2 0% 100% - - - - - $288 - $288 
Own Transport: Fuel, Oil, 
Maintenance 
7 2 100% 100% - - - - $265 $252 $151 $252 
Hired Transport Costs 2 1 29% 50% - - - - $539 $63 $539 $63 
Licenses and Fees 4 1 57% 50% - - - - $138 $8 $132 $8 
Other Major Costs 4 1 57% 50% - - - - $28 $2 $30 $2 
Total Sample/ Value 7 2 100% 100% $17,764 $7,752 $18,702 $7,752 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 31 
1.2.5 INCOME OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Income is defined as the value of annual trades minus the annual cost of business. Table 13 shows the 
Mid Term income results derived from subtracting the cost of business from total value of sales. The 
mean value of income is $6,396 per pig trader. This means an almost 2.5 times increase in the average 
income of pig traders, although some caution needs to be taken when comparing the two figures as the 
samples are drastically different and there have been special circumstances between surveys, such as the 
emergence of Swine Flu. 
TABLE 13: PIG TRADER INCOME 
Item Sample (n) Percent Total 
Values (USD) 
Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
TOTAL VALUE OF SALES 7 2 100% 100% $20,598 $14,148 $19,092 $14,148 
TOTAL COST OF BUSINESS 7 2 100% 100% $17,764 $7,752 $18,702 $7,752 
Total Sample/ Income 7 2 100% 100% $2,834 $6,396 $828* $6,396* 
* Medians as the midpoint sample values for each indicator do not calculate to total here in this small sample 
1.2.6 OTHER PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS FOR PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Pig traders provided estimates on feeder-pig trade and productivity indicators. The average mean live 
weights of feeder pigs at sale is estimated at 75 kg, just as in 2009, higher than producer estimates of 66 
kg, indicating that traders tend to buy larger feeders intended for sale in the market. The estimated 
average number of days to raise a feeder pig to 80-90 kg is 140 days, which is a shorter period that the 
180 days estimated by the traders in 2009. 
TABLE 14: PIG PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS: FEEDER PIGS (TRADERS) 
Item Sample (n) Percent 
Total 
Units 
Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
AVG. FEEDER KG AT SALE 7 2 100% 100% 75 75 71 75 
AVG. DAYS FEEDER TO 80-90KG 7 2 100% 100% 180 140 155 140 
Traders were also asked to specify pig mortality rates among pigs bought for trade (See Table 15). 
Mortality rates were reported zero, as pigs for trade are only kept on hand for a short period for transit to 
market. This also indicated that existing pig transportation methods are not a cause of pig mortality. 
32 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 15: PIG PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS: PIG MORTALITY (TRADERS) 
MORTALITY RATE: PIG TRADER 
Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units 
Item Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Boars 0 0 0% 0% 0.00 - 0.00 - 
Sows 0 0 0% 0% 0.00 - 0.00 - 
Fattening Pigs 1 0 14% 0% 0.01 - 0.01 - 
Piglets 0 0 0% 0% 0.00 - 0.00 - 
Total Sample/ Value 7 100% 
1.3 PIG INPUT AND SERVICE PROVIDERS, INCLUDING 
VETERINARIANS 
Pig input and service providers (ISP) perform an important role in the pig value chain, providing a range 
of goods and services to support pig production. Veterinarians are a particular type of ISP, although there 
are overlaps in goods and services provisions, particularly in medicinal goods and services, with other 
input suppliers. 
Updated TAMIS client data for all input and service providers shows a total of 194 ISP enterprises, 
including 15 female-owned enterprises. Veterinarians are relatively numerous and perform an important 
role in the value chain in their own right. Baseline results for some indicators are provided separately for 
veterinarians, and other input and service providers. 
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 
A sample of 194 pig input and service providers is included in this pig value chain baseline. This sample 
includes 159 veterinarian enterprises, 56 input-supplier enterprises, and 21 enterprises that provide both 
full veterinarian services and non-veterinarian input supplier services. These sample enterprises are 
owned by women in 7 percent of cases. 
These enterprises are mainly located in rural areas, although 10 percent are urban based. They are 
particularly concentrated in the Tonle Sap region, to the north and northeast of the country. Enterprises 
were sampled in districts in 14 provinces. Most of these enterprises are located in the provinces of Svay 
Rieng (22 percent), Kampong Thom (19 percent), Kratie (10 percent), Battambang (8 percent), Kampong 
Speu (8 percent) and Pursat (8 percent). 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 33 
TABLE 16: CAMBODIA MSME SAMPLE PIG INPUT & SERVICE PROVIDER LOCATION 
PROFILE 
 Sample (Recent clients only) TAMIS (All MSME clients) 
Location (n) percent 
total No. F % F No. percent 
total No. F percent 
F 
Rural/Urban 
 percent Rural 174 90% 
 percent Urban 20 10% 
Region 
Phnom Penh 2 1% 
Coastal 15 8% 
Plateau/mountain 44 23% 
Plains 61 31% 
Tonle Sap 72 37% 
Province 
Banteay Meanchey 2 1% 0 0% 2 1% 1 5% 
Battambang 15 8% 2 13% 21 7% 2 10% 
Kampong Cham 10 5% 0 0% 13 4% 2 10% 
Kampong Speu 15 8% 1 7% 22 7% 0 0% 
Kampong Thom 36 19% 5 33% 49 16% 5 24% 
Kampot 15 8% 0 0% 35 11% 2 10% 
Kandal 1 1% 0 0% 5 2% 0 0% 
Kratie 19 10% 0 0% 30 10% 0 0% 
Phnom Penh 2 1% 1 7% 5 2% 1 5% 
Prey Veng 7 4% 1 7% 13 4% 1 5% 
Pursat 15 8% 1 7% 20 6% 2 10% 
Siem Reap 3 2% 1 7% 4 1% 1 5% 
Svay Rieng 42 22% 2 13% 71 23% 2 10% 
Takeo 12 6% 1 7% 21 7% 2 10% 
Total Sample 194 100% 15 100% 311 100% 21 
Pig ISP households are 96 percent male-headed with 44 years as the mean age of household age, and an 
average household size of 5 persons. Almost all of the 8 percent of female clients live in households 
headed by males. These households have an average of 2.1 adults with at least very basic literacy – they 
can read a simple message. On average, these households have been in the project for 22.6 months at the 
time of the baseline survey. 
34 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 17: CAMBODIA MSME SAMPLE PIG INPUT & SERVICE PROVIDER 
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 
Enterprise Household Profile Sample (n) Percent of total 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Demographics 
Male 56 186 98% 96% 
Female 1 8 2% 4% 
Mean household size (persons) 5.2 5.0 
Mean age of household head 42.2 44.2 
No pers. >=18 yrs can read simple message 2.1 2.1 
Mean months in Cambodia MSME Project 3.4 22.6 
Total Sample 57 194 100% 
1.3.1 VALUE OF INVESTMENTS BY PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Results on investments for ISP enterprises are provided separately for veterinarian/VLA enterprises and 
input-supplier enterprises. The Mid Term mean value of the investments by project-supported pig 
veterinarians/VLA SMEs is $759, compared to an average investment of $1,388 by veterinarians/VLAs in 
2009. Figure 3 shows a list of investments for pig veterinarian/VLA enterprises. Almost all enterprises 
(99 percent) made investments in veterinarian equipment with an average value of $97, and in motorcycle 
transport (94 percent) with a mean value of $469. Other important investments include equipment for 
storage and refrigeration and other major input/service assets. Fewer veterinarian/VLA enterprises are 
willing and/or able to invest in larger-scale investments such as land and building for shops or storage 
facilities. 
FIGURE 5: PIG ISP VETERINARIAN/VLA INVESTMENTS 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 35 
The mean value of investments by sampled pig input supplier enterprises is $12,533. Pig input suppliers 
invest mainly on land for a shop or office (96 percent) an average of $4,126, or in buildings for a shop or 
office (88 percent) an average of $2,937. Other significant investments include equipment for feed storage 
(41 percent) and for refrigeration (50 percent), motorcycle transport (61 percent) and other veterinarian 
equipment (75 percent). Fewer pig input suppliers invest on trucks or cars for transport (5 percent) or on 
equipment for pen/through buildings (20 percent). 
36 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
FIGURE 6: PIG ISP INPUT SUPPLIER INVESTMENTS 
1.3.2 VOLUME OF PRODUCTION OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Pig ISP enterprises provide a range of goods and services, measured in different units, and supplied in 
different quantities. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a single meaningful PMEP indicator of 
enterprise-level volume of sales that represents ISP enterprises. However, it is important to examine 
values of volume of sales for goods and services provided by ISP enterprises. Table 18 describes the 
volume of sales for goods and services among these ISP enterprises. Results for veterinarians and other 
input suppliers are provided separately. 
The volume of sales of veterinarian enterprises typically consists of a combination of service fees (per 
service) and medicines for vaccination and medical treatment of pigs (per head). In practice, services and 
medicines can be sold as a package to a customer, so veterinarians were asked to distinguish service fees 
and medicine components of their sales where possible. The most common and largest sales volumes on 
average are vaccines, with a mean of 790 vaccines per enterprise. This represents a large increase from 
the average of 452 vaccines per enterprise reported in 2011, and again may be a consequence of the 
Swine Flu disease of 2009. 
Treatment service fees also saw a large increase to a mean of 625 service fees per enterprise from the 
average of 502 reported in the baseline survey of 2009. Treatment medicines (no. of head) also rose to a 
staggering 1,112 per enterprise from 225 in 2009. AI services are undertaken by 19 percent of 
veterinarians (8 percent in 2009) and sales of semen account for 16 percent of enterprises (5 percent in 
2009). 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 37 
The sales of other ISPs include manufactured pig feed, which in 2011 was sold by 50 ISPs at an average 
of 64,447 kg per enterprise. ISPs also sell ingredients to feed animals/to prepare animal feed. For 
instance, 7 enterprises sold an average of 11,486 kg of corn in 2011; 13 enterprises sold an average of 
33,508 kg of bran; 2 enterprises sold an average of 4,550 kg of soy bean and; 6 enterprises sold an 
average of 9,317 kg of fish miller. 
ISPs also sell veterinarian supplies, such as vaccinations (almost 60 percent of ISPs), medicines (82 
percent), and to a much smaller scale pig production and processing equipments (See Table 20). No ISPs 
provided any transport or technical advisory services. 
TABLE 18: PIG INPUT & SERVICE PROVIDER VOLUME OF SALES 
 Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units 
Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
VETERINARIAN SERVICES 
Vaccination Service Fee ( no.) 29 139 78% 87% 177 626 36 60 
Vaccines (no. of head) 35 142 95% 89% 452 790 160 196 
Treatment Service Fee ( no.) 32 144 86% 91% 402 625 107 240 
Treatment Medicines (no. head) 31 156 84% 98% 225 1112 100 240 
AI Service Fee ( no.) 3 30 8% 19% 3.3 69 3 20 
AI Semen (no. of head) 2 25 5% 16% 3.5 69 3.5 25 
Total Sub- Sample/ Value 37 159 100% 100% 
INPUT SUPPLIER SERVICES 
Feed Sales (kg) 24 50 100% 89% 19848 63447 8000 20700 
Ingredient sales – Corn N/A 7 N/A 13% N/A 11486 N/A 0 
Ingredient sales – Bran N/A 13 N/A 23% N/A 33508 N/A 0 
Ingredient sales - Soy Bean N/A 2 N/A 4% N/A 4550 N/A 0 
Ingredient sales - Fish Miller N/A 6 N/A 11% N/A 9317 N/A 0 
Ingredient sales – Others N/A 11 N/A 20% N/A - - - 
Vaccination Sales (bottles) 11 33 46% 59% 470 695 100 55 
Medicine Sales (bottles) 13 46 54% 82% 1756 2455 300 116 
Pig Production Equipment Sales 6 17 25% 30% - - - - 
Pig Processing Equipment Sales 0 1 0% 2% - - - - 
Veterinarian Equipment Sales 10 27 42% 48% - - - - 
OTHER SERVICES 
Pig Pen Construction 0 1 0% 2% - 30 - 0 
Pig Trough Construction/Sales 1 3 4% 5% 1 1374 1 0 
Pig Transport Services 0 0 0% 0% - . - 0 
Other Pig Tech. Advisory Services 0 4 0% 7% - 8 - 0 
Other Major Input/Service Sales 2 5 8% 9% - - - - 
Total Sub- Sample/ Value 24 56 100% 100% 
Total Sample/ Value 57 194 100% 100% 
38 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
1.3.3 VALUE OF SALES OF PROJECT/ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
For pig ISP enterprises, separate mean values of sales for veterinarian and other input service providers 
are calculated. The mean value of sales per pig veterinarian enterprise is $2,504. This represents a 
substantial increase from the $808 reported in the baseline survey of 2009. And the baseline mean value 
of sales per pig ISP enterprise is $58,902. This is also a noticeable increase from the $16,054 reported as 
the average value of sales per ISP in 2009. This drastic increase in the average value of sales per ISP 
could be a consequence of the inclusion of new products and services in the survey such as the sales of 
ingredients, which were not included in the value of sales of ISPs in the baseline survey of 2009. 
The breakdown of the total value of sales for all pig ISP enterprises is shown in Figure 5. The volume of 
sales discussed in the previous section is also included in the figure as a reference. For veterinarians, most 
of their revenues result from vaccines and medicine, and treatment services. Mean unit values of these 
medicines and fees are low, mostly less than $1, with a maximum of $1.10 for treatment medicines. 
For all input suppliers, revenues are dominated by manufactured pig feed sales, at a mean value of 
$53,282 per enterprise. For 82 percent of input suppliers, medicine sales are also an important source of 
additional revenue at a mean of $6,467 among these enterprises. For almost 60 percent of enterprises, 
sales of vaccines ($2,143) and veterinarian equipment ($1,462) are supplementary sources of income. 
FIGURE 7: VALUE OF SALES OF PIG INPUT AND SERVICE PROVIDERS 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 39 
1.3.4 COST OF BUSINESS OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
This section examines the costs of doing business for pig ISPs in order to determine PMEP Indicators of 
pig ISP income. Mean values of cost of business are calculated first, followed by income for veterinarians 
and other input service providers in the next section. 
For pig ISP enterprises, separate means are calculated for the cost of business for veterinarians and other 
input service providers. The overall mean cost of business for veterinarians is $1,805 per enterprise. This 
is a notable increase from the mean cost of business of $483, reported in 2011. 
This is the result of the increase in the mean cost of vaccines and medicines as well the increase in own 
transport costs. Also, this time there is the cost of full-time hired labor, previously not reported. For 
instance, while only 34 percent of enterprises reported buying vaccine stocks, their mean costs increased 
from $221 in 2009 to $644 in 2011. Furthermore, 84 percent of surveyed enterprises reported buying 
other medicine stocks at a mean cost of $241in 2011, up from $101 in 2009. Finally, 30 percent of 
enterprises reported having hired full-time labor at a mean cost of $590. 
The mean overall cost of business for pig input and service provider enterprises is $50,319 (up from 
$14,817 in 2009). For input suppliers their costs of business are dominated by the cost of manufactured 
pig feed stocks at a mean of $46,776 per enterprise. For 84 percent of enterprises, medicine stocks are 
also an important cost, at a mean of $5,628. For 61 percent of surveyed enterprises, the mean cost of 
vaccinations is $2,357. This represents a significant increase from the mean cost of $622 in 2009. Also, 
39 percent of enterprises incurred in a mean cost of $1,441 to pay for veterinarian equipment and a mean 
cost of $623 on transportation costs. There was also a noticeable increase from 2009 in pig production 
equipment to a mean cost of $589 and in the cost of full-time labor at $707. 
40 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
FIGURE 8: INPUT AND SERVICE PROVIDER COSTS OF BUSINESS 
1.3.5 INCOME OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
The value for the Component One PMEP Indicator “Percentage change in income of project-assisted 
enterprises” is determined for pig ISP enterprises and separately for veterinarians and other input and 
service providers. Income is defined as the value of annual trades minus the annual cost of business. 
Table 19 shows the baseline income results derived from subtracting the costs of business from the total 
value of sales. The Mid Term mean value of income is $699 per veterinarian, and $8,583 per input 
supplier. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 41 
TABLE 19: PIG INPUT & SERVICE PROVIDER INCOME 
Total Income-Pig Input & Service Provider 
Sample (n) Percent 
Total 
Values (USD) 
Item Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
VETERINARIAN 
TOTAL VALUE OF SALES $808 $2,504 $350 $913 
TOTAL COST OF BUSINESS $483 $1,805 $238 $884 
TOTAL INCOME 37 159 100% 100% $325 $699 $87 $86 
INPUT SUPPLIER 
TOTAL VALUE OF SALES $16,054 $58,902 $7,986 $27,140 
TOTAL COST OF BUSINESS $14,817 $50,319 $6,662 $18,272 
Total Sample/ Income 24 56 100% 100% $1,236 $8,583 $464 $2,136 
1.4 OVERALL PIG VALUE CHAIN PMEP INDICATOR RESULTS 
The table below summarizes the baseline study results for the pig value chain enterprise-level 
performance indicators outlined in the Cambodia MSME PMEP. Table 20 presents the overview results 
for the pig value chain in total and simple mean values when this total is divided by the total number of 
pig value chain enterprises for all value chain actor types. 
TABLE 20: MID-TERM STUDY RESULTS FOR THE PIG VALUE CHAIN: ALL ACTORS 
Indicator 
Baseline Values 
Total value Sample (n) Mean value 
Percent 
Change 
Mean Value 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
1 Percentage change in value 
of sales 
$1,977,286 $7,278,724 623 941 $3,174 $7,735 144% 
of project-assisted enterprise 
($/%) 
2 Cost of business ($/%) $1,482,955 $5,766,917 623 941 $2,380 $6,128 157% 
3 Percentage change in 
income (gross profit = 
$494,307 $1,511,806 623 941 $793 $1,607 103% 
value of sales – cost of 
business $/ percent) 
4 Percentage change in 
volume of production 
Multiple 
products 
Multiple 
products 
623 941 
in project-assisted enterprise 
(units/%) 
5 Number of full-time 
equivalent jobs created: 
1494 N/A 623 N/A 2.4 N/A 
(FT Job Equiv.= FT 
jobs*100%+PT jobs*50%) 
6 Percentage change in 
investments ($/%) 
$2,925,029 $2,328,271 623 941 $4,695 $2,474 -47% 
42 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
This table shows that the average value of sales increased by almost 144 percent between 2009 and 2011. 
Similarly, average business costs increased by 157 percent, while average income increased by a 102 
percent. Finally, the average investment decreased by 90 percent, from an average investment per firm of 
$4,695 in 2009 to $2,474 in 2011. 
Table 21 presents the PMEP results for the pig value chain disaggregated by types of pig value chain 
actors. 
Regarding changes in the values of sales, noteworthy, are the 210 percent increase in the average value 
sales of pig veterinarians and the 267 percent increase in the average value of sales of ISPs. Regarding 
costs of doing business, there is a significant increase of 274 percent on the average costs of business of 
pig veterinarians and a 240 percent increase in the average costs of doing business of ISPs. 
The average income of pig producers decreased by a 35.77 percent, while the average income of pig 
traders, veterinarians, and ISPs increased substantially. 
The average volume of production of pig traders increased by a 36 percent. 
Finally, the mean value of investments for pig producers, pig traders and veterinarians decreased 
substantially, while it only increased minimally for ISPs. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM REPORT 43 
TABLE 21: MID-TERM STUDY RESULTS FOR THE PIG VALUE CHAIN BY ACTOR 
Indicator Value Chain Actor Baseline Values Vs Follow Up Value 
Total Value Mean Value Median Value Sample (n) 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
1 Percentage change in value of sales Pig Producer $1,417,908 $2,519,330 $2,555 $3,514 $1,382 $2,382 555 717 
 of project-assisted enterprise ($/%) Pig Trader $144,186 $28,295 $20,598 $14,148 $19,092 $14,148 7 2 
Pig ISP-Vet./LVA $29,896 $398,174 $808 $2,504 $350 $913 37 159 
Pig ISP- Input Supplier $385,296 $3,298,522 $16,054 $58,902 $7,986 $27,140 24 56 
Pig Slaughterhouse N/A $1,034,402 N/A $147,772 N/A $136,795 N/A 7 
2 Cost of business ($/%) Pig producer $985,126 $2,107,420 $1,775 $2,939 $1,020 $2,081 555 717 
Pig Trader $124,350 $15,503 $17,764 $7,752 $18,702 $7,752 7 2 
Pig ISP-Vet./LVA $17,871 $286,993 $483 $1,805 $238 $884 37 159 
Pig ISP- Input Supplier $355,608 $2,817,848 $14,817 $50,319 $6,662 $18,272 24 56 
Pig Slaughterhouse N/A $539,154 N/A $77,022 N/A $75,249 N/A 7 
3 Percentage change in income (gross 
profit= 
Pig producer $432,782 $411,911 $780 $574 $311 $250 555 717 
 value of sales-cost of business$/%) Pig Trader $12,792 $2,834 $6,396 $828 $6,396 7 2 
Pig ISP-Vet./LVA $12,025 $111,181 $325 $699 $87 $86 37 159 
Pig ISP- Input Supplier $29,664 $480,675 $1,236 $8,583 $464 $2,136 24 56 
Pig Slaughterhouse N/A $495,248 N/A $70,750 N/A $81,503 N/A 7 
4 Percentage change in volume of 
production 
Pig producer 13,850 24,367 25 33.98 15 24 555 717 
 in project-assisted enterprise (units/%) Pig Trader 3,610 226 516 113 180 113 7 2 
Pig ISP-Vet./LVA Multiple 
products 
Multiple 
products 
- - - - 37 159 
Pig ISP- Input Supplier Multiple 
products 
Multiple 
products 
- - - - 24 56 
Pig Slaughterhouse Multiple 
products 
Multiple 
products 
- - - N/A 7 
5 Number of full-time equivalent jobs 
created: 
Pig producer 1,382 N/A 2.5 N/A 2 N/A 555 N/A 
 (full-time job equiv.= Pig Trader 13 N/A 1.9 N/A 1 N/A 7 N/A 
 FT jobs*100%+PT jobs*50%) Pig ISP-Vet./LVA 42 N/A 1.1 N/A 1 N/A 37 N/A 
Pig ISP- Input Supplier 57 N/A 2.4 N/A 2 N/A 24 N/A 
6 Percentage change in investments Pig producer $2,615,312 $1,493,397 $4,712 $2,083 $1,515 $1,162 555 717 
44 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
Indicator Value Chain Actor Baseline Values Vs Follow Up Value 
Total Value Mean Value Median Value Sample (n) 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
($/%) 
Pig Trader $4,057 $622 $580 $311 $503 $311 7 2 
Pig ISP-Vet./LVA $51,356 $120,725 $1,388 $759 $618 $472 37 159 
Pig ISP- Input Supplier $254,304 $701,821 $10,596 $12,533 $4,073 $2,881 24 56 
Pig Slaughterhouse N/A $11,706 N/A $1,672 N/A $997 N/A 7 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 45 
2. FISH VALUE CHAIN 
METHODOLOGY 
The Fish Value chain was selected as an important target for Cambodia MSME Project support. In July 
2009, it had 407 fish enterprises representing 17 percent of enterprise clients in Component One. By 
October 2011, that number grew to 464. Updated TAMIS client data for July 2009 shows that 24 percent 
of enterprises were female-owned, and 76 percent were male-owned. This client base reflects the 
increasing prevalence of Cambodian rural households engaged in fish production, and its potential to 
increase rural incomes across the country. 
Fish enterprises in seven provinces were randomly selected for this survey, with a geographic distribution 
similar to that of all Cambodia MSME fish value chain clients. These enterprises joined the Cambodia at 
least since December 2009, and sample districts contained 96 percent of recent Cambodia MSME fish 
producer clients. Proportional quotas set for district and fish producer enterprises were randomly sampled. 
This sample yielded results for 162 fish producer enterprises, and four fish traders. This survey includes 
information on new fish value chain actors, such as fingerling suppliers, processors, wholesalers and 
retailers. 
2.1 FISH PRODUCERS 
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 
The 162 fish-producer enterprises sampled are all located in rural areas. They are spread across several 
regions of the country but are most commonly found within the Plateau/Mountain (49 percent) and Plains 
(44 percent) regions. Fish producers were sampled in seven provinces, with most in Prey Veng, Kampong 
Cham and Kampong Speu provinces. 
As of 2011, 22 percent of sampled enterprises are female-owned. 
46 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 22: FISH PRODUCER LOCATION PROFILE 
 Sample (Recent Clients Only) TAMIS (All MSME Clients) 
Location (n) Percent 
total 
No. 
F 
Percent 
F No. Percent 
Total No. F Percent 
F 
Rural/Urban 
 percent Rural 162 100% 36 100% 
Region 
Plateau/mountain 79 49% 16 44% 
Plains 71 44% 20 56% 
Tonle Sap 12 7% 0 0% 
Provinces 
Battambang 5 3% 0 0% 31 8% 1 1% 
Kampong Cham 46 28% 12 33% 89 22% 18 24% 
Kampong Speu 29 18% 3 8% 55 13% 6 8% 
Kampong Thom 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 
Kampot 0 0% 0 0% 36 9% 10 13% 
Kandal 0 0% 0 0% 12 3% 0 0% 
Kratie 7 4% 2 6% 12 3% 3 4% 
Phnom Penh 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 
Prey Veng 58 36% 18 50% 120 29% 32 43% 
Pursat 7 4% 0 0% 18 4% 3 4% 
Siem Reap 0 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 
Svay Rieng 0 0% 0 0% 6 1% 0 0% 
Takeo 10 6% 1 3% 27 7% 2 3% 
Total Sample 162 100% 36 100% 409 100% 75 100% 
Demographic data on Cambodia MSME fish producer households was collected using a standard USAID 
Poverty Assessment Tool. Among fish producers, 91 percent of household heads are male with a mean 
age of 48 years, and an average household size of 5 persons. Among fish producers, some female 
Cambodia MSME clients live in households headed by men. These households have an average of 2.2 
adults with at least basic literacy. Generally these households were Cambodia MSME Project clients for 
29 months at the time of this survey. 
TABLE 23: FISH PRODUCER HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 
Enterprise Profile Sample (n) Percent of the total 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Demographic 
Male 133 147 91% 91% 
Female 13 15 9% 9% 
Mean household size (persons) 5.6 5.3 
Mean age of household head 47.4 47.7 
No pers. >=18 yrs can read simple message 2.3 2.2 
Mean months in MSME Project 4.9 29.1 
Total Sample 146 162 100% 100% 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 47 
2.1.1 VALUE OF INVESTMENTS BY PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Fish enterprises require substantial investment in land, fish, ponds and equipment for production, as 
shown in Figure 7. The Mid Term mean value of the PMEP indicator for total investments in 2011 is 
$11,003 per fish producer enterprise. This is a slightly lower figure than the $12,028 reported in the 
baseline survey of 2009. 
As Figure 9 shows, all sampled enterprises have invested in land for fish production with a mean area of 
1,409 m2 valued at $4,252, including larger enterprises. This is a substantially lower mean value of land 
from the one reported in 2009 at $8,763. However, enterprises report that they are using less land area for 
ponds because of the huge increase in productivity they are able to generate for individual ponds, due to 
improved feeding and cleaning. In short, they are maintaining smaller pond areas and fewer ponds, but 
doing so at significantly higher productivity rates. 
All fish enterprises have also invested on fish ponds excavations at an average of 2,697 m3 and a mean 
value of $3,456, and other pond areas for an average of 910 m2 at a mean value of $2,945 per enterprise. 
In addition to basic investments in land and ponds, a large proportion of fish producers invest in 
production equipment such as feeding pans (83 percent), stoves (77 percent), water pumps (68 percent), 
motorcycles (68 percent), and to a lesser extent small fish raising equipment (19 percent). Also, a large 
proportion of enterprises (94 percent) invest in Other Assets. 
Fewer enterprises invest in hatcheries, including hatchery tanks and equipment, water supply tanks and 
feed-making machines. 
FIGURE 9: FISH PRODUCER INVESTMENTS 
48 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
2.1.2 VOLUME OF PRODUCTION OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Fish producers tend to raise one or more of three species of fish, namely Tilapia, Carp and Pangasius. 
Fish have three general growth stages, fingerling, stunt fish and mature fish. Fish production most 
commonly involves raising either bred or bought fingerlings to mature fish for sale. The PMEP indicator 
for fish volume of production is measured as the total number of fish of all species and growth stages 
produced for sale per enterprise. This definition links directly to the companion PMEP indicator “value of 
sales” reported in the next section. The mean volume of production of fish for sale is 3,197 head of fish 
per fish producer. This is down from 4,294 head of fish per producer reported in the baseline survey of 
2009. 
Figure 10 presents the breakdown of the total volume of production of fish for sale. Of the three species, 
mature fish are most commonly produced for sale, with 25 percent of enterprises producing a mean of 
1,487 mature tilapia per year, 49 percent of enterprises producing an average of 1,022 head of mature carp 
and 67 percent of enterprises producing an average of 2,471 head of mature tilapia. 
Noticeably the percentage of sampled enterprises producing mature tilapia decreased from 56 percent in 
2009 to 25 percent in 2011, as well as the average units of production by 33 percent. Furthermore, while 
the percentage of firms producing carp is the same, the average head of mature carp produced per 
enterprise increased by almost 90 percent. Finally, the average number of head of mature pangasius 
produced by firm increased by 20 percent between 2009 and 2011. 
On the other hand, only 2-12 percent of enterprises produce stunt fish of any species for sale and none of 
the surveyed firms produced fingerlings for sale. 
FIGURE 10: VOLUME OF FISH PRODUCTION FOR SALE BY FISH PRODUCERS 
The survey also asked about total fish production by producers, including fish bred and bought rather than 
only sold. As in 2009, a majority of fish producers had sizeable fish stocks on hand, mostly consisting of 
fingerlings, in particular carp and pangasius. The mean total volume of production of fish is 5,592 head of 
fish per fish producer. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 49 
As Figure 11 shows, most enterprises (65 percent from 53 percent in 2009) raised a mean of 4,070 
pangasius fingerlings, 49 percent of enterprises (down from 55 percent in 2009) raised a mean of 1,768 
carp fingerlings and 26 percent of enterprises raised a mean of 6,653 tilapia fingerlings. 
Only a limited percentage of enterprises (8 percent the most) had stunt or mature fish of any species in 
production. 
FIGURE 11: TOTAL VALUE OF PRODUCTION BY FISH PRODUCERS 
2.1.3 VALUE OF SALES OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
The Mid Term mean value of sales is $2,155 per sampled fish producer enterprise. The mean total 
enterprise value of sales is derived from the mix of species and growth stages of fish at sale. Most of this 
total value of sales is derived from sales of mature fish. For instance, 67 percent of surveyed enterprises 
sold mature pangasius with a mean value of $2,101; 49 percent of enterprises sold mature carp for a mean 
value of $873; and 25 percent of enterprises sold mature tilapia for a mean value of $927. 
It is important to note the change in mean value of sales of fish. For example, the mean value of sales of 
mature tilapia went from $1,241 in 2009 to $927 in 2011. The mean value of sales of mature carp 
increased from $559 to $873 in the same period, and the mean value of sales of mature pangasius 
increased from $1,710 to $2,101 in the same period. Finally, while a similar limited percentage of 
enterprises sold stunted tilapia, its mean value of sales increased from $44 to $714 in only two years, 
while the mean value of sales of fingerling tilapia decreased from $927 to $228, perhaps explaining why 
only 2 percent of firms sold it. Finally, the mean value of stunted pangasius sank from $712 in 2009, 
when 8 percent of surveyed enterprises sold it, to $119 when 15 percent of surveyed enterprises did. 
None of the surveyed enterprises sold fingerling carp or pangasius during 2010. 
50 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
FIGURE 12: VALUE OF SALES OF FISH PRODUCERS 
2.1.4 COST OF BUSINESS OF PROJECT ASSISTED-ENTERPRISES 
The costs of business for fish production include cost of bought stock, and goods and services used during 
fish production cycles. The mean cost of business for fish enterprises is $1,173 per enterprise. A notable 
increase from the $608 reported in 2009. 
Figure 13 shows the results regarding the costs of business for fish production. Around half of all 
producers bought stock of fingerlings to supplement breeding, including an average of 1,158 tilapia 
fingerlings for $29; an average of 1,747 carp fingerlings for $55; and an average of 4,070 fingerling 
pangasius for $118. The most significant change from the baseline survey, seems to be the lower 
percentage of surveyed enterprises (23 percent) that bought stocks of fingerling tilapia than in 2009 (49 
percent). 
The most common costs of business in goods and services include fish feed such as rice bran at a mean 
cost of $303 per year, manufactured feed at a mean cost of $247, broken rice at a mean cost of $87 and 
trash fish at a mean cost of $129. Noticeably, 72 percent of surveyed enterprises spend money on 
firewood or items used for cooking fish food at an average of $40 per enterprise. 
Energy costs are common with 68 percent of enterprises spending on average $32 on fuel, oil and 
maintenance of own transport; 69 percent of surveyed enterprises spending on average $28 on fuel, oil 
and maintenance of machinery; 58 percent of surveyed firms spending on average $16 on electricity or a 
battery and; 49 percent of enterprises spending on average $15 (per year?) on hired transport. 
Only between 4 and 22 percent of enterprises bought medicines and none bought hormones. 
There was a significant increase in the percentage of surveyed enterprises that paid for labor. Around 60 
percent of enterprises paid an average of $273 for full-time labor and 63 percent of enterprises paid an 
average of $103 for part-time labor. The project actively facilitates enterprises to hire additional labor to 
expand their business and increase incomes, including labor hired to produce homemade fish and animal 
feed. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 51 
FIGURE 13: COSTS OF BUSINESS FOR FISH PRODUCERS 
2.1.5 INCOME OF PROJECT ASSISTED-ENTERPRISES 
Table 24 below shows Mid-Term income results derived by subtracting cost of business from total value 
of sales. The baseline PMEP mean value of income is $982 per fish producer enterprise. This represents a 
decrease of 36 percent from the mean value of income reported in the baseline survey in 2009. This is 
because while mean value of sales of surveyed enterprises increased by almost 11 percent, the mean value 
of their costs increased by almost 93 percent. 
TABLE 24: FISH PRODUCER INCOME 
TOTAL INCOME-FISH PRODUCTION 
Sample (n) Percent Total 
Values (USD) 
Item Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
TOTAL VALUE OF SALES $1,947 $2,155 $657 $924 
TOTAL COST OF BUSINESS $608 $1,173 $266 $828 
Total Sample/ Income 146 162 100% 100% $1,339 $982 $221 $214 
52 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
2.1.6 OTHER PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS FOR PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
This survey included two indicators considered important but not included in the PMEP indicator matrix, 
namely fish productivity and fish mortality by species. 
Table 25 includes two indicators of productivity related to mature fish production. Estimated average 
weight (in kg) of mature fish at sale was between 0.5 and 0.6 kilograms per head for all three species. 
TABLE 25: FISH PRODUCER PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS 
PRODUCTIVITY INDICATOR -FISH PRODUCTION 
Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units 
Item Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
AVG. FEEDER KG AT SALE 
Avg. Mature Carp kg at sale 94 81 64% 50% 1 0.5 0.8 0.5 
Avg. Mature Tilapia kg at sale 94 43 64% 27% 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.4 
Avg. Mature Pangasisus kg at sale 74 108 51% 67% 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 
AVG MONTHS FISH GROWTH TO MATURE SOLD KG 
Avg. months fish grow to mature sold kg-Carp 94 81 64% 50% 7.7 7.8 7 8 
Avg. months fish to grow to mature sold kg-Tilapia 94 43 64% 27% 7.7 7.6 7 8 
Avg. mths fish to grow to mature sold kg-Pangasius 74 108 51% 67% 9.0 9.2 9 9 
Total Sample/ Value 146 162 100% 100% 
Table 26 shows productivity indicators in terms of mature fish mortality by species. The first column 
shows the number of such enterprises reporting that one or more head died, by type. The reported 
mortality rates are at the enterprise level, as the percentage of each fish type reported dead as a proportion 
of all mature fish of that type produced by the enterprise. 
A higher proportion of surveyed enterprises reported mature pangasius mortality (34 percent) as 
compared to carp (20 percent) and tilapia (10 percent). The mortality rates by species among enterprises 
range between 4 and 6.5 percent of mature fish produced. These mortality rates are in a couple of cases 
(carp and pangasius) higher that those reported in the baseline survey of 2009, and represent a significant 
loss to production and sales. 
TABLE 26: FISH PRODUCER MORTALITY INDICATORS 
Item Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units 
Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
MATURE TILAPIA MORTALITY RATE 49 17 34% 10% 8.80% 4.02% 4.80% 2.40% 
MATURE CARP MORTALITY RATE 31 33 21% 20% 7.40% 10.51% 6.50% 5.00% 
MATURE PANGASIUS MORTALITY RATE 36 55 25% 34% 7.40% 8.43% 4.00% 4.00% 
Total Sample/ Value 146 162 100% 100% 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 53 
2.1.7 FINGERLING PRODUCERS 
Demographic data 
Four fingerling-producer enterprises were sampled in this Mid-Term survey, which are all located in rural 
areas. They are spread across several regions of the country but are most commonly found within the 
Plateau/Mountain (50 percent) and one in Coastal (25 percent) and Plains (25 percent) regions each. 
Fingerling-producers were sampled in four provinces, namely Kampong Cham and Kampong Speu, 
Kampot and Prey Veng provinces. As of 2011, 1 sampled enterprise is female-owned. 
TABLE 27: CAMBODIA MSME SAMPLE FINGERLING PRODUCER LOCATION PROFILE 
Location 
Sample (Recent clients only) TAMIS (All MSME clients) 
(n) Percent 
total No. F Percent 
F No. Percent 
total No. F Percent 
F 
Rural/Urban 
 percent Rural 4 100% 1 100% 
Region 
Coastal 1 25% 0 0% 
Plateau/mountain 2 50% 0 0% 
Plains 1 25% 1 100% 
Provinces
Battambang 0 0% 0 0% 2 22% 0 0% 
Kampong Cham 1 25% 0 0% 1 11% 0 0% 
Kampong Speu 1 25% 0 0% 2 22% 0 0% 
Kampot 1 25% 0 0% 1 11% 0 0% 
Prey Veng 1 25% 1 100% 1 11% 1 100% 
Takeo 0 0% 0 0% 2 22% 0 0% 
Total Sample 4 100% 1 100% 9 100% 1 100% 
Demographic data on Cambodia MSME fingerling producer households was collected using a standard 
USAID Poverty Assessment Tool. Among fingerling producers, 100 percent of household heads are male 
with a mean age of 49 years, and an average household size of 5 persons. Among fish producers, some 
female Cambodia MSME clients live in households headed by men. These households have an average of 
3 adults with at least basic literacy. Generally these households were Cambodia MSME Project clients for 
28 months at the time of this survey. 
54 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 28: CAMBODIA MSME SAMPLE FINGERLING PRODUCER DEMOGRAPHIC 
PROFILE 
Enterprise Household Profile Sample (n) Percent of Enterprises 
Demographics 
Male 4 100% 
Mean household size (persons) 5.25 
Mean Age of household head 49 
No pers. >=18 yrs can read simple message 3 
Mean months in Cambodia MSME Project 28 
Total Sample 4 100% 
2.1.7.1 Value of Investments by Project-Assisted Enterprises 
The Mid Term mean value of the PMEP indicator for total investments in 2011 is $36,898 per fingerling 
producer enterprise. 
As Table 29 shows, all sampled enterprises have invested in land for fish breeder production with a mean 
area of 4,987 m2 valued at $20,563, including larger enterprises. All fingerling fish enterprises have also 
invested on nursing ponds at an average of 28.5 m3 and a mean value of $21, and other pond areas (fish 
breeder pond) for an average of 1,506.3 m2 at a mean value of $7,088 per enterprise. 
In addition to basic investments in land and ponds, a large proportion of fish producers invest in 
production equipment such as feeding pans (75 percent), stoves (75 percent), water pumps (100 percent), 
breeding materials (100 percent) and others. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 55 
TABLE 29: FINGERLING PRODUCER INVESTMENTS 
Item Sample 
(n) Percent 
Total 
Units Values ($) 
Mean Median Mean Median 
ASSETS 
Land for Fish Breeder Production 4 100% 4987.5 4787.5 $20,563 $17,438 
Nursing Pond 4 100% 28.5 15.5 $21 $12 
Fish Breeder Pond 4 100% 1506.3 1512.5 $7,088 $2,450 
Feeding pan 3 75% 1.0 1.0 $14 $13 
Stove 3 75% 1.0 1.0 $7 $5 
Water Pump 4 100% 3.5 3.5 $595 $440 
Fingerling Hatcheries Tank 4 100% - - $1,863 $1,200 
Nursing Tank 4 100% - - $960 $770 
Hormone Sales 4 100% - - $205 $225 
Breeding Materials (syringe and water) 4 100% - - $13 $14 
PH and Oxygen Meters 4 100% - - $35 $10 
Oxygen 3 75% - - $57 $50 
Plastic Bag and Rubber Band 4 100% - - $172 $113 
Transport-Motorcycle 4 100% 1.3 1 $711 $630 
Transport-Truck 2 50% 1.0 1 $5,200 $5,200 
Other Major Assets 4 100% - - $404 $263 
Breeder 
Tilapia 3 75% 317 350 $205 $250 
Silver Carp 3 75% 135 200 $303 $400 
Common Carp 3 75% 121 100 $181 $200 
Pangasius 3 75% 40 40 $490 $400 
Roho 2 50% 175 175 $393 $393 
Kanthor 1 25% 500 500 $188 $188 
Indian Carp 3 75% 186 250 $263 $150 
Silver Barb 4 100% 223 175 $286 $88 
Total Sample/ Value 4 100% $36,898 $26,849 
2.1.7.2 Volume of Production of Project-Assisted Enterprises 
Fingerling producers tend to raise one or more of eight species of fish, namely Tilapia, Silver Carp, 
Common Carp, Pangasius, Roho, Kanthor, Indian Carp and Silver Barb. Fish have three general growth 
stages, fingerling, stunt fish and mature fish. Fish production most commonly involves raising bred or 
bought fingerlings to mature fish for sale. The PMEP indicator for fingerling volume of production is 
measured as the total number of fingerling fish of all species for sale per enterprise. The mean volume of 
production of fingerling fish for sale is 3,155,325 head of fingerling per fingerling fish producer. 
Table 30 presents the breakdown of the total volume of production of fingerling fish for sale. Of the eight 
species, Indian Carp and Silver Barb are most commonly produced, with 75 percent of enterprises 
producing a mean of 1,750,833 Indian Carp per year, and 100 percent of enterprises producing an average 
of 1,333,00 head of Silver Barb per year. 
On the other hand, only 1 enterprise produced Kantor fingerling at an average of 200,000 per year. 
56 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 30: FINGERLING PRODUCER VOLUME OF PRODUCTION OF FINGERLING FOR 
SALE
Volume of Fingerling Sales 
Sample (n) Percent 
Total 
Units 
Item Mean Median 
Tilapia 3 75% 118,333 140,000 
Silver Carp 3 75% 110,000 100,000 
Common Carp 3 75% 93333 110,000 
Pangasius 2 50% 267,150 267,150 
Roho 2 50% 170,000 170,000 
Kanthor 1 25% 200,000 200,000 
Indian Carp 3 75% 1,750,000 180,000 
Silver Barb 4 100% 1,333,000 230,000 
Total Sample/ Value 4 100% 3155325 1035650 
The survey also asked about total fingerling fish production by producers, including fish bred and bought 
rather than only sold. A majority of fingerling fish producers had sizeable fish stocks on hand, mostly 
consisting of fingerling Indian carp and Silver Barb. The mean total volume of production of fish is 
3,291,750 head of fish per fingerling fish producer. 
TABLE 31: FINGERLING PRODUCER TOTAL VOLUME OF PRODUCTION 
Item Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units 
Mean Median 
Tilapia 3 75% 140,167 150,500 
Silver Carp 3 75% 123,500 115,000 
Common Carp 3 75% 118,667 125,000 
Pangasius 3 75% 184,333 2,000 
Roho 2 50% 180,500 180,500 
Kanthor 1 25% 216,000 216,000 
Indian Carp 3 75% 1,786,833 200,000 
Silver Barb 4 100% 1,382,375 245,750 
Total Sample/ Value 4 100% 3,291,750 1,159,500 
2.1.7.3 Value of Sales of Project-Assisted Enterprises 
The Mid Term mean value of sales is $41,653 per sampled fingerling fish producer enterprise. The mean 
total enterprise value of sales is derived from the mix of species of fingerling fish at sale. For instance, 
100 percent of surveyed enterprises sold fingerling Silver Barb with a mean value of $16,778; 75 percent 
of enterprises sold fingerling Indian Carp for a mean value of $21,845; and 50 percent of enterprises sold 
Fingerling Pangasius for a mean value of $4,680. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 57 
TABLE 32: FINGERLING PRODUCER VALUE OF SALES 
 Enterprises Units Sold (head) Total Value ($) Unit Value / Head 
($) 
Item Number Percent 
Total 
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
Tilapia 3 75% 118,333 140,000 $1,713 $2,450 $0.014 $0.013 
Silver Carp 3 75% 110,000 100,000 $1,375 $1,250 $0.013 $0.013 
Common Carp 3 75% 93,333 110,000 $1,167 $1,375 $0.013 $0.013 
Pangasius 2 50% 267,150 267,150 $4,680 $4,680 $0.021 $0.021 
Roho 2 50% 170,000 170,000 $2,125 $2,125 $0.013 $0.013 
Kanthor 1 25% 200,000 200,000 $7,500 $7,500 $0.038 $0.038 
Indian Carp 3 75% 1,750,000 180,000 $21,875 $2,250 $0.013 $0.013 
Silver Barb 4 100% 1,333,000 230,000 $16,778 $2,875 $0.016 $0.013 
Total Sample/ Value 4 100% 3,155,325 1,035,650 $41,653 $15,804 
2.1.7.4 Cost of Business of Project Assisted-Enterprises
The costs of business for fingerling fish production include cost of goods and services used during 
fingerling fish production cycles. The mean cost of business for fingerling fish enterprises is $6,399 per 
enterprise. 
Table 33 shows the results regarding the costs of business for fingerling fish production. All producers 
paid for a nursing pond, a water pump and for other costs such as hormones and breeding materials. 
Energy costs are also common with 100 percent of enterprises spending on average $306 on fuel, oil and 
maintenance of own transport; 100 percent of surveyed enterprises spending on average $94 on fuel, oil 
and maintenance of machinery and 75 percent of surveyed firms spending on average $166 on electricity 
or a battery. 
TABLE 33: FINGERLING PRODUCER COSTS OF BUSINESS 
 Sample 
(n) 
Percent 
Total 
Units Total Values ($) 
Item Mean Median Mean Median 
Costs of Business 
Nursing Pond 4 100% 28.5 15.5 $21 $12 
Water Pump 4 100% 3.5 3.5 $401 $440 
Hatchery 3 75% - - $242 $100 
Nursing Tank 3 75% - - $175 $100 
Fish Medicine Sales-Bottle 2 50% 3 3 $19 $19 
Fish Medicine Sales Tablet 0 0% - - - - 
Hormone Sales-Bottle 4 100% 1.5 1 $95 $95 
Hormone Sales-Tablet 2 50% 200 200 $34 $34 
Breeding Materials (syringe and water) 4 100% - - $13 $14 
PH and Oxygen Meters 4 100% - - $24 $10 
Oxygen 3 75% 4 2 $40 $50 
58 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
 Sample 
(n) 
Percent 
Total 
Units Total Values ($) 
Item Mean Median Mean Median 
Plastic Bag and Rubber Band 4 100% 37 36 $71 $49 
Transport-Motorcycle 3 75% 1 1 $807 $700 
Transport-Truck 2 50% 1 1 $3,200 $3,200 
Other Major Assets 3 75% - - $63 $25 
Lime Sales 3 75% 160 150 $40 $38 
Machinery Fuel, Oil, Maintenance 4 100% - - $94 $118 
Electricity/battery 3 75% - - $166 $240 
Hired Labor Part-Time 4 100% - - $109 $125 
Hired Labor Full-Time 4 100% - - $275 $300 
Other Technical Services 1 25% - - $200 $200 
Transport Fuel, Oil, Maintenance 4 100% - - $306 $355 
Transport Rental Costs 2 50% - - $150 $150 
Licenses and Fees 0 0% - - - - 
Breeder 
Tilapia 3 75% 167 200 $246 $250 
Silver Carp 3 75% 168 200 $387 $400 
Common Carp 3 75% 137 150 $214 $300 
Pangasius 3 75% 44 50 $523 $500 
Roho 2 50% 250 250 $580 $580 
Kanthor 1 25% 100 100 $1,250 $1,250 
Indian Carp 3 75% 186 250 $263 $150 
Silver Barb 4 100% 210 175 $262 $88 
Total Sample/ Value 4 100% $6,399 $6,258 
2.1.7.5 Income of Project Assisted-Enterprises 
Table 34 below shows Mid-Term income results derived by subtracting cost of business from total value 
of sales. The baseline PMEP mean value of income is $35,254 per fish producer enterprise. Perhaps a 
more realistic median value of income is $5,718. 
TABLE 34: FINGERLING PRODUCER INCOME 
Item Sample (n) Percent Total 
Values ($) 
Mean Median 
TOTAL VALUE OF SALES 4 100% $41,653 $15,804 
TOTAL COST OF BUSINESS 4 100% $6,399 $6,258 
TOTAL SAMPLE / INCOME 4 100% $35,254 $5,718 
2.1.7.6 Other Productivity Indicators for Project-Assisted Enterprises 
Table 35 shows productivity indicators in terms of fingerling fish mortality by species. The first column 
shows the number of such enterprises reporting that one or more head died, by type. The reported 
mortality rates are at the enterprise level, as the percentage of each fish type reported dead as a proportion 
of all fingerling fish of that type produced by the enterprise. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 59 
TABLE 35: FINGERLING PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS: FINGERLING MORTALITY 
MORTALITY RATE: Fingerling PRODUCTION Sample 
(n) 
Percent 
Total 
Units 
Item Mean Median 
Tilapia 3 75% 17% 20% 
Silver Carp 3 75% 11% 10% 
Common Carp 3 75% 19% 16% 
Pangasius 3 75% 14% 10% 
Roho 2 50% 6% 6% 
Kanthor 1 25% 7% 7% 
Indian Carp 3 75% 6% 6% 
Silver Barb 4 100% 5% 5% 
Total Sample/ Value 4 100% 
2.2 FISH TRADERS 
Fish trader enterprises trade fish for profit. Fish are purchased from producers, and transported and sold to 
other fish producers, processors, wholesalers, or retailers. Updated TAMIS client data for all traders in 
July 2011 shows 4 fish traders, including 1 female owned enterprise. 
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 
A limited sample of four fish traders is included in this value chain baseline. One these enterprises is 
female-owned. All traders are located in rural areas, two in Kampong Cham and two in Prey Veng 
province. 
TABLE 36: CAMBODIA MSME SAMPLE FISH TRADER LOCATION PROFILE 
 Sample (Recent clients only) TAMIS (All MSME clients) 
Location (n) percent 
total No. F percent 
F No. percent 
total No. F percent 
F 
Rural/Urban 
 percent Rural 4 100% 1 100% 
Region 
Plateau/mountain 2 50% 0 0% 
Plains 2 50% 1 100% 
Provinces 
Kampong Cham 2 50% 0 0% 2 33% 
Kratie 0 0% 0 0% 1 17% 1 33% 
Prey Veng 2 50% 1 100% 2 33% 2 67% 
Pursat 0 0% 0 0% 1 17% 
Total Sample 4 100% 1 100% 6 100% 3 100% 
Fish-trader households are all male-headed, with a mean of 51.5 years, and an average household size of 5 
persons. Sampled households have an average of 2 adults with basic literacy skills. On average, these 
households have been with the Cambodia MSME Project for 28 months at the time of the baseline survey. 
60 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 37: FISH TRADER DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 
Enterprise Household Profile Sample (n) Percent Total 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Demographic 
Male 4 4 100% 100% 
Mean household size (persons) 4 5 
Mean age of household head 42.8 51.5 
No pers. >=18 yrs can read simple message 1.8 2 
Mean months in Cambodia MSME Project 5 28 
Total Sample 4 4 100% 100% 
2.2.1 VALUE OF INVESTMENTS BY PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
The Mid Term mean value of investments by project-supported fish traders is $7,616. This represents a 
sharp increase from the mean value of investments of $902 reported in the baseline survey of 2009. 
However, as Table 38 shows, this is mainly a result of investments in transportation for fish, namely a 
motorcycle and a truck. A more representative mean value shows that investments grew from $844 in 
2009 to $1,193 in 2011. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 61 
TABLE 38: FISH TRADER INVESTMENTS 
INVESTMENTS-FISH TRADER 
Number Percent Total 
Units Values (USD) 
Item Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
ASSETS 
Fish transport: motorcycle 4 3 100% 75% 1.3 1 1 1 $273 $805 $225 $700 
Fish transport: truck 2 1 50% 25% 1 2 1 2 $1,101 $24,000 $1,101 $24,000 
Aerator Tank N/A 2 N/A 50% N/A 1.5 N/A 1.5 N/A $680 N/A $680 
Tank N/A 4 N/A 100% N/A 22 N/A 3 N/A $672 N/A $135 
Other major trading assets 4 4 100% 100% - - - - $79 $34 $45 $24 
Total Sample/ Value 4 4 100% 100% $902 $7,616 $844 $1,193 
62 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
2.2.2 VOLUME OF PRODUCTION OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Fish trader enterprises do not themselves produce fish for sale but instead trade fish. For fish traders, the 
PMEP indicator “Percentage change in volume of production in project-assisted enterprises” refers to the 
volume of traded fish. The mean volume of traded fish is 62,167 head of fish of all types – all species and 
growth stages – per Cambodia MSME enterprise. 
Table 39 shows the volume of trades by fish species and growth stage. Most commonly, mature fish of all 
three species are traded. The tilapia species has the largest sales volume, with a mean of 70,740 head of 
stunted tilapia and 19,380 head of mature tilapia traded in 2011. The panganius species is also sold a lot, 
with 12,425 head of stunted pangasius and 21,345 head of mature pangasius traded in 2011. 
TABLE 39: FISH TRADER VOLUME OF TRADES 
Item Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units 
Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Mature fish - Tilapia 2 2 50% 50% 5,100 19,380 5,100 19,380 
Mature fish - Carp 2 2 50% 50% 9,300 14,470 9,300 14,470 
Mature fish - Pangasius 3 4 75% 100% 17,833 21,345 9,000 13,300 
Stunted fish -Tilapia 0 1 0% 25% - 70740 - 70740 
Stunted fish - Carp 0 0 0% 0% - - - - 
Stunted fish - Pangasius 0 2 0% 50% - 12425 - 12425 
Fingerling - Tilapia 0 0 0% 0% - - - - 
Fingerling - Carp 0 0 0% 0% - - - - 
Fingerling - Pangasius 1 0 25% 0% 62,200 - 62,200 - 
Total Sample/ Value 4 4 100% 100% 35,910 62,167 31,475 25,875 
2.2.3 VALUE OF SALES OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
The baseline for the PMEP indicator “Percentage change in value of sales of project-supported SMEs” for 
fish traders is a mean value of trades $86,023 in 2011, up from $22,024 in 2009. Perhaps, a median of 
$33,713 is a more realistic parameter of sales. The most common and largest contribution to total value of 
sales is stunted tilapia (although this could be biased by the sales of one enterprise), at a mean vale of 
$77,814, followed by mature pangasius and tilapia. 
Table 40 shows the breakdown of the value of trades per enterprise. Unit volumes traded by type are 
included in the table for reference. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 63 
TABLE 40: FISH TRADER VALUE OF SALES 
2.2.4 COST OF BUSINESS OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
The costs of business for fish traders mainly include costs of bought fish stock and transport. The mean 
overall cost of business for fish traders is $17,194 per enterprise. 
Table 41 shows the Mid Term cost of business. The major cost of business for traders is purchases of 
stocks of fish for trading, which account for a large proportion of total business costs. These costs are 
mainly for mature fish, largely pangasius, with the exception of stunted tilapia, which could be a one-off 
purchase of fish for trading. Other costs include costs for hiring part-time and full-time labor, with a mean 
value of $700 and $1,425 per year, respectively. Other limited types of business costs include own 
transport costs, fees and other costs. 
TABLE 41: FISH TRADER COST OF BUSINESS 
2.2.4 INCOME OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Income is defined as the value of annual trades minus the annual cost of business. The mean income is 
$19,454. A more realistic median is $16,519. Table 42 shows the Mid Term income results derived by 
subtracting the cost of business from total value of trades. 
64 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 42: FISH TRADER INCOME 
 
Sample (n) Percent Total 
Values (USD) 
Item Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
TOTAL VALUE OF SALES 4 4 100% 100% $22,024 $86,023 $21,837 $33,713 
TOTAL COST OF BUSINESS 4 4 100% 100% $19,621 $66,569 $19,193 $17,194 
Total Sample/ Income 4 4 100% 100% $2,403 $19,454 $2,643 $16,519 
2.2.5 OTHER PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS FOR PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Fish traders were also asked to give estimates of the average weight of mature fish of various species at 
sale. Traders mean live weights of mature fish at sale varied by species, from a higher mean for pangasius 
at 0.9 kg per head, to a lower mean for carp at 0.5 kg per head. 
TABLE 43: FISH TRADER PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS
Item Sample (n) percent Total 
Units 
Mean Median 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
AVG. MATURE FISH KG AT SALE 
Avg. mature Carp kg at sale 2 1 50% 25% 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.5 
Avg. mature Tilapia kg at sale 2 2 50% 50% 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 
Avg. mature Pangasius kg at sale 3 4 75% 100% 1.3 0.9 1.2 0.7 
Total Sample/ Value 4 4 100% 100% 
2.3 OVERALL FISH VALUE CHAIN PMEP INDICATORS RESULTS 
Table 44 summarizes the Mid Term survey results for Cambodia MSME PMEP fish value chain 
enterprise-level performance indicators. The first table presents overview results for the fish value chain 
in total and simple mean values, when this total is divided by the number of fish value chain enterprises of 
all value chain actor types. 
Table 45 presents PMEP results for the fish value chain disaggregated by the different types of fish value 
chain actors. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 65 
TABLE 44: MID-TERM STUDY RESULTS FOR THE FISH VALUE CHAIN: ALL ACTORS 
Indicator 
Baseline Values 
TOTAL VALUE SAMPLE (n) MEAN VALUE 
CHANGE 
MEAN 
VALUE 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
1 Percentage change in value of sales of project￾assisted enterprise($/ percent) $372,356 $859,789 150 170 $2,482 $5,058 104% 
 Cost of business ($/%) $167,293 $481,951 150 170 $1,115 $2,835 154% 
2 Percentage change in income (gross profit= $205,064 $377,838 150 170 $1,367 $2,223 63% 
value of sales – cost of business $/%) 
3 Percentage change in volume of production Multiple products Multiple products 150 170 
in project-assisted enterprise (units/%) 
4 Number of full-time equivalent jobs created: $380 N/A 150 N/A $3 N/A 
(FT job equiv.= FT jobs*100% +PT jobs*50%) 
5 Percentage change in investments ($/%) $1,759,702 $1,960,556 150 170 $11,731 $11,533 -2% 
66 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 45: MID-TERM STUDY RESULTS FOR THE FISH VALUE CHAIN
Indicator Value Chain Actor Baseline Values 
TOTAL VALUE MEAN VALUE MEDIAN VALUE SAMPLE (n) 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
1 Percentage change in 
value of sales 
Fish Producer $284,261 $349,087 $1,947 $2,155 $657 $924 146 162 
 of project-assisted 
enterprise($/%) 
Fish Trader $88,095 $344,092 $22,024 $86,023 $21,837 $33,713 4 4 
Fingerling Producer N/A $166,610 N/A $41,653 N/A $15,804 N/A 4 
 Cost of business ($/%) Fish Producer $88,810 $190,078 $608 $1,173 $266 $828 146 162 
Fish Trader $78,483 $266,277 $19,621 $66,569 $19,193 $17,194 4 4 
Fingerling Producer N/A $25,596 N/A $6,399 N/A $6,258 N/A 4 
2 Percentage change in 
income (gross profit = 
Fish Producer $195,452 $159,009 $1,339 $982 $221 $214 146 162 
 Value of sales-cost of 
business$/%) 
Fish Trader $9,612 $77,816 $2,403 $19,454 $2,643 $16,519 4 4 
Fingerling Producer N/A $141,014 N/A $35,254 N/A $5,718 N/A 4 
3 Percentage change in 
volume of production 
Fish Producer 626,916 905,980 4,294 5,592 800 2,000.00 146 162 
 in project-assisted 
enterprise (units/%) 
Fish Trader 143,640 255,000 35,910 63,750 31,475 26,500 4 4 
Fingerling Producer N/A $13,167,000 N/A $3,291,750 N/A $1,159,500 N/A 4 
4 Number of full-time 
equivalent jobs created: 
Fish Producer 369 N/A 2.7 N/A 2.5 N/A 146 N/A 
 (Full-time job equiv.= FT 
jobs*100%+PT jobs*50%) 
Fish Trader 11 N/A 2.6 N/A 2 N/A 4 N/A 
5 Percentage change in 
investments ($/%) 
Fish Producer $1,756,092 $1,782,501 $12,028 $11,003 $3,980 $4,342 146 162 
Fish Trader $3,610 $30,464 $902 $7,616 $844 $1,193 4 4 
Fingerling Producer N/A $147,592 N/A $36,898 N/A $26,849 N/A 4 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 67 
3. BRICK AND TILE VALUE 
CHAIN 
METHODOLOGY 
Compared to pig and fish enterprises, the Cambodia MSME Project supports much larger-scale brick and 
tile value chain enterprises. There were a total of 28 brick and tile Cambodia MSME client enterprises in 
July 2009; this number grew to 37 enterprises by October 2009. By July 2011, there were 32 enterprises. 
Updated TAMIS client data for July 2011 shows that 6 percent of these enterprises were owned by 
women. 
Because of their low frequency, all brick and tile enterprises within the 40 chosen districts that joined the 
project were sampled for the survey. Information on brick and tile value chain actors, including raw 
material input suppliers, wholesalers, and retailers were beyond the scope of the study, as no enterprise of 
these types were clients of the Cambodia MSME Project at the time of the baseline. 
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 
The 28 brick- and tile-maker enterprises surveyed are located in rural areas, mostly in the 
Plateau/mountain and Tonle Sap regions. They are located in five provinces, 36 percent in Kampong 
Cham province. 
TABLE 46: BRICK & TILE MAKER LOCATION PROFILE
 Sample (Recent clients only) TAMIS (All MSME clients) 
Location (n) Percent 
Total No. F Percent 
F No. Percent 
Total No. F Percent 
F 
Rural/Urban 
 percent Rural 28 100% 2 100% 
Region 
Plateau/mountain 15 54% 0 0% 
Plains 3 11% 0 0% 
Tonle Sap 10 36% 2 100% 
Provinces 
Banteay Meanchey 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 
Kampong Cham 10 36% 0 0% 12 38% 0 0% 
Kampong Thom 5 18% 1 50% 5 16% 1 50% 
Kampot 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 
Kratie 5 18% 0 0% 5 16% 0 0% 
Prey Veng 3 11% 0 0% 3 9% 0 0% 
Siem Reap 5 18% 1 50% 5 16% 1 50% 
Total Sample 28 100% 2 100% 32 100% 2 100% 
68 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
Demographic data on Cambodia MSME brick and tile maker households was collected using a standard 
USAID Poverty Assessment Tool. Among brick and tile maker households 93 percent of household heads 
are male and only 7 percent are female, with a mean age of 50 years and an average household size of 4.4 
persons. These households have an average of 2.1 adults with basic literacy skills. On average these 
households had joined the Cambodia MSME Project for 42.6 months at the time of the survey. 
TABLE 47: BRICK & TILE MAKER DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Enterprise Household Profile Sample (n) Percent Total 
Demographics 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Male 12 26 80% 93% 
Female 3 2 20% 7% 
Mean household size (persons) 5.4 4.4 
Mean age of household head 53.1 50.1 
No pers. >=18 yrs can read simple message 2.7 2.1 
Mean months in Cambodia MSME Project 8.4 42.6 
Total Sample 15 28 100% 
3.1 BRICK AND TILE MAKERS 
3.1.1 VALUE OF INVESTMENTS BY PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Brick and tile-maker enterprises are typically much larger on average than enterprises in other value 
chains because they require substantial investments to operate. The Mid Term mean value of the total 
investments is $146,308 per enterprise. 
Figure 14 shows that all surveyed enterprises have invested in land with a mean area of 19,877 m2, 
valued at $68,308. On average, land investments represent almost half of total investment for these 
enterprises. Land is expensive and may reflect higher road-side and peri-urban land prices where these 
factories are typically located. 
Other major investments made by all enterprises include buildings/storage/structures with a mean value of 
$17,129, and kilns either renovated or un-renovated during the last year with mean values of $13,354 and 
$21,134 respectively. Other common major investments include equipment for clay mix preparation for 
89 percent of enterprises with a mean value of $3,679 and equipment for B&T handling for 86 percent of 
enterprises with a mean value of $1,660. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 69 
FIGURE 14: BRICK AND TILE MAKER INVESTMENTS 
3.1.2 VOLUME OF PRODUCTION OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Brick and tile-maker enterprises typically produce a combination of bricks and tiles for sale. All 
enterprises produce bricks and a large proportion produce tiles. The PMEP indicator for the volume of 
production of brick and tile makers is split into brick and tile production volumes per enterprise. The 
mean volume of production of bricks for sale is 685,400 bricks per brick and tile enterprise. The mean 
volume of production is 1,373,100 tiles per enterprise engaged in tile production. 
The breakdown of the total volume of production of bricks and tiles for sale by type is shown in Figure 
15. All enterprises make Quality 1 bricks for sale, with a mean volume of 1.5 million bricks per 
enterprise. In addition, 18 percent of enterprises produce Quality 2 bricks for sale, with a mean volume of 
664,000 per enterprise. Furthermore, almost all enterprises (95 percent) produced Quality 1 roof tiles, 
with a mean volume of 662,630 tiles per enterprise. Additionally, 30 percent of enterprises produced 
Quality 2 roof tiles with a mean production volume of 186, 330 tiles per enterprise. 
70 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
FIGURE 15: VOLUME OF PRODUCTION FOR SALES OF BRICK AND TILE MAKERS 
3.1.3 VALUE OF SALES OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
Another PMEP indicator of Component One is the “Percentage change in value of sales of project￾assisted enterprises.” In volume of sales, the PMEP indicator for brick and tile makers’ value of sales is 
split into brick and tile sales values per enterprise. The mean value of brick sales is $61,301 per Cambodia 
MSME enterprise. The mean value of tile sales is $25,178 per Cambodia MSME enterprise engaged in 
tile production. 
Figure 16 shows the breakdown of the total value of sales per brick- and tile-maker enterprise. Almost all 
enterprises (96 percent) sold Quality 1 bricks, for a mean value of $36,038. Fewer enterprises (18 percent) 
sold Quality 2 bricks, for a mean value of $15,355. The total mean value of brick sales of all types is 
$61,301 per enterprise. 
Almost all surveyed enterprises (95 percent) also sold Quality 1 roof tiles for a mean value of sales of 
$46,962, and 30 percent of surveyed enterprises sold Quality 2 roof tiles for a mean value of $10,581. The 
total mean value of roof tile sales of all types is $25,178. 
Overall
Brick & Tile Makers Volume of Production for Sale
1,504,070
664,000
662,630
186,330
Mean Unit (#)
2,058,500
Tile
Bricks
1,039,467
370,000
584,444
350,000
1,486,133
2009 2011
100%
13%
100%
22%
96%
18%
95%
30%
Bricks-Quality 1
Bricks Quality 2
Roof Tiles-Quality 1
Roof Tiles Quality 2
2009
2011
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 71 
FIGURE 16: VALUE OF SALES OF BRICK AND TILE MAKERS 
3.1.4 COST OF BUSINESS OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
The cost of business for brick- and tile-maker enterprises is sub-divided into brick and roof tile costs. The 
mean overall cost of business for brick making is $25,898 per enterprise. 
Figure 17 below shows the baseline cost of brick making. Major costs for brick making include clay with 
a mean cost of $4,579, fuel wood with a mean cost of $7,581, hired full-time labor with a mean cost of 
$4,642, hired part-time labor with a mean cost of $3,065 and machinery fuel, oil and maintenance with a 
mean cost of $2,474. 
FIGURE 17: COSTS OF BUSINESS FOR BRICK AND TILE MAKERS 
4,579
25,898
12
7,581
3,065
2,474
448
2,016
291
173
1.77
1.90
8.90
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.69
3.68
6.93
-
-
-
-
-
-
5,385
46,596
424
8,034
7,981
1,901
437
1,425
343
10
No Unit 1,829
No Unit
No Unit
413
4642
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,399
311
1,219
No Unit
No Unit
No Unit
2,533
23
842
No Unit
No Unit
No Unit
No Unit
No Unit
260
3,178
115
1,159
No Unit
No Unit
No Unit
No Unit
No Unit
1,238
BRICK MAKING COSTS 
Mean Values 
(USD)
Brick & Tile Makers Cost of Business-Brick Making
Overall
Mean Units (#) Mean Unit 
Values (USD)
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
87%
80%
73%
67%
47%
33%
20%
100%
11%
100%
100%
96%
46%
89%
93%
46%
64%
43%
79%
Clay
Sand
Fuel wood
Hired Labor Part-Time
Machinery Fuel, Oil, Maint.
Other Major Costs
Own T’spt Fuel, Oil, Maint.
Licences and Fees
Water
Hired Transport Costs
Electricity
Hired Labor Full-Time
2009
2011
72 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
The mean overall cost of business for roof-tile making is $25,836 per tile making enterprise. Figure 18 
below shows the baseline costs of roof-tile making. Major costs for roof-tile making are similar to those 
for brick making. These include clay at a mean of $4,185, fuel wood at a mean of $8,170, part-time labor 
at a mean cost of $1,660, full-time labor at a mean cost of $4,931, and costs for machinery fuel, oil and 
maintenance at a mean of $2,695, among others. 
FIGURE 18: COSTS OF BUSINESS FOR BRICK AND TILE MAKERS 
3.1.5 INCOME OF BUSINESS OF PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES
Table 48 shows the Mid Term-income results derived by subtracting cost of business from total value of 
sales, including a breakdown for brick and roof-tile income. The mean value of total enterprise income is 
$42,127 per Cambodia MSME brick- and tile- maker enterprise. This representing a substantial increase 
from the mean value of total enterprise income of $23,854 reported in the baseline survey of 2009. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 73 
TABLE 48: BRICK & TILE MAKER INCOME 
TOTAL INCOME-BRICK & TILE 
MAKER Sample (n) Percent 
Total 
Values (USD) 
Mean Median 
Item 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
BRICK MAKING 
TOTAL VALUE OF SALES $37,108 $42,692 $25,850 $31,150 
TOTAL COST OF BUSINESS $26,596 $25,898 $17,011 $24,158 
Income Sub Total 15 28 $10,152 $16,795 $8,839 $5,566 
TILE MAKING 
TOTAL VALUE OF SALES $36,610 $61,301 $22,020 $33,525 
TOTAL COST OF BUSINESS $14,373 $25,836 $10,931 $23,780 
Income Sub Total 9 20 $22,237 $35,465 $11,089 $14,495 
TOTAL 
TOTAL VALUE OF SALES $59,073 $86,479 $36,620 $56,438 
TOTAL COST OF BUSINESS $35,220 $44,352 $22,240 $43,511 
Total Sample/ Income 15 28 100% 100% $23,854 $42,127 $14,380 $17,331 
3.1.5 OTHER PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS FOR PROJECT-ASSISTED ENTERPRISES 
The Mid Term survey included brick and tile productivity indicators that were considered important but 
are not included in the PMEP indicator matrix. These indicators include respondent estimates on 
percentages of broken products per batch, batch production cycle length in days, and total sales per 
month. 
Table 49 presents these indicators of productivity. On average, an estimated 5 percent of brick products 
and an average of 8 percent of tile products are broken, meaning they cannot be sold. This percentage 
represents a large product loss, although for brick products this is smaller than the 7 percent reported in 
2009. 
The brick production cycle per batch lasts an average of 39 days (the same as in 2009), and the tile 
production cycle lasts 68 days (from 78 in 2009). Average brick sales per month are estimated at just over 
90,000 (from almost 100,000 in 2009) and tiles sales at just over 50,000 (from 42,862 in 2009) per month. 
74 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE 49: BRICK & TILE MAKER PRODUCTIVITY INDICATORS 
Item 
Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units 
Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Brick Maker 
Bricks percent Broken 15 24 100% 86% 7% 5% 3% 3.5% 
Brick Batch Prod. Cycle-days 15 28 100% 100% 39 39 30 30 
Brick Sales Per Month 15 28 100% 100% 98,974 90,679 70,000 58,000 
Total Brick 15 28 100% 100% 
Tile Maker 
Tiles percent Broken 9 20 100% 100% 7% 8% 5% 
Tile Batch Production Cycle-days 9 20 100% 100% 78 68 90 60 
Tile Sales Per Month 9 20 100% 100% 42,862 50,550 33,000 33,500 
Total Tile 9 20 100% 100% 
3.2 OVERALL BRICK AND TILE VALUE CHAIN PMEP INDICATOR 
RESULTS 
The Mid Term study results for all brick and tile enterprise-level performance indicators outlined in the 
Cambodia MSME PMEP are summarized in the Table 50. As there is only one type of actor in the value 
chain, only one summary table is presented. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 75 
TABLE 50: MID-TERM STUDY RESULTS FOR THE BRICK AND TILE VALUE CHAIN 
Indicator Value Chain Actor Baseline Values 
TOTAL VALUE MEAN VALUE MEDIAN VALUE SAMPLE (n) CHANGE MEAN VALUE 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
1 Percentage change in value of 
sales of project-assisted 
enterprise ($/ %) 
Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
$886,101 $2,421,401 $59,073 $86,479 $36,620 $56,438 15 28 46% 
 Cost of business ($/ %) Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
$528,293 $1,241,855 $35,220 $44,352 $22,240 $43,511 15 28 26% 
2 Percentage change in income 
(gross profit= value of sales – 
cost of business$/ %) 
Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
$357,808 $1,179,546 $23,854 $42,127 $14,380 $17,331 15 28 77% 
3 Percentage change in volume 
of production in project￾assisted enterprise (units/ %) 
Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
22,292,000 57,638,000 1,486,133 2,058,500 1,380,000 1,700,000 15 28 39% 
4 Number of full-time equivalent 
jobs created: (full-time job 
equiv.= FT jobs*100 %+PT 
jobs*50 %) 
Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
308 N/A 12 N/A 10 N/A 15 N/A 
5 Percentage change in 
investments ($/ %) 
Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
Brick & 
Tile 
Makers 
$2,520,134 $4,090,612 $168,009 $146,093 $158,844 $137,450 15 28 -13% 

CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 77 
4. POVERTY ASSESSMENT 
TOOL (PAT) 
In 2000, the United States Congress passed the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act. This Act requires 
that half of all funding provided by USAID to the microenterprise sector must reach the very poor. 
Congress amended this legislation in 2003 to define “very poor” as those living on less than $1/day (the 
international poverty line) or those living in the bottom 50 percent below their own country’s poverty line 
(the national poverty line). The 2003 amendment also required that USAID develop and certify two tools 
for assessing the poverty level of the beneficiaries of USAID microenterprise funding. Since then, the 
IRIS Center at the University of Maryland has worked under contract with USAID to develop, test, and 
disseminate poverty assessment tools (PATs) that meet Congressional requirements for accuracy and 
practicality. 
All USAID implementing partners who (1) work in a country for which a PAT has been certified, and (2) 
receive at least $100,000 in USAID funding (obligations) during the current fiscal year to support 
microenterprise development activities must use a certified tool to measure the share of their clients who 
are very poor. In addition, implementing partners must then report this percentage annually to USAID – 
and eventually Congress – through the Microenterprise Results Reporting (MRR) system. In 2008, 
USAID approved a tool for Cambodia, making FY 2009 the first year that qualifying implementing 
partners in Cambodia were required to report the results of the PAT. 
Since poverty has distinct characteristics in each environment, Cambodia’s PAT is a country-specific 
household survey. It contains 17 questions, carefully selected and calibrated to determine whether 
respondents meet the definition of very poor in the Cambodian context. The survey questions cover three 
main areas: household member information; housing and living conditions; and assets. It is important to 
note that certified PATs are designed to assess the poverty level of groups of clients or beneficiaries. The 
surveys are not as accurate in assessing individual poverty and care should be taken in using a PAT, or 
any tool designed to measure absolute poverty, to target new clients. 
METHODOLOGY 
USAID Cambodia MSME 2/BEE incorporated the PAT questionnaire into follow-up monitoring and 
evaluation surveys conducted between February and May 2011 to assess progress against the baseline as a 
result of the project’s activities in the pig, fish, and brick and tile value chains. One initial challenge posed 
by this implementation plan was that the sample population for the PAT would not include all 
beneficiaries of the project, but only those actors participating in the brick and tile, aquaculture, and swine 
value chain. However, the project did complete another round of mid-term evaluation surveys for 
activities in the water and sanitation program and participants in the wild honeybee value chain. These 
PAT findings were submitted to USAID in FY10. 
The main goal of the PAT team in implementing the tool for USAID Cambodia MSME 2/BEE was to 
balance statistical accuracy with administrative practicality. In other words, the team wanted to construct 
a sample that would accurately represent the project’s beneficiaries but would also be feasible to 
implement within a reasonable timeframe and budget. Therefore, the project determined that the cost of 
78 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
implementing a separate survey activity, in addition to the project’s follow-up surveys, would outweigh 
the value of constructing a more selective sample population for the PAT only. One disadvantage of this 
method is that indirect beneficiaries were not included in the sample – such as employees of the 
household businesses—which would help to provide a more accurate picture of the project’s 
microenterprise reach. 
RESULTS 
The survey results were processed using EPI Info—a program designed by the Centers for Disease 
Control. EPI Info analyzes the inputted data and generates the poverty percentage figures, which are the 
percentage of respondents living below the designated poverty lines for that country. Results for 
Cambodia MSME 2/BEE’s PAT implementation indicated that 0.3% of respondents were classified as 
“very poor,” meaning they fell below the international extreme poverty line of $1.25/day. In addition, 
1.3% of clients were determined to be “poor” based on the international poverty line of $2.50/day. 
USAID Cambodia MSME/BEE submitted the “very poor” percentage figure and the survey database to 
the PAT Help Desk in August 2011. The project will submit the extreme poverty percentage again to 
USAID through the online Microenterprise Results Reporting system as part of its FY 2011 reporting. 
Since the MSME/BEE project works in value chains with high growth-potential, the poverty percentage 
was not expected to be very high in this case. However, both the project and PAT team agree that the 
calculation of 0.3% does not adequately reflect the project’s reach to the very poor. When disaggregated 
by value chain, the results indicate a deeper reach to the very poor in the aquaculture activities, yet these 
beneficiaries only represent 15% of the total sample. For instance, the percentage of beneficiaries of the 
fish value chain activities considered very poor and poor was 1% and 5% respectively. On the other hand, 
the percentage of those participating in the brick and tile value chain activities considered to be very poor 
was 0%. Please see the table below for more details on the poverty levels of the different program 
beneficiaries. 
TABLE 51. POVERTY LEVELS BY PROGRAM ACTIVITY 
Program Activity Total Surveyed Percentage poor Percentage very poor 
Swine 920 0.8% 0.2% 
Aquaculture 170 4.7% 0.6% 
Brick and Tile 28 0.0% 0.0% 
All beneficiaries 1118 1.30% 0.30% 
Similarly, disaggregated by urban and rural classifications, the PAT results illustrate the project’s reach to 
the urban poor. Although the project’s activities reach more beneficiaries that are considered poor in 
urban areas, these households only represent 10% of the total sample. Please see the table below for more 
details. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 79 
TABLE 52: POVERTY LEVELS BY URBAN AND RURAL CLASSIFICATION 
Classification Total Surveyed Percentage Poor Percentage Very Poor 
Rural 1003 1.1% 0.2% 
Urban 115 3.5% 1.0% 
All beneficiaries 1118 1.30% 0.30% 

CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 81 
CONCLUSION 
Going forward, the project team is committed to including a broader sample of the population next year 
and is eager to take a more comprehensive look at all of the project’s beneficiaries – including the honey 
bee value chain and water and sanitation program. The project focuses on several primary objectives: 
directly supporting the growth of enterprises and linkages in industry value chains; strengthening the 
ability of the private sector to advocate for itself; and strengthening the ability of the public sector to 
respond to private sector needs as well as the demands of the international trade regime. The hypothesis 
underlying the program is that progress on all of these fronts will enable MSMEs to prosper, grow, and 
create jobs. As a result, including the employees of the client MSMEs would help to construct a more 
accurate sample of the project’s reach and impact on the very poor. 

CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 83 
ANNEX A: SURVEY MATERIALS 
84 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 85 
86 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 87 
88 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 89 
90 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 91 
ANNEX B: SAMPLING TOOLS 
STAGE 1: SAMPLING PLAN: VALUE CHAIN ACTORS 
DISAGGREGATED BY METHODOLOGY (CENSUS / RANDOM 
SAMPLING) 
 Total Census Sample 
Count of ID Number Clients Census Random 
Value Chain Value Chain Actor Total 
Aquaculture Fingerling Supplier 9 9 
 Producer 409 161 
 Trader/Wholesaler 6 6 
Brick and Tiles Producer 32 32 
Swine Input Supplier 63 63 
 Processor 24 24 
 Producer 1872 659 
 Slaughterhouse 7 7 
 Trader 6 6 
 Veterinarian/LVA* 248 143 
Grand Total 2676 147 963 
TOTAL 1110 
STAGE 2: FINAL SAMPLE (N=1101) DISAGGREGATED BY PROVINCE 
/ VALUE CHAIN. 
Aquaculture: Producer 
KAMPONG CHAM Batheay 17 
 Kampong Siem 11 
 Ou Reang Ov 16 
 Prey Chhor 4 
KAMPONG SPEU Basedth 29 
KRATIE Kracheh 7 
PREY VENG Pea Reang 28 
 Svay Antor 30 
PURSAT Pousat 10 
TAKEO Doun Kaev 10 
 162 
Swine: Producer 
BATTAMBANG Banan 17 
 Bavel 28 
 Moung Ruessei 28 
 Thma Koul 1 
KAMPONG CHAM Kaoh Soutin 20 
 Prey Chhor 7 
92 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
Aquaculture: Producer 
KAMPONG SPEU Chbar Mon 14 
 Phnum Sruoch 14 
KAMPONG THOM Kampong Svay 45 
 Stoung 24 
KAMPOT Chhuk 25 
 Kampot 11 
 Tuek Chhu 34 
KANDAL Kandal Stueng 11 
 Kaoh Thum 1 
 Ta Khmau 10 
KRATIE Chhloung 23 
 Sambour 30 
PREY VENG Preah Sdach 57 
 Svay Antor 26 
PURSAT Bakan 34 
 Phnum Kravanh 30 
SIEMREAP Prasat Bakong 26 
 Soutr Nikom 46 
SVAY RIENG Svay Chrum 29 
TAKEO Samraong 68 
 659 
Veterinarians 
BATTAMBANG Bavel 2 
 Moung Ruessei 6 
KAMPONG CHAM Kaoh Soutin 6 
KAMPONG SPEU Phnum Sruoch 7 
 Samraong Tong 3 
KAMPONG THOM Stoung 28 
KAMPOT Chhuk 6 
 Kampong Trach 11 
KRATIE Chetr Borei 5 
 Chhloung 4 
 Kracheh 2 
 KRATIE 2 
PURSAT Bakan 7 
SIEMREAP Soutr Nikom 2 
SVAY RIENG Bavet 1 
 Kampong Rou 4 
 Romeas Haek 8 
 Rumduol 7 
 Svay Chrum 6 
 SVAY RIENG 12 
 Svay Teab 6 
TAKEO Samraong 9 
 144 
Aquaculture: Fingerling Supplier 
BATTAMBANG Moung Ruessei 1 
KAMPONG CHAM Kampong Siem 1 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 93 
Aquaculture: Producer 
KAMPONG SPEU Basedth 1 
 Phnum Sruoch 1 
KAMPOT Chhuk 1 
PREY VENG Svay Antor 1 
TAKEO Doun Kaev 1 
 7 
Aquaculture: Trader/Wholesaler 
KAMPONG CHAM Batheay 1 
 Prey Chhor 1 
PREY VENG Pea Reang 1 
 Preah Sdach 1 
KRATIE Kracheh 1 
 5 
Brick & Title 
KAMPONG CHAM Cheung Prey 8 
 Kampong Cham 1 
 Prey Chhor 2 
KAMPONG THOM Santuk 5 
KRATIE Chetr Borei 5 
 Preaek Prasab 1 
PREY VENG Kanhchriech 2 
 Svay Antor 1 
SIEMREAP Soutr Nikom 4 
 Varin 1 
 30 
Swine: Input Suppliers 
BANTEAY MEANCHEY Mongkol Bourei 1 
 Serei Saophoan 1 
BATTAMBANG Battambang 2 
 Bavel 1 
 Moung Ruessei 2 
 Thma Koul 2 
KAMPONG CHAM Chamkar Leu 2 
 Prey Chhor 1 
 Suong 1 
KAMPONG SPEU Phnum Sruoch 3 
 Chbar Mon 3 
KAMPONG THOM Baray 1 
 Kampong Svay 3 
 Stoung 3 
 Stueng Saen 1 
KAMPOT Chhuk 3 
 Kampong Trach 2 
KANDAL Ta Khmau 1 
PHNOM PENH PHNOM PENH 3 
 Ruessei Kaev 1 
 Dangkao 1 
PREY VENG Kamchay Mear 1 
94 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
Aquaculture: Producer 
 Prey Veaeng 2 
 Svay Antor 1 
 Pea Reang 1 
PURSAT Bakan 4 
 Phnum Kravanh 2 
 Pousat 1 
SIEMREAP Soutr Nikom 1 
SVAY RIENG Svay Rieng 1 
 Svay Chrum 2 
TAKEO Samraong 3 
 Tram Kak 2 
 Bati 1 
 60 
Swine: Processor 
KAMPONG CHAM Dambae 1 
 Prey Chhor 4 
KAMPOT Chhuk 1 
 Kampong Trach 1 
KRATIE Sambour 1 
 Kracheh 1 
PREY VENG Preah Sdach 1 
PURSAT Phnum Kravanh 1 
SIEMREAP Prasat Bakong 1 
SVAY RIENG Kampong Rou 1 
 Svay Chrum 2 
TAKEO Samraong 5 
 20 
Swine: Slaughterhouse 
BATTAMBANG Banan 3 
 Bavel 1 
KAMPONG THOM Kampong Svay 1 
KAMPONG CHAM Kampong Cham 1 
 Prey Chhor 1 
 7 
Swine: Traders 
KRATIE Kracheh 1 
 Chetr Borei 1 
BATTAMBANG Bavel 1 
SIEMREAP Soutr Nikom 2 
PURSAT Bakan 1 
 6 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 95 
STAGE 3: ACHIEVED SAMPLE SHOWING ORIGINAL QUOTA / 
SUCCESSFUL INTERVIEWS. 
Number of Sample=1101 Quota SI 
Aquaculture: Producer 162 162 
Swine: Producer 659 678 
Veterinarians 145 148 
Aquaculture: Fingerling Supplier 7 4 
Aquaculture: Trader/Wholesaler 5 4 
Brick & Title 30 28 
Swine: Input Suppliers 60 44 
Swine: Processor 20 0 
Swine: Slaughterhouse 7 7 
Swine: Traders 6 2 
Total Number of Quota 1101 
Total Number of Successful 1077 
Number of Sample=100 Kampong 
Thom SI 
Swine: Producer 39 
Veterinarians 1 
Swine: Input Suppliers 1 
Total Number of successful 41 

CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 97 
ANNEX C: ESTIMATED TOTAL 
VALUES FOR PIG, FISH AND 
BRICK AND TILE ENTERPRISES 
This section provides estimates of the total values of PMEP indicators among all Cambodia MSME 
supported active enterprises as of July 2011. This estimate is useful as an estimate of total dollar values 
for the broader Cambodia MSME client base, beyond the sample used in this study. 
This estimate draws on the updated TAMIS client list for all Active Component 1 Enterprise Clients as of 
July 2011/December 2010, as is calculated by multiplying the mean enterprise PMEP indicator values by 
value chain actor, multiplied by the total number of value chain enterprises shown in the updated TAMIS 
client list. 
As Table 51 shows, the estimated baseline value of sales for all active Cambodia MSME clients is $16.2 
million, of which 74 percent comes from the pig value chain enterprises, with 41 percent from pig 
producers. The fish value chain enterprises account for 9 percent, and the brick and tile value chain 
represents 21 percent of total value of sales. 
TABLE 51: ESTIMATED TOTAL CAMBODIA MSME CLIENT VALUE OF SALES 
Value Chain/Actor MEAN VALUE 
TOTAL 
Cambodia 
MSME CLIENTS 
TOTAL VALUE PERCENT OF 
TOTAL VALUE 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Value of Sales 
Pig producer $2,555 $3,514 1610 1872 $4,113,550 $6,578,208 52% 41% 
Pig trader $20,598 $14,148 4 6 $82,392 $84,885 1% 1% 
Pig ISP-Vet./LVA $808 $2,504 241 248 $194,728 $621,052 2% 4% 
Pig ISP-input supplier $16,054 $58,902 57 63 $915,078 $3,710,837 12% 23% 
Pig Slaughterhouse N/A $147,772 N/A 7 N/A $1,034,402 N/A 6% 
Sub-Total $5,305,748 $12,029,384 68% 74% 
Fish producer $1,947 $2,155 390 409 $759,330 $881,338 10% 5% 
Fish trader $22,024 $86,023 6 6 $132,144 $516,138 2% 3% 
Fingerling producer N/A $41,653 N/A 9 N/A $374,873 N/A 
Sub-Total $891,474 $1,397,476 11% 9% 
Brick & tile makers $59,073 $86,479 28 32 $1,654,044 $2,767,315 21% 17% 
Sub-Total $1,654,044 $2,767,315 21% 17% 
Total $7,851,266 $16,194,174 100% 100% 
98 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
The estimated Mid Term total cost of business for all active Cambodia MSME clients is $12 million, of 
which 81 percent represents pig value chain enterprises, with 46 percent from pig producers. Fish value 
chain enterprises account for 7 percent, and the brick and tile value chain enterprises represent 12 percent 
of the total cost of business (See Table 52). 
TABLE 52: ESTIMATED TOTAL CAMBODIA MSME CLIENT COST OF BUSINESS 
Value Chain/Actor MEAN VALUE 
TOTAL 
Cambodia MSME 
CLIENTS 
TOTAL VALUE PERCENT OF 
TOTAL VALUE 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Cost of Business 
Pig producer $1,775 $2,939 1610 1872 $2,857,750 $5,502,220 55% 46% 
Pig trader $17,764 $7,752 4 6 $71,056 $46,509 1% 0% 
Pig ISP-Vet./LVA $483 $1,805 241 248 $116,403 $447,638 2% 4% 
Pig ISP-input supplier $14,817 $50,319 57 63 $844,569 $3,170,079 16% 26% 
Pig Slaughterhouse N/A $77,022 N/A 7 N/A $539,154 N/A 4% 
Sub-Total $3,889,778 $9,705,599 74% 81% 
Fish producer $608 $1,173 390 409 $237,120 $479,888 5% 4% 
Fish trader $19,621 $66,569 6 6 $117,726 $399,415 2% 3% 
Fingerling Producer N/A $6,399 N/A 9 N/A N/A 
Sub-Total $354,846 $879,303 7% 7% 
Brick & tile makers $35,220 $44,352 28 32 $986,160 $1,419,263 19% 12% 
Sub-Total $986,160 $1,419,263 19% 12% 
TOTAL $5,230,784 $12,004,164 100% 100% 
The estimated total income for all active Cambodia MSME clients is $4.2 million, of which 55% 
represents pig value chain enterprises, with 26 percent from pig producers. Fish value chain enterprises 
account for only 12 percent, and brick and tiles value chain enterprises represent 32 percent of income. 
TABLE 53: ESTIMATED TOTAL CAMBODIA MSME CLIENT INCOME 
Value Chain/Actor MEAN VALUE 
TOTAL 
Cambodia 
MSME 
CLIENTS 
TOTAL VALUE 
 PERCENT 
OF TOTAL 
VALUE 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Income 
Pig producer $780 $574 1610 1872 $1,255,800 $1,075,445 48% 26% 
Pig trader $2,834 $6,396 4 6 $11,336 $38,376 0% 1% 
Pig ISP-Vet./LVA $325 $699 241 248 $78,325 $173,414 3% 4% 
Pig ISP-input supplier $1,236 $8,583 57 63 $70,452 $540,759 3% 13% 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 99 
Value Chain/Actor MEAN VALUE 
TOTAL 
Cambodia 
MSME 
CLIENTS 
TOTAL VALUE 
 PERCENT 
OF TOTAL 
VALUE 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Pig Slaughterhouse N/A $70,750 N/A 7 N/A $495,248 N/A 12% 
Sub-Total $1,415,913 $2,323,242 54% 55% 
Fish producer $1,339 $982 390 409 $522,210 $401,450 20% 10% 
Fish trader $2,403 $19,454 6 6 $14,418 $116,723 1% 3% 
Fingerling Producer $35,254 N/A 9 
Sub-Total $536,628 $518,173 20% 12% 
Brick & tile makers $23,854 $42,127 28 32 $667,912 $1,348,052 25% 32% 
Sub-Total $667,912 $1,348,052 25% 32% 
TOTAL $2,620,453 $4,189,467 100% 100% 
The estimated total investment for all active Cambodia MSME clients is $14.1 million, down from $17.9 
million in 2009. Of this, 35 percent comes from enterprises in the pig value chain, with 28 percent from 
pig producers. Fish value chain enterprises account for 32 percent of total investment, while brick and tile 
enterprises represent 33 percent of investment. 
TABLE 54: ESTIMATED TOTAL CAMBODIA MSME CLIENT INVESTMENT 
Value Chain/Actor MEAN VALUE 
TOTAL 
Cambodia 
MSME 
CLIENTS 
TOTAL VALUE 
PERCENT 
OF TOTAL 
VALUE 
 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Investments 
Pig producer $4,712 $2,083 1610 1872 $7,586,320 $3,899,076 42% 28% 
Pig trader $580 $311 4 6 $2,320 $1,865 0% 0% 
Pig ISP-Vet./LVA $1,388 $759 241 248 $334,508 $188,301 2% 1% 
Pig ISP-input supplier $10,596 $12,533 57 63 $603,972 $789,548 3% 6% 
Pig Slaughterhouse N/A $1,672 N/A 7 N/A $11,706 N/A 0% 
Sub-Total $8,527,120 $4,890,497 48% 35% 
Fish producer $12,028 $11,003 390 409 $4,690,920 $4,500,264 26% 32% 
Fish trader $902 $7,616 6 6 $5,412 $45,695 0% 0% 
Fingerling Producer $36,898 N/A 9 
Sub-Total $4,696,332 $4,545,959 26% 32% 
Brick & tile makers $168,009 $146,093 28 32 $4,704,252 $4,674,985 26% 33% 
Sub-Total $4,704,252 $4,674,985 26% 33% 
TOTAL $17,927,704 $14,111,441 100% 100% 

CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 101 
ANNEX D: ADDITIONAL REPORT TABLES 
TABLE A55: PIG PRODUCER INVESTMENTS 
Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units Values ($) 
Item Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
ASSETS 
Land for pig production (m2) 555 717 100% 100% 272 91.7 50 28 $2,902 $548 $239 $80 
Pig pen (no cement floor-no.) 26 49 5% 7% 1.2 1.1 1 1 $174 $99 $48 $88 
Pig pen (cement floor-no.) 529 682 95% 95% 1.3 1.3 1 1 $472 $426 $144 $200 
Troughs (no.) 541 697 97% 97% 3.8 3.7 3 3 $52 $35 $12 $15 
Feed making machine (no.) 29 2 5% 0% 1.2 1.5 1 1.5 $279 $375 $192 $375 
Feed Milk N/A 52 N/A 7% N/A 1.1 N/A 1 N/A $388 N/A $300 
Cooking pan & cooker (no.) 387 466 70% 65% 2.1 2.1 2 2 $47 $49 $14 $20 
AI equipment (no.) 11 69 2% 10% 3.3 3.1 2 2 $15 $24 $10 $15 
Water pump (no.) 287 421 52% 59% 1.1 1.1 1 1 $166 $121 $120 $75 
Biogas 19 26 3% 4% 1 1.0 1 1 $510 $310 $383 $275 
Pig transport-motorcycle 447 566 81% 79% 1.1 1.0 1 1 $618 $356 $574 $240 
Pig transport-truck 13 12 2% 2% 1 1.0 1 1 $4,070 $1,166 $3,830 $415 
Other major assets 476 629 86% 88% - - - - $34 $19 $10 $9 
BREEDING STOCK 
Breeding boars 47 51 8% 7% 2.3 2.2 2 2 $604 $728 $479 $600 
Breeding sows 395 527 71% 74% 3 2.9 2 2 $670 $781 $311 $500 
Total Sample/ Value 555 717 100% 100% $4,712 $2,083 $1,514 $1,162 
102 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE A56: PIG PRODUCER VOLUME OF PRODUCTION OF PIGS FOR SALE 
Volume of Pig Sales Sample (n) Percent Total Units Item Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Boars 7 23 1% 3% 1.6 2.6 1 2 
Sows 51 300 9% 42% 2.2 3.7 1 2 
Fattening pigs 484 634 87% 88% 19.6 19.8 12 15 
Piglets 180 254 32% 35% 23.6 23.5 14 11 
Total Sample/ Value 555 717 100% 100% 25 27.4 15 19 
TABLE A57: PIG PRODUCER VALUE OF SALES 
Enterprises Units Sold (head) Total Value ($) Unit Value / Head ($) 
Item Number % Total Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Boars 7 23 1% 3% 1.6 2.6 1 2 $275 $799 $144 $500 $175 $141 $144 $138 
Sows 51 300 9% 42% 2.2 3.7 1 2 $292 $963 $239 $375 $134 $231 $239 $215 
Fattening pigs 484 634 87% 88% 19.6 19.8 12 15 $2,596 $3,091 $1,436 $2,250 $133 $157 $120 $157 
Piglets 180 254 32% 35% 23.6 23.5 14 11 $802 $1,048 $402 $450 $34 $38 $29 $40 
Total Sample/ Value 555 717 100% 100% 25 27 15 19 $2,555 $3,514 $1,382 $2,382 $102 $148 $92 $146 
TABLE A58: PIG PRODUCER COSTS OF BUSINESS 
Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units Total Values ($) 
Item Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
BOUGHT STOCK 
Boars 7 41 1% 6% 1.4 2.4 1 2 $294 $706 $287 $450 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 103 
Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units Total Values ($) 
Item Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Sows 56 375 10% 52% 2.1 2.4 1 2 $173 $502 $169 $375 
Fattening pigs 81 58 15% 8% 18.3 11.5 7 8.5 $1,026 $592 $287 $403 
Piglets 279 266 50% 37% 13.8 13.0 9 10 $484 $489 $287 $376 
GOODS & SERVICES INPUTS 
Feed: manufactured & cooking kg 527 688 95% 96% 1347 1132 590 510 $809 $394 $377 $2,170 
Feed: homemade & cooking kg 532 709 96% 99% 2376 7866 1410 5000 $455 $673 $239 $1,971 
Feed - manufactured (community) N/A 38 N/A 5% N/A 933 N/A 280 N/A $114 N/A $631 
Feed - manufactured (individual) N/A 23 N/A 3% N/A 1037 N/A 750 N/A $169 N/A $298 
Veterinary service fees 119 400 21% 56% - - - - $21 $10 $12 $37 
Vaccines: head 452 615 81% 86% 27 26 17 16 $47 $18 $17 $110 
Other medicine 422 536 76% 75% - - - - $32 $17 $12 $85 
Water supply 37 110 7% 15% - - - - $41 $31 $20 $97 
Machinery fuel, oil, maintenance 297 416 54% 58% - - - - $53 $30 $24 $188 
Electricity/battery 278 442 50% 62% - - - - $14 $6 $5 $40 
Hired labor, part-time 4 179 1% 25% - - - - $63 $55 $62 $131 
Hired labor, full-time 19 215 3% 30% - - - - $239 $208 $144 $309 
Other technical services 4 103 1% 14% - - - - $18 $10 $8 $71 
Hired transport costs 111 267 20% 37% - - - - $21 $9 $7 $31 
Own transport fuel, oil, maint. 460 570 83% 79% - - - - $36 $20 $19 $129 
Licenses and fees 10 6 2% 1% - - - - $35 $4 $23 $4 
Other major costs 220 422 40% 59% - - - - $14 $10 $8 $29 
Total Sample/ Value 555 717 100% 100% $1,775 $2,081 $1,020 $4,735 
TABLE A59: AVERAGE PIG DEATH CAUSED BY CASES AND DISEASES 
Enterprises Mean (Head) 
Item # Percent Mean Median 
104 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
Enterprises Mean (Head) 
Item # Percent Mean Median 
Death caused by Cases 477 67% 8.7 5 
Death caused by Cases 23 23% 3.9 2 
Death caused by diseases 300 53% 9.1 5 
Total Sample 717 100% 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 105 
TABLE A60: DESCRIPTION OF SYMPTOMS OR THE NAME OF DISEASES 
Enterprises 
Item # Percent 
Porcine Respiratory and 
Reproductive Syndrome (PRRS) 
87 23% 
Diarrhea or dysentery disease 88 23% 
Fever 47 12% 
Abortion 1 0% 
Classical Swine Fever 108 29% 
Food and Mouth Disease (FMD) 23 6% 
Eyes Swollen 12 3% 
Red Skin 27 7% 
Loss Appetite 14 4% 
No Suckling 8 2% 
Constipation 11 3% 
Convulsion/Trembling and 
Jerking 
30 8% 
Cyanosis/purple 5 1% 
Bloody runny nose 4 1% 
Tumor 1 0% 
Reaction 3 1% 
Respiratory 16 4% 
Papule/Skin Rash 13 3% 
Foreleg and hindleg swelling 5 1% 
Bladder 1 0% 
Flu/cold fever 5 1% 
Ulcer ear 1 0% 
Cyanosis ear 6 2% 
Cyanosis skin 16 4% 
Red spot 3 1% 
Wound mouth 1 0% 
106 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
Enterprises 
Item # Percent 
Ulcer uteris 1 0% 
Head swollen 5 1% 
Erysipelas 4 1% 
Hemorrhagic 
septicemia/Pasteurellosis 
1 0% 
Aujezsky disease 1 0% 
Pasteurellosis 7 2% 
TABLE A61: PIG SLAUGHTERHOUSE LOCATION PROFILE 
Sample (Recent clients only) TAMIS (All MSME clients) 
Location (n) 
percent 
total 
No. F 
percent 
F 
No. 
percent 
total 
No. F 
percent 
F 
Rural/Urban 
 percent Rural 6 86% 1 100% 
Urban 1 14% 0 0% 
Region 
Plateau/mountain 2 29% 
Tonle Sap 5 71% 1 100% 
Province 
Battambang 4 57% 1 100% 4 57% 1 100% 
Kampong Cham 2 29% 0 0% 2 29% 0 0% 
Kampong Thom 1 14% 0 0% 1 14% 0 0% 
Total Sample 7 100% 1 100% 7 100% 1 100% 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 107 
TABLE A62: PIG ISP VETERINARIAN/VLA INVESTMENTS 
Sample (n) Percent Total Units Values (USD) VET./VLA SERVICES Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
ASSET 
Land: shop/office m2 3 37 8% 23% 41 31 40 2 $861 $214 $957 $15 
Buildings: shop/office 3 17 8% 11% - - - - $4,468 $893 $4,787 $500 
Buildings: storage 2 6 5% 4% - - - - $6,750 $625 $6,750 $575 
Equipment: storage/refrigeration 14 87 38% 55% - - - - $36 $30 $26 $14 
Equipment: veterinarian 35 157 95% 99% - - - - $93 $97 $29 $38 
Equipment: feed Storage 1 9 3% 6% - - - - $48 $64 $48 $45 
Equipment: pen/trough-building 1 12 3% 8% - - - - $24 $275 $24 $38 
Transport: motorcycle 33 150 89% 94% 1 1 1 1 $536 $469 $479 $375 
Transport: truck/car 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 - - - - 
Other major input/service assets 12 75 32% 47% - - - - $28 $25 $10 $13 
Total Sample/ Value 37 159 100% 100% $1,388 $759 $617 $472 
TABLE A63: PIG ISP INPUT SUPPLIER INVESTMENTS 
Sample (n) Percent Total Units Values (USD) INPUT SUPPLIERS Mean Median Mean Median 
ASSET 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Land: shop/office m2 21 54 88% 96% 86.3 88 40 40 $2,364 $4,126 $957 $380 
Buildings: shop/office 21 49 88% 88% - - - - $4,862 $2,937 $1,436 $1,000 
Buildings: storage 9 17 38% 30% - - - - $8,901 $3,197 $2,393 $650 
Equipment: storage/refrigeration 10 28 42% 50% - - - - $204 $342 $66 $81 
Equipment: veterinarian 8 42 33% 75% - - - - $195 $1,000 $69 $90 
Equipment: feed Storage 13 23 54% 41% - - - - $101 $6,565 $72 $50 
Equipment: pen/trough-building 5 11 21% 20% - - - - $411 $2,605 $96 $200 
Transport: motorcycle 12 34 50% 61% 1.1 1.2 1 1 $718 $635 $371 $525 
108 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
Sample (n) Percent Total Units Values (USD) INPUT SUPPLIERS Mean Median Mean Median 
ASSET 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Transport: truck/car 3 3 13% 5% 1.3 1.3 1 1 $2,011 $6,967 $1,915 $8,000 
Other major input/service assets 8 32 33% 57% - - - - $103 $221 $22 $81 
Total Sample/ Value 24 56 100% 100% $10,596 $12,533 $4,073 $2,881 
TABLE A64: PIG INPUT & SERVICE PROVIDERS VALUE OF SALES 
Sample (n) Percent Tot 
Units Total Value ($) Unit Value ($) 
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
VETERINARIAN 
SERVICES 
Vaccination service fee ( 
no.) 
29 139 78% 87% 177 626 36 60 $71 $436 $29 $38 $0.40 $1.75 $0.80 $1.00 
Vaccines (no. of head) 35 142 95% 89% 452 790 160 196 $320 $529 $101 $90 $0.71 $0.91 $0.63 $0.50 
Treatment service fee( 
no.) 
32 144 86% 91% 402 625 107 240 $277 $695 $97 $204 $0.69 $1.30 $0.91 $0.75 
Treatment medicines(no. 
head) 
31 156 84% 98% 225 1112 100 240 $248 $959 $108 $293 $1.10 $1.50 $1.08 $0.88 
A.I service fee( no.) 3 30 8% 19% 3.3 69 3 20 $22 $107 $10 $35 $6.46 $2.84 $3.19 $1.44 
A.I semen (no. of head) 2 25 5% 16% 3.5 69 3.5 25 $11 $379 $11 $150 $3.08 $5.78 $3.08 $5.00 
Total Sub- Sample/ Value 37 159 100% 100% $808 $2,504 $350 $913 
INPUT SUPPLIER 
SERVS 
Feed sales 24 50 100% 89% 19848 63447 8000 20700 $13,474 $53,282 $4,524 $24,375 $0.68 $0.83 $0.57 $0.88 
Ingredient sales - Corn N/A 7 N/A 13% N/A 11486 N/A 0 N/A $4,525 N/A $1,650 N/A $0.44 N/A $0.38 
Ingredient sales - Bran N/A 13 N/A 23% N/A 33508 N/A 0 N/A $7,222 N/A $525 N/A $0.17 N/A $0.18 
Ingredient sales - Soy 
Bean 
N/A 2 N/A 4% N/A 4550 N/A 0 N/A $2,309 N/A $2,309 N/A $0.53 N/A $0.53 
Ingredient sales - Fish N/A 6 N/A 11% N/A 9317 N/A 0 N/A $5,744 N/A $4,194 N/A $0.73 N/A $0.73 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 109 
Sample (n) Percent Tot 
Units Total Value ($) Unit Value ($) 
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Miller 
Ingredient sales - Others N/A 11 N/A 20% N/A - - - N/A $3,180 N/A $250 N/A - N/A - 
Vaccination sales 11 33 46% 59% 470 695 100 55 $717 $2,143 $215 $625 $1.52 $3.69 $2.15 $2.00 
Medicine sales 13 46 54% 82% 1756 2455 300 116 $3,464 $6,467 $574 $392 $1.97 $2.54 $1.91 $1.88 
Pig production equipment 
sales 
6 17 25% 30% - - - - $258 $703 $138 $225 - - - - 
Pig processing equipment 
sales 
0 1 0% 2% - - - - $ - 100 $ - 100 - - - - 
Veterinarian equipment 
sales 
10 27 42% 48% - - - - $741 $1,462 $26 $100 - - - - 
OTHER SERVICES 
Pig pen construction 0 1 0% 2% - 30 - 0 $ - 1500 $ - 1500 $ - 50 $ - 50 
Pig trough 
construction/sales 
1 3 4% 5% 1 1374.33 1 0 $8 $4,273 $8 $2,070 $8.38 33 $8.38 8 
Pig transport services 0 0 0% 0% - - - 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 
Other pig tech. advisory 
services 
0 4 0% 7% - 8.25 - 0 $ - 148.75 $ - 52.5 $ - 16 $ - 15 
Other major input/service 
sales 
2 5 8% 9% - - - - $10 $44 $10 $18 - - $ - - 
Total Sub- Sample/ 
Value 
24 56 100% 100% $16,054 $58,902 $7,986 $27,140 
TABLE A65: PIG INPUT & SERVICE PROVIDER COSTS OF BUSINESS 
COST OF BUSINESS 
Sample (n) Percent Total Values ($) Item Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
VETERINARIAN SERVICES 
Vaccines stock 35 54 95% 34% $221 $644 $71 $150 
Other medicines stock 30 134 81% 84% $189 $834 $132 $175 
110 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
COST OF BUSINESS 
Sample (n) Percent Total Values ($) Item Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Veterinary consumables stock 29 155 78% 97% $18 $33 $14 $13 
Machinery fuel, oil, maintenance 5 14 14% 9% $100 $133 $96 $44 
Electricity/battery 15 29 41% 18% $11 $18 $4 $9 
Hired labor, part-time 1 21 3% 13% $5 $50 $5 $27 
Hired labor, full-time 0 48 0% 30% $ - $590 $ - $274 
Own transport fuel, oil, maint. 31 151 84% 95% $101 $241 $50 $88 
Hired transport costs 1 25 3% 16% $48 $30 $48 $8 
Licenses and fees 1 8 3% 5% $36 $30 $36 $13 
Other major costs 6 47 16% 30% $7 $14 $6 $5 
Total Sub-Sample/ Value 37 159 100% $483 $1,805 $238 $884 
INPUT SUPPLIER SERVICES 
Feed 24 50 100% 89% $12,200 $46,776 $4,260 $16,288 
Vaccinations 11 34 46% 61% $622 $2,358 $191 $506 
Medicines 13 47 54% 84% $3,143 $5,628 $503 $319 
Pig production equipment stock 4 14 17% 25% $254 $589 $144 $188 
Pig processing equipment stock 0 1 0% 2% $ - 112.5 $ - 112.5 
Veterinarian equipment stock 9 22 38% 39% $441 $1,441 $144 $113 
Machinery fuel, oil, maintenance 1 7 4% 13% $5 $526 $5 $135 
Electricity/battery 11 36 46% 64% $36 $99 $15 $38 
Hired labor part-time 1 18 4% 32% $345 $107 $345 $43 
Hired labor full-time 3 34 13% 60% $239 $707 $287 $463 
Own transport fuel, oil, maint. 14 30 58% 54% $97 $164 $54 $43 
Hired transport costs 12 32 50% 57% $524 $623 $109 $110 
Licenses and fees 11 38 46% 68% $69 $88 $18 $25 
Other major costs 5 27 21% 48% $22 $360 $14 $25 
OTHER SERVICES 
Pig pen materials 0 1 0% 2% $ - 112.5 $ - 112.5 
Pig trough materials 1 1 4% 2% $7 $8,000 $7 $8,000 
Transport fuel, oil, maintenance 2 1 8% 2% $20 $5 $20 $5 
Machinery fuel, oil, maintenance 1 1 4% 2% $20 $6 $20 $6 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 111 
COST OF BUSINESS 
Sample (n) Percent Total Values ($) Item Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Electricity/battery 2 3 8% 5% $4 $51 $4 $1 
Hired labor part-time 0 3 0% 5% $ 217.5 $ - 100 
Hired labor full-time 0 3 0% 5% $ - 443.3 $ - 225 
Own transport fuel, oil, maint. 3 5 13% 9% $10 $19 $2 $13 
Hired transport costs 0 0 0% 0% $ - $ - $ $ - 
Licenses and fees 0 2 0% 4% $ - 7.625 $ - 7.625 
Other major costs 2 3 8% 5% $31 $10 $31 $8 
Total Sub-Sample/ Value 24 56 100% 100% $14,817 $50,319 $6,662 $18,272 
TABLE A66: IMPACT OF WORKING WITH MSME PROJECT ON THEIR BUSINESS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT 
Pig producer Pig Trader Pig Processor Veterinarian Pig Input Supplier Total for Pig 
# % # % # % # % # % # % 
Very negative impacts 3 0% 1 1% 4 0% 
Negative impacts 13 2% 3 2% 1 2% 17 2% 
No impacts 47 7% 1 50% 3 43% 5 3% 6 11% 60 7% 
Postive impacts 359 50% 1 50% 4 57% 60 38% 22 39% 441 48% 
Very positive impacts on my 
business 
295 41% 90 57% 27 48% 398 43% 
TOTAL 717 100% 2 100% 7 100% 159 100% 56 100% 920 100% 
112 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE A67: SHARING KNOWLEDGE LEARNED FROM MSME WITH NONE-CLIENT BUSINESS PEOPLE 
Pig producer Pig Trader Pig Processor Veterinarian Pig Input Supplier Total for Pig 
# % # % # % # % # % # % 
Average Number of People They Shared 
Knowledge that learned from MSME with 
717 7.2 2 0.0 7 6.3 159 76.1 56 97.3 920 21.8 
Average Number of People who they Shared 
Knowledge partially or fully adopted the new 
technologies or business practices 
435 6.4 0 - 3 8.0 147 46.3 40 79.7 607 18.3 
TABLE A68: FISH PRODUCER VOLUME OF FISH PRODUCTION FOR SALE 
Sample (n) Percent Total Units Item Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Mature fish-Tilapia 82 41 56% 25% 1989 1487 405 380 
Mature fish-Carp 72 79 49% 49% 538 1022 300 550 
Mature fish-Pangasius 67 108 46% 67% 2055 2471 900 1075 
Stunted fish-Tilapia 17 16 12% 10% 228 2009 50 550 
Stunted fish-Carp 13 19 9% 12% 127 293 50 100 
Stunted fish-Pangasius 11 24 8% 15% 3357 329 150 95 
Fingerling-Tilapia 16 4 11% 2% 10067 15925 5500 6500 
Fingerling-Carp 6 0 4% 0% 13107 - 2125 - 
Fingerling-Pangasius 2 0 1% 0% 2600 - 2600 - 
Total Sample/ Value 146 162 100% 100% 4294 3197 800 1185 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 113 
TABLE A69: FISH PRODUCERS TOTAL VOLUME OF PRODUCTION 
Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units 
Item Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Mature fish-Tilapia 11 8 8% 5% 781 4579 400 35 
Mature fish-Carp 7 0 5% 0% 470 - 100 - 
Mature fish-Pangasius 3 3 2% 2% 347 4967 500 4200 
Stunted fish-Tilapia 11 0 8% 0% 804 - 300 - 
Stunted fish-Carp 2 4 1% 2% 115 530 115 460 
Stunted fish-Pangasius 3 5 2% 3% 483 366 100 200 
Fingerling-Tilapia 95 42 65% 26% 7036 6653 1000 1000 
Fingerling-Carp 81 79 55% 49% 2102 1768 600 1000 
Fingerling-Pangasius 77 106 53% 65% 4137 4070 2000 2000 
Total Sample/ Value 146 162 100% 100% 8087 5592 2100 2000 
114 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE A70: FISH PRODUCERS VALUE OF SALES 
Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units Values ($) Unit Value ($) 
Item Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Mature fish-Tilapia 82 41 56% 25% 1,989 1487 405 380 $1,241 $927 $348 $265 $0.62 $0.83 $0.86 $0.63 
Mature fish-Carp 72 79 49% 49% 538 1022 300 550 $559 $873 $243 $469 $1.04 $0.90 $0.81 $0.80 
Mature fish-Pangasius 67 108 46% 67% 2,055 2471 900 1075 $1,710 $2,101 $503 $1,088 $0.83 $0.96 $0.56 $0.90 
Stunted fish-Tilapia 17 16 12% 10% 228 2009 50 550 $44 $714 $10 $52 $0.19 $0.33 $0.19 $0.26 
Stunted fish-Carp 13 19 9% 12% 127 293 50 100 $27 $93 $12 $25 $0.21 $0.34 $0.24 $0.25 
Stunted fish-Pangasius 11 24 8% 15% 3,357 329 150 95 $712 $119 $36 $30 $0.21 $0.34 $0.24 $0.38 
Fingerling-Tilapia 16 4 11% 2% 10,067 15925 5,500 6500 $927 $228 $414 $123 $0.09 $0.03 $0.08 $0.02 
Fingerling-Carp 6 0 4% 0% 13,107 - 2,125 - $599 - $112 - $0.05 - $0.05 - 
Fingerling-Pangasius 2 0 1% 0% 2,600 - 2,600 - $182 - $182 - $0.07 - $0.07 - 
Total Sample/ Value 146 162 100% 100% 4,294 3197 800 1185 $1,947 $2,155 $657 $924 $0.45 $0.85 $0.82 $0.80 
TABLE A71: FISH PRODUCER COST OF BUSINESS 
Sample (n) Percent Total Units Values ($) Unit Value ($) Item Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
BOUGHT STOCK 
Stunted fish-Tilapia 6 0 4% 0% 867 - 250 - $49 - $21 - $0.06 - $0.08 - 
Stunted fish-Carp 2 4 1% 2% 115 530 115 460 $2 $25 $2 $22 $0.02 $0.06 $0.02 $0.03 
Stunted fish-Pangasius 3 5 2% 3% 483 366 100 200 $12 $40 $2 $35 $0.02 $0.15 $0.02 $0.18 
Fingerling-Tilapia 72 38 49% 23% 1480 1158 475 700 $40 $29 $10 $17 $0.03 $0.02 $0.02 $0.03 
Fingerling-Carp 79 78 54% 48% 1991 1747 500 1000 $35 $55 $12 $25 $0.02 $0.03 $0.02 $0.03 
Fingerling-Pangasius 76 106 52% 65% 5298 4070 1500 2000 $169 $118 $48 $58 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 
GOODS & SERVICES 
Feed-manufactured/pellets 79 132 54% 81% 434 657 125 168 $242 $247 $65 $92 $0.56 $0.56 $0.52 $0.55 
Feed-home made & prep. 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 115 
Sample (n) Percent Total Units Values ($) Unit Value ($) Item Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Rice bran 130 156 89% 96% 1169 805 420 2669. $152 $303 $49 $120 $0.13 $0.14 $0.12 $0.13 
Trash fish 24 57 17% 35% 1289 429 300 1198. $215 $129 $60 $69 $0.17 $0.24 $0.20 $0.18 
Soy bean 6 5 4% 3% 1081 50 360 35. $202 $22 $48 $18 $0.19 $0.56 $0.13 $0.50 
broken rice 95 111 65% 69% 277 150 140 401. $65 $87 $32 $38 $0.23 $0.29 $0.23 $0.30 
Medicine-bottle 17 35 12% 22% 11 3 6 26. $20 $26 $18 $18 $1.86 $7.00 $2.99 $3.00 
Medicine-tablet 14 7 10% 4% 1011 120 175 444.7 $77 $17 $22 $2 $0.08 $0.04 $0.12 $0.04 
Hormone-bottle 3 0 2% 0% 3 - 2 - $81 - $48 - $26.99 - $23.93 - 
Hormone-tablet 2 0 1% 0% 50 - 50 - $46 - $46 - $0.93 - $0.93 - 
Lime 96 106 66% 65% 60 15 15 69.7 $14 $10 $3 $4 $0.24 $0.26 $0.19 $0.25 
Firewood or other items 
used for cooking fish food 
N/A 117 N/A 72% - - - - N/A $40 N/A $25 N/A N/A 
Water supply 11 68 8% 42% - - - - $17 $24 $14 $13 - - - - 
Machinery fuel, oil, maint. 88 112 60% 69% - - - - $43 $28 $19 $18 - - - - 
Electricity/battery 76 94 52% 58% - - - - $20 $16 $12 $7 - - - - 
Hired labor Part-Time 2 102 1% 63% - - - - $84 $103 $84 $63 - - - - 
Hired labor Full-Time 5 98 3% 60% - - - - $412 $273 $287 $225 - - - - 
Other technical Services 3 27 2% 17% - - - - $12 $7 $7 $8 - - - - 
Own t’sport fuel, oil, maint. 102 110 70% 68% - - - - $45 $32 $14 $15 - - - - 
Hired transport costs 39 79 27% 49% - - - - $20 $15 $7 $8 - - - - 
Licenses and Fees 7 1 5% 1% - - - - $60 $21 $24 $21 - - - - 
OTHER/ANY 
Other major costs 115 121 79% 75% - - - - $17 $16 $7 $10 - - - - 
Total Sample/ Value 146 162 100% 100% $608 $1,173 $266 $828 
TABLE A72: IMPACT OF WORKING WITH MSME PROJECT ON THEIR BUSINESS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT 
Fish producer Fish Trader Fingerling Producer Total for Fish 
# % # % # % # % 
No impacts 17 10% 2 1 1 0 20 12% 
Positive impacts 92 57% 2 1 2 1 96 56% 
116 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
Fish producer Fish Trader Fingerling Producer Total for Fish 
# % # % # % # % 
Very positive impacts on my 
business 
53 33% 1 25% 54 32% 
TOTAL 162 100% 4 100% 4 100% 170 100% 
TABLE A73: SHARING KNOWLEDGE LEARNED FROM MSME WITH NONE-CLIENT BUSINESS PEOPLE 
Fish producer Fish Trader Fingerling Producer Total for Fish 
# % # % # % # % 
Average Number of People They Shared 
Knowledge that learned from MSME with 
162 11.4 4 15.3 4 165.0 170 15.1 
Average Number of People who they Shared 
Knowledge partially or fully adopted the new 
technologies or business practices 
129 7.1 4 7.5 4 122.5 137 10.5 
TABLE A74: BRICK & TILE MAKER INVESTMENTS 
Sample (n) Percent Total Units Values ($) Item Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
ASSETS 
Land 15 28 100% 100% 25101 19877 21000 16000 $112,116 $68,308 $140,737 $40,000 
Buildings/storage/structures 15 28 100% 100% - - - - $18,909 $17,129 $19,148 $12,000 
Existing kilns (not renovated) 9 28 60% 100% - - - - $10,643 $21,134 $7,659 $20,000 
Existing kilns (renovated last year) 9 14 60% 50% - - - - $15,345 $13,354 $8,617 $3,000 
New kilns (constructed last year) 4 9 27% 32% - - - - $11,417 $27,900 $9,574 $15,000 
Water pump 15 27 100% 96% - - - - $310 $546 $239 $300 
Equipment-clay mix preparation 12 25 80% 89% - - - - $4,057 $3,679 $4,428 $2,000 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 117 
Sample (n) Percent Total Units Values ($) Item Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Equipment-kiln 3 16 20% 57% - - - - $2,249 $2,948 $34 $1,500 
Equipment-drying 3 11 20% 39% - - - - $5,744 $1,455 $6,893 $875 
Equipment-glazing 0 14 0% 50% - - - - - $1,538 - 837.5 
Equipment-B&T handling 12 24 80% 86% - - - - $1,127 $1,660 $1,005 $1,350 
B&T transport-motorcycle 4 7 27% 25% 1.3 1.7 1 2 $910 $1,031 $862 $900 
B&T transport-truck 9 23 60% 82% 1.8 1.9 2 2 $16,754 $14,212 $7,659 $11,000 
Other major processing assets 14 26 93% 93% - - - - $2,138 $3,971 $706 $650 
Total Sample/ Value 15 28 100% 100% $168,009 $146,093 $158,844 $137,450 
TABLE A75: BRICK & TILE MAKERS VOLUME OF PRODUCTION FOR SALE 
Sample (n) Percent Total Units Item Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
BRICKS 
Bricks-Quality 1 15 27 100% 96% 1,039,467 1,504,070 720,000 800,000 
Bricks Quality 2 2 5 13% 18% 370,000 664,000 370,000 600,000 
Total Brick 15 28 100% 100% 1,088,800 1,568,930 840,000 1,100,000 
TILES 
Roof tiles-Quality 1 9 19 100% 95% 584,444 662,630 400,000 360,000 
Roof tiles Quality 2 2 6 22% 30% 350,000 186,330 350,000 104,000 
Floor/wall tiles-Quality 1 0 0 0% 0% - - - - 
Floor/wall tiles-Quality 2 0 0 0% 0% - - - - 
Total Sample/ Value Tile 9 20 100% 100% 662,222 685,400 477,778 475,000 
Total Sample/ Value Brick and Tile 15 28 100% 100% 1,486,133 2,058,500 1,380,000 1,700,000 
TABLE A76: BRICK & TILE MAKERS VALUE OF SALES 
118 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units Values ($) Unit Value ($/’000) 
Item Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
BRICKS 
Bricks-Quality 
1 
15 27 100% 96% 1,039,467 1,504,0
70 
720,000 800,000 $35,44
8 
$36,03
8 
$18,09
5 
$24,00
0 
$34.1
0 
$26.5
7 
$25.
13 
$25.00 
Bricks Quality 
2 
2 5 13% 18% 370,000 664,000 370,000 600,000 $12,44
6 
$15,35
5 
$12,44
6 
$9,750 $33.6
4 
$21.2
5 
$33.
64 
$21.25 
Total Brick 15 28 100% 100% 1,088,800 1,568,9
30 
840,000 1,100,00
0 
$37,10
8 
$42,69
2 
$25,85
0 
$31,15
0 
$34.0
8 
$24.6
7 
$30.
77 
$25.00 
TILES 
Roof tiles￾Quality 1 9 19 100% 95% 584,444 662,630 400,000 360,000 $32,222 $46,962 $22,020 $27,500 $55.13 $82.37 $55. 05 $70.00 
Roof tiles 
Quality 2 
2 6 22% 30% 350,000 186,330 350,000 104,000 $19,74
6 
$10,58
1 
$19,74
6 
$8,430 $56.4
2 
$70.4
2 
$56.
42 
$47.50 
Floor/wall tiles￾Quality 1 0 0 0% 0% - - - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 
Floor/wall tiles￾Quality 2 0 0 0% 0% - - - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 
Total Sample/ 
Value Tile 
9 20 100% 100% 662,222 685,400 477,778 475,000 $36,61
0 
$61,30
1 
$26,40
8 
$33,52
5 
$55.2
8 
$77.3
8 
$55.
27 
$55.00 
Total Sample/ 
Value Brick 
and Tile 
15 28 100% 100% 1,486,133 2,058,5
00 
1,380,00
0 
1,700,00
0 
$59,07
3 
$86,47
9 
$36,62
0 
$56,43
8 
$39.7
5 
$44.8
3 
$26.
54 
$37.50 
TABLE A77: BRICK & TILE MAKERS COST OF BUSINESS-BRICK MAKING 
Sample (n) Percent Total Units Values ($) Unit Value ($) Item Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
BRICK MAKING COSTS 
Clay 15 28 100% 100% 3,178 2,533 1,800 1,508 $5,385 $4,579 $2,908 $2,276 $1.69 $1.77 $1.62 $1.65 
Sand 2 3 100% 11% 115 23 115 15 $424 $12 $424 $15 $3.68 $1.90 $3.68 $0.38 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 119 
Sample (n) Percent Total Units Values ($) Unit Value ($) Item Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
Lime 0 0 0% 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Chemicals/dyes 0 0 0% 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Glazing 0 0 0% 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Water 10 13 67% 46% 1,238 260 1,480 260 $10 $173 $10 $173 $0.01 $0.56 $0.01 $0.56 
Fuel wood 15 28 100% 100% 1,159 842 720 817 $8,034 $7,581 $5,744 $5,250 $6.93 $8.90 $7.98 $9.38 
Charcoal 0 0 0% 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Hired labor part-time 15 28 100% 100% - - - - $7,981 $3,065 $4,787 $2,063 - - - - 
Hired labor full-time 3 22 20% 79% - - - - $1,219 $4,642 $1,149 $3,021 - - - - 
Machinery fuel, oil, 
maintenance 
15 27 100% 96% - - - - $1,901 $2,474 $771 $1,000 - - - - 
Electricity 5 12 33% 43% - - - - $311 $413 $345 $263 - - - - 
Own Transport fuel, oil, 
maintenance 
12 25 80% 89% - - - - $1,425 $2,016 $629 $1,250 - - - - 
Hired transport costs 7 18 47% 64% - - - - $2,399 $1,829 $1,436 $1,375 - - - - 
Licenses and fees 11 26 73% 93% - - - - $343 $291 $191 $250 - - - - 
Other major costs 13 13 87% 46% - - - - $437 $448 $191 $250 - - - - 
Total Sample/ Value 
Brick 
15 28 100% 100% $26,596 $25,898 $17,011 $24,158 
120 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
TABLE A78: BRICK & TILE MAKERS COST OF BUSINESS-TILE MAKING & TOTAL 
Item Sample (n) Percent Total 
Units Values ($) Unit Value ($) 
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median 
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 
TILE MAKING COSTS 
Clay 9 20 100% 100% 3,436 2,067 1,000 1,040 $5,664 $4,185 $1,436 $1,599 $1.65 $1.71 $1.44 $1.65 
Sand 0 2 0% 10% - 36 - 36 $ - $16 $ - $16 $ - $2.66 $ - $2.66 
Lime 0 0 0% 0% - - - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 
Chemicals/dyes 0 0 0% 0% - - - - $ - $ - $ - $ - - - - - 
Glazing 0 0 0% 0% - - - - $ - $ - $ - $ - - - - - 
Water 4 11 44% 55% 387 160 90 160 $6 $98 $6 $98 $0.01 $0.56 $0.06 $0.56 
Fuel wood 9 20 100% 100% 798 882.9 600 817 $6,546 $8,170 $5,744 $6,795 $8.20 $9.30 $9.57 $10.00 
Charcoal 0 0 0% 0% - - - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 
Hired labor: part￾time 9 20 100% 100% - - - - $4,889 $1,660 $6,702 $717 - - - - 
Hired labor: full￾time 1 15 11% 75% - - - - $3,830 $4,931 $3,830 $3,146 - - - - 
Machinery fuel, oil, 
maintenance 
9 20 100% 100% - - - - $598 $2,695 $268 $1,438 - - - - 
Electricity 3 11 33% 55% - - - - $321 $533 $383 $400 - - - - 
Own transport fuel, 
oil, maintenance 
7 20 78% 100% - - - - $541 $1,730 $596 $550 - - - - 
Hired transport 
costs 
4 16 44% 80% - - - - $1,029 $2,263 $112 $1,375 - - - - 
Licenses and fees 4 19 44% 95% - - - - $51 $206 $42 $150 - - - - 
Other major costs 5 9 56% 45% - - - - $236 $344 $29 $250 - - - - 
Total Sample/ 
Value tile maker 
9 20 100% 100% $14,373 $25,836 $10,931 $23,780 
Total Sample/ 
Value Brick & Tile 
Maker 
15 28 100% 100% $35,220 $44,352 $22,240 $43,511 
CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 121 
TABLE 79A: MID-TERM SUMMARY STUDY RESULTS FOR THE PIG VALUE CHAIN: ALL ACTORS 
Indicator 
Mid-term Values 
TOTAL VALUE SAMPLE (n) MEAN VALUE 
% Change 
+/- 
Baseline Midterm Baseline Midterm Baseline Midterm 
1 Percentage change in value of sales $1,977,286 $7,278,724 623 941 $3,174 $7,735 73% 
of project-assisted enterprise ($/%) 
2 Percentage change in income (gross profit = $494,307 $1,511,806 623 941 $793 $1,607 67% 
value of sales – cost of business $/%) 
3 Percentage change in investments($/%) $2,925,029 $2,328,271 623 941 $4,695 $2,474 -26% 
TABLE 80A: MID-TERM SUMMARY STUDY RESULTS FOR THE FISH VALUE CHAIN: ALL ACTORS 
Indicator 
Mid-term Values 
TOTAL VALUE SAMPLE (n) MEAN VALUE 
% Change 
+/- 
Baseline Midterm Baseline Midterm Baseline Midterm 
1 Percentage change in value of sales of project-assisted 
enterprise($/%)
$372,356 $859,789 150 170 $2,482 $5,058 57% 
2 Percentage change in income (gross profit= $205,064 $377,838 150 170 $1,367 $2,223 46% 
value of sales – cost of cusiness$/%) 
5 Percentage change in investments($/%) $1,759,702 $1,960,556 150 170 $11,731 $11,533 10% 
TABLE 81 A: MID-TERM SUMMARY STUDY RESULTS FOR THE BRICK AND TILE VALUE CHAIN 
Indicator Mid-term Values 
TOTAL VALUE SAMPLE (n) MEAN VALUE 
% Change +/- 
Mean value 
Baseline Midterm Baseline Midterm Baseline Midterm 
1 Percentage change in value of sales $886,101 $2,421,401 15 28 $59,073 $86,479 63% 
of project-assisted enterprise($/%)
2 Percentage change in income (gross profit= $357,808 $1,179,546 15 28 $23,854 $42,127 70% 
122 CAMBODIA MSME 2/BEE MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT 
value of sales – cost of business$/%) 
3 Percentage change in investments ($/%) $2,520,134 $4,090,612 15 28 $168,009 $146,093 38% 
TABLE 82A: MID-TERM SUMMARY STUDY RESULTS FOR ALL VALUE CHAINS 
Indicator 
Mid-term Values 
TOTAL VALUE SAMPLE (n) MEAN VALUE % Change +/- 
Baseline Midterm Baseline Midterm Baseline Midterm 
1 Percentage change in value of sales of project￾assisted enterprise($/%) $3,235,743 $10,559,913 788 1139 $64,729 $99,271 69% 
2 Percentage change in income (gross profit= $1,057,179 $3,069,190 788 1139 $26,014 $45,956 66% 
value of sales – cost of cusiness$/%) 
3 Percentage change in investments ($/%) $7,204,865 $8,379,439 788 1139 $184,435 $160,100 14%