Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FINAL REPORT
April 8, 2019
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by John Magistro and John McCauley of The Mitchell Group, Inc. (TMG), with research support from Socheat Keo of the Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI).
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II
FINAL REPORT
April 8, 2019
Submitted to: Ms. Peoulida Ros, COR, Development Assistance Specialist (M&E), USAID/Cambodia
The Mitchell Group, Inc. (TMG) 1816 11th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-745-1919
Jenkins Cooper, Vice President/Operations, TMG Email: [email protected] Phone: +001-202-567-1097 (Mobile) 202-350-0027 (Direct)
Walidah Willoughby, Program Manager, TMG Email: [email protected] Phone: +001-202-350-0013
Cooperative Agreement No. AID-442-C-17-00003 Evaluation Mechanism Contract No. AID-OAA-I-15-00028 Task Order No. 72044218F00003
Cover Photo: USAID Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II: A vegetable buyer collects and sorts yard-long beans from her farmers in Battambang Province, Cambodia.
DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Task Order No: AID-OAA-I-15-00028/72044218F00003 USAID Activity Name: Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Cooperative Agreement No: AID-442-C-17-00003 Total Estimated Amount $ $17,559,953.00 Implementing Partner: Abt Associates Development Objective: The purpose of the activity is to increase sustainable economic opportunities within a market-based and inclusive horticulture value chain in Cambodia. Evaluation Coverage: April 18, 2017 - September 30, 2018 Activity Geographic Regions: 4 provinces: Pursat, Battambang, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom Evaluation Geographic 4 provinces: Pursat, Battambang, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom Coverage:
ABSTRACT
United States Agency for International Development/Cambodia launched Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II (hereafter, “the project”) in 2017 in four provinces to expand development of horticultural markets by improving market linkages, market actors’ capacity for participation, and facilitating improved governance. In November 2018, The Mitchell Group, Inc. conducted a mid-term evaluation employing a desk review and mixed-methods data collection, conducting 549 surveys, 43 key informant interviews, and 16 focus group discussions. There were six evaluation questions (slightly abbreviated for word limits): (1) To what extent has (the project) contributed to the horticulture sector’s growth?; (2) What are the observable system-level changes that (the project) has created or facilitated, and what opportunities should it focus on to maintain horticulture sector growth?; (3) To what extent is (the project) improving horticulture sector actors’ capacity for market participation?; (4) To what extent is (the project) improving market linkages?; (5) To what extent is (the project) improving governance and the horticulture sector enabling environment?; and (6) Are there any observable results from implementing gender action plans in horticulture value chains in (the project)? Findings reveal that the project has made progress in increasing sales, employment, and investment opportunities among horticulture sector actors, enhanced capacity for market participation, improved linkages among actors, and facilitated improved governance by employing a hybrid BLA-MSA model to realign business strategies and relationships in a more integrated, inclusive market system. The evaluation team provided recommendations per evaluation question and the project’s purpose and three sub-purposes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The evaluators are indebted to many individuals who have assisted with this report and provided guidance throughout the USAID/Cambodia Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Activity.
Foremost, we are grateful to USAID/Cambodia’s Office of Food Security and Environment, and to the Contracting Officer Representative (COR), Ms. Peoulida Ros.
We also express our gratitude to the Implementing Partner, Abt Associates, and Chief of Party, Alexis Ellicot, and the M&E Director, Kallyan Ith, for their time, patience, and prompt response to the evaluators’ requests for information and the selection of key informants. We also acknowledge the Sub-Partners, Mike Roberts, iDE Country Director; David Totten, Director of EMC; and their staff for making themselves available for key informant interviews and for providing key research sources cited in this report.
We greatly appreciate the work of our local partner firm, Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI), for their ongoing logistical support, assistance with selection of key informants and focus group discussants and preparation for conducting the survey as in integral part of the evaluation, under the leadership of the international survey expert, Dr. John McCauley. We are particularly grateful to Sim Sokcheng, Head of the Agricultural Unit and lead supervisor at CDRI, with Khiev Pirom, field supervisor for their abundant patience in successfully overseeing all administrative and logistical aspects of the field survey and qualitative data collection; and Dr. Socheat Keo who assisted as the National Evaluation Advisor and led KII and FGD data collection sessions, and also provided critical background research support in the writing of this report.
Other members of the CDRI field team who endured long, onerous days of data collection include:
FAS Survey Team Supervisor: Pon Dorina Team Leaders: Soung Makara, Pa Racine, Sim Bunleang, Bin Chanthea Enumerators: Chourn Chan, Sim Sokunthea, Chea Sameth, Ek Bunthorn, Huy Kang Orn, Chhim Vannaren, Chea Kheng, Yous Pich, Ann Sunnary, Chan Phanny, Sim Deluch, Chhum Saosarak
KII/FGD Qualitative Evaluation Team John Magistro, Team Leader Keo Socheat, National Evaluation Advisor Moderators and Notetakers: Keo Socheat, Sok Chhivsrun, Sarom Molideth, Chhim Vannaren, John Magistro, Koeut Thydalak, Choun Chanthoura
The evaluators are also grateful for the home office support and quality assurance reviews of The Mitchell Group, Inc. (TMG) in Washington, D.C.
Finally, we are indebted to the many community members and local authorities from the four provinces in the study who patiently participated as respondents and discussants in household surveys, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews.
John Magistro John McCauley
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4 Table of Contents ...... i Table of Figures ...... iii ACRONYMS ...... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... vi PROJECT BACKGROUND...... vi FEED THE FUTURE CAMBODIA HARVEST II’s THEORY OF CHANGE ...... vii EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...... vii FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BY EVALUATION QUESTION ...... vii RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ...... ix RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID CAMBODIA ...... x I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION ...... 4 Theory of Change and Results Framework ...... 5 III. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ...... 6 Evaluation Team ...... 6 IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 9 MID-TERM ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST INDICATORS ...... 9 PROJECT PURPOSE: CONTRIBUTE TO THE GROWTH OF THE HORTICULTURAL SECTOR ...... 12 SYSTEM-LEVEL CHANGES IN HORTICULTURE MARKET TRANSACTIONS ...... 18 SUB-PURPOSE 1: IMPROVED CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION ...... 24 SUB-PURPOSE 2: IMPROVED MARKET LINKAGES ...... 30 SUB-PURPOSE 3: IMPROVED GOVERNANCE AND THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT ...... 35 CROSS CUTTING INITIATIVES: GENDER AND YOUTH ...... 40 V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ...... 46 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ...... 46 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID/cambodia ...... 48 LESSONS-LEARNED ...... 49 VI. ANNEXES ...... 50 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work ...... 51 Annex II: Evaluation Methodology ...... 58 Annex III: Bibliography ...... 83 Annex IV: Key Informant Interview (KII) Questions ...... 86 Annex V: Focus Group Discussion Guidesheets ...... 106 Annex VI: Focused Assessment Survey ...... 112
i Annex VII: Training Workshop Agenda ...... 119 Annex VIII: FAS Sampling Frame ...... 125 Annex IX: Meeting and Field Data Collection Schedule ...... 127 ANNEX X: FAS DATA FIGURES AND TABLES ...... 137 Annex XI: Commercial Partnership Relationship ...... 149 Annex XII: Harvest II Market System Development Engagement Framework ...... 150 ANNEX XIII: Harvest II Performance Indicator Data Disaggregated by Sex and by Youth ...... 151 Annex XIV: Intervention Priorities of Harvest II Partners ...... 153 Annex XV: Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosure Agreement ...... 155 Annex XVI: Evaluation Question 1 Figures & Tables ...... 158 KII/FGD SALES DATA, INVESTMENT DATA ...... 159 Annex XVII: Evaluation Question 3 Figures & Tables ...... 161 Annex XVIII: Evaluation Question 4 Figures & Tables ...... 163 Annex XiX: Evaluation Question 5 Figures & Tables ...... 166 Annex XX: Evaluation Question 6 Figures & Tables ...... 167 VI. ANNEXES ...... 50 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work ...... 51 Annex II: Evaluation Methodology ...... 58 Annex III: Bibliography ...... 83 Annex IV: Key Informant Interview (KII) Questions ...... 86 Annex V: Focus Group Discussion Guidesheets ...... 106 Annex VI: Focused Assessment Survey ...... 112 Annex VII: Training Workshop Agenda ...... 119 Annex VIII: FAS Sampling Frame ...... 125 Annex IX: Meeting and Field Data Collection Schedule ...... 127 ANNEX X: FAS DATA FIGURES AND TABLES ...... 137 Annex XI: Commercial Partnership Relationship ...... 149 Annex XII: Harvest II Market System Development Engagement Framework ...... 150 ANNEX XIII: Harvest II Performance Indicator Data Disaggregated by Sex and by Youth ...... 151 Annex XIV: Intervention Priorities of Harvest II Partners ...... 153 Annex XV: Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosure Agreement ...... 155 Annex XVI: Evaluation Question 1 Figures & Tables ...... 158 Annex XVII: Evaluation Question 3 Figures & Tables ...... 161 Annex XVIII: Evaluation Question 4 Figures & Tables ...... 163 Annex XiX: Evaluation Question 5 Figures & Tables ...... 166 Annex XX: Evaluation Question 6 Figures & Tables ...... 167
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report ii
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Zone of Influence ...... 1 Figure 2: Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Results Framework ...... 5 Figure 3: Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II MTE Team ...... 6 Figure 4: Percentage of Respondents Expecting Improved Sales in Next 12 Months, by Partner Status and Sex ...... 13 Figure 5: Percentage of Respondents with Plans to Hire, by Partner Status and Sex ...... 15 Figure 6: Percentage of Respondents Reporting Various Levels of Assistance (Loans, Materials, etc.) from NGOs ...... 25 Figure 7: Percentage of Respondents Identifying Sectors as Most Reliable and Consistent Value Chain Actor, by Partner Status ...... 31 Figure 8: Percentage of Women Employees in the Business, by Respondents’ Partner Status ...... 41 Figure 9: FAS Sample Sites ...... 78
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report iii
ACRONYMS
B2B Business to Business BLA Buyer-Led Approach CBO Community-Based Organization CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CDRI Cambodian Development Resource Institute CHA Commercial Horticulture Agent CLA Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting CPs Commercial Partnerships CRP Climate Resilience Practices CSO Civil Society Organization DCA Development Credit Authority DO3 Development Objective 3 DOC Department of Commerce EMC Emerging Markets Consulting EQ Evaluation Questions ES Enumerator Supervisor EQ Evaluation Questions ET Evaluation Team ETL Evaluation Team Leader FAS Focused Assessment Surveys FGD Focus Group Discussion FtF Feed the Future FTE Full-time Equivalent GAP Gender Action Plan iDE International Development Enterprises IP Implementing Partner(s) IPM Integrated Pest Management IR Intermediate Result(s) IRB Institutional Review Board KIA Key Interventions Areas KII Key Informant Interviews LOP Life-of-Project MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MFI Microfinance Institute MOC Ministry of Commerce M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MTE Mid-term Evaluation MSA Market Systems Approach MSME Micro-, Small- and Medium-Enterprise MTE Mid-Term Evaluation
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report iv
NDA Non-Disclosure Agreement NEA National Evaluation Advisor NGO Non-Government Organization PDAFF Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries PP Program Purpose PPD Public-Private Dialogue QLET Qualitative Evaluation Team QNET Quantitative Evaluation Team RF Results Framework RGC Royal Government of Cambodia SOW Scope of Work STL Survey Team Leader TMG The Mitchell Group USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government ZOI Zone of Influence
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
USAID/Cambodia commissioned The Mitchell Group, Inc. (TMG), in partnership with the Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI), to conduct a Mid-Term Performance Evaluation (MTE) of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity in the Zone of Influence (ZOI) comprised of the four provinces of Pursat, Battambang, Siem Reap, and Kampong Thom. The purpose of the MTE was to assess project implementation, identify learning opportunities, and provide findings and actionable recommendations for future activity planning and implementation of a blended Buyer-Led Approach (BLA) and Market Systems Approach (MSA) to growth of the horticulture sector in Cambodia1. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this evaluation are based on a one-week period of desk review2 of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II documentation and a three-week period of intensive field data collection by the Evaluation Team (ET) in the four provinces in November 2018, followed by one week of key informant interviews (KIIs) with Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Implementing Partners (IPs), the USAID/Cambodia Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II technical management team, key Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II market actors, and one Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II government partner in Phnom Penh. The six Evaluation Questions (EQs) are: 1. To what extent has Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II contributed to the growth of the horticulture sector (including fruits, vegetables and nuts) in the FTF ZOI? 2. What are the observable system-level changes in horticulture market transactions that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has created or facilitated and what are the opportunities there that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II should focus on to maintain horticulture sector growth? 3. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving horticulture sector actors’ capacity for market participation? 4. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving market linkages? 5. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving governance and the horticulture sector enabling environment? 6. Are there any observable results from implementing gender action plans in horticulture value chains in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II?
PROJECT BACKGROUND The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) initiated a five-year initiative in 2010; Helping Address Rural Vulnerability and Ecosystem Stability (HARVEST), that made significant strides in increasing the availability of nutrient-rich foods, improving nutritional outcomes and boosting incomes among smallholder horticultural farmers. In 2017, USAID built upon the progress made under HARVEST by implementing a new five-year phase, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II, that expands development of horticultural markets by improving value chain actors’ capacity for market participation, improving market linkages and facilitating improved governance and a more effective enabling environment. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II emphasizes a buyer-led and market systems approach that puts a high priority on developing sustainable commercial partnerships between suppliers, buyers, financial institutions, and other key market actors.
1 The buyer-led approach (BLA) begins with an understanding of specific buyers’ needs in terms of quality, quantity, price, and timing. The goal of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is to help each buyer engage with suppliers to ensure a reliable and consistent supply of products. The market system approach (MSA) is defined as “a dynamic space—incorporating resources, roles, relationships, rules and results—in which public and private actors collaborate, coordinate and compete for the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services” (Campbell 2014). 2 While the project Scope of Work (SOW) allows for a two-week desk review, only one-week of review was possible due to a change in key personnel (Team Leader). Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report vi
FEED THE FUTURE CAMBODIA HARVEST II’S THEORY OF CHANGE The Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Theory of Change (TOC) is: “If capacities for market participation are improved, opportunities for market linkages are enhanced, and more inclusive governance and an effective enabling environment is fostered, then opportunities for growth of the horticulture sector in the ZOI will be accelerated”.
The following three conditions (sub-purposes) must be met in order to achieve the program’s purpose: (1) improved capacities for market participation; (2) improved market linkages; and (3) improved governance and enabling environment.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY A mixed methods approach was employed featuring structured Focused Assessment Surveys (FAS) and qualitative data analysis of structured key informant interviews (KIIs) and semi-structured focus group discussions (FGDs). The analytical approach focused on a BLA as the transitional fulcrum of a blended BLA and Market Systems Approach (MSA) in which Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II partners and non-partners were surveyed, interviewed, and organized in gender-segregated and mixed-gender groups. The approach used evaluation criteria that equate with the project’s Key Interventions Areas (KIA) in the project Results Framework (RF) and correspond to six Evaluation Questions (EQs). Project indicators are used as measures to gauge progress under each KIA or criteria category for each EQ. The analysis of data for the MTE involves triangulation of Focused Assessment Survey (FAS) survey data with KII and FGD observations organized by salient response patterns and thematic areas that provide contextual understanding and descriptive analyses to better interpret quantitative findings. KII and FGD findings are organized as recurring identified factors that either facilitate or constrain the achievement of KIAs under each sub-purpose and EQ. Where possible, the ET has also used supporting secondary data from the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II performance indicators to support FAS and KII/FGD data findings. The FAS survey team conducted individual interviews with 549 respondents across the four provinces in the ZOI, involving 328 partners, 221 non-partners. The sample included 43 KIIs and 16 FGDs in the four provinces of the ZOI. Consistent with USAID Evaluation Policy, the team applied a gender lens throughout the MTE.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BY EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 1 - To what extent has Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II contributed to the growth of the horticulture sector (including fruits, vegetables and nuts) in the FTF ZOI? Finding - There is no evidence to demonstrate growth of the horticulture sector due to a paucity of data from secondary sources on growth of the horticulture sector at both the national and provincial levels in Cambodia3. However, growth of the horticulture sector within the project ZOI is supported by data on sales, employment, and investment: 1) sales in FY18 grew by $6 million compared with a $2.5 million target; 2) employment with 190 jobs versus a 109 target in 2018; and 3) investment in the horticulture sector in the ZOI grew by $2.2 million compared with a $0.7 million target. Findings from this evaluation only address progress to-date by Harvest II in boosting sales, employment, and investment opportunities within the project ZOI. In addition, evaluation of all three metrics reveals that the proportion of men benefiting from increased sales, employment, and investment opportunities is twice that of women.
Conclusion – Progress made to date in boosting sales, employment, and investment opportunities in the Feed the Future Harvest II ZOI is attributed, in part, to effective implementation of the project’s cornerstone Buyer-
3 This includes multiple phone calls to the Department of Planning and Statistics in MAFF, and the Department of Horticulture and Subsidiary Crops. Desk review identified several reports and studies of the agriculture sector, but few provide horticulture data of use for comparative purposes for this evaluation. Data from one authoritative study cited above are clustered by key agricultural crops, of which vegetables is the only crop with figures organized by horticultural subsector. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report vii
Led Approach (BLA), which operationalizes a Commercial Partnership Framework. However, gains made have accrued disproportionately more to men than women.
EQ 2 - What are the observable system-level changes in horticulture market transactions that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has created? Finding - Positive strides have been made to date by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II in facilitating the integration of a BLA with an MSA as a blended BLA-MSA market system model. Findings from project indicator reporting, FAS interviews, and contextual observations from KIIs/FGDs respondents provide preliminary evidence that system-level changes in horticulture market transactions are taking root. This includes limited evidence of the potential for a spillover effect as market actors beyond the scope of the project are expressing a desire to participate in the hybrid BLA-MSA approach characterized by sustained market interactions, transparent dialogue, and good faith negotiations anchored in feelings of mutual trust. Supporting quantitative evidence suggests that a nascent horticulture market ecosystem is emerging whereby financial, informational, entrepreneurial, and agro-technological capacities are being adopted among a suite of market actors in an increasingly transparent and inclusive enabling business environment.
Conclusion - There has been a progressive evolution toward a more holistic approach to development of the horticulture sector that blends a BLA-MSA approach that is inclusive of a diverse set of market actors. This shift toward a more systemic integration of all stakeholders is slowly building confidence and changing the behavior of market actors as they begin to transcend individualistic attitudes and embrace a more holistic understanding of the horticulture market system.
EQ 3 - To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving horticulture actors’ capacity for market participation? Finding - There is clear evidence, supported by FAS, KII/FGD, and project indicator data, that market actors are improving their capacity for market participation, due to improved capacities in business, financial management, and production practices facilitated by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II. Women have not adopted such practices at rates comparable to that of men.
Conclusion - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has improved the business, financial management and production practices of all project market actors. While individual women and women-owned firms also reported employing improved business and financial management and production practices due to their participation in the project, their rates of adoption were not as high as those of their male counterparts. There are no qualitative findings to explain why this is the case.
EQ 4 - To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving market linkages? Finding - There is evidence of improved market linkages among Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II market actors through strengthened commercial partnerships, improvements in supply chain management, and incentives for investment. While the project had only been operational for 18 months, there is emerging data showing the improvement of market linkages on suppliers’ evaluation of links to buyers and input suppliers.
Conclusion - Strengthened commercial partnerships are gaining ground among market actors under Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II. Efforts to boost profitable earnings, achieve growth plan targets, and sustain entrepreneurial activity among women have shown promise thus far. Nonetheless, concerted efforts are needed to increase firm profitability among women.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report viii
EQ 5 – To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving governance and the horticulture sector enabling environment? Finding - There is evidence that advocacy efforts and coordination activities, as well as policy support to the Royal Government of Cambodian (RGC) in addressing horticulture constraints are strengthening the enabling environment for horticulture market development in the project ZOI.
Conclusion - PPD and B2B advocacy and coordination activities have been effective thus far in improving linkages and fostering more open, transparent dialogue among public and private sector actors in the project ZOI. There is an expressed desire among partners to hold follow on forums that focus on in- depth topics identified in platform events held thus far. Women’s participation in networking activities is roughly three times less than that of their male counterparts and should be further explored and addressed by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II.
EQ 6 – Are there any observable results from implementing a gender action plan in the horticulture value chain in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II? Finding - There is evidence, supported by FAS, KII/FGD, and Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II indicator data, that women and youth are gaining access to jobs, productive economic resources, and agricultural financing, as a result of participation in project capacity building activities. Roughly one-half of FAS partner respondents report that most or all of their employees are women or youth revealing their notable presence in the horticulture sector.
Conclusion - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is making progress in improving participation of women and youth in market opportunities in the horticulture sector in the project ZOI. However, market opportunities for women and youth lag behind that of men, particularly in accessing job opportunities in more remunerative supply chain services such as buyers/processors of cashew nuts, input suppliers, and Microfinance Institutions (MFI) loan officers. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTING PARTNER
Commercial Partnership (CP) Framework and Buyer-Led Approach (BLA) - The project should seek to deepen, diversify, and adapt the use of existing business and financial assessment tools, semi-formal and formal written agreements, Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA), and growth plans beyond a buyer-centric focus to include other supply chain actors to achieve more effective integration within a holistic horticulture market system.
Improved Business and Financial Management -The project should facilitate training of market partners in the provision of more innovative bundling of agronomic, financial, and business management services coupled with buyer or MFI-led non-collateralized financing.
Market Information - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II should explore leveraging EMC capacity to identify a highly specialized MIS private sector firm or other venture capital source interested in investing in a pilot MIS IT-based platform on a limited scale in one of the project provinces.
Post-Harvest Processing and Storage - The project should prioritize opportunities based on a basic cost-benefit analysis to facilitate low cost investment in post-harvest processing technologies and storage such as grading, sorting, washing, and packaging.
Access to Credit and Credit Indebtedness - Current project efforts to increase awareness of MFIs of the need for more innovative models of pro-poor agricultural lending that minimize collateral requirements and/or shift the burden to buyer-led financing should be augmented with training of MFIs on credit indebtedness and more robust assessment tools to better capture informal levels of indebtedness.
Supply Chain Finance - The project should augment their approach toward improved supply chain management by exploring creation of novel supply chain financing packages with partners that increase Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report ix bundled package options described above. The project may wish to consider recruiting a supply chain finance specialist to help bolster efforts at scaling up supply chain management.
Supply and Demand Side Investment - The project should redress the balance between market supply and demand by boosting horticulture supply through more farm level investment while also generating demand through processor-led investment to achieve value addition.
Coordination Platforms and Dialogue Events - The project should facilitate a series of focused in- depth all-day dialogue workshops addressing specific thematic challenges in the horticulture sector, allowing for more sustained interaction and networking among participants from previous PPD and B2B events.
Government Participation and Project Coordination - Efforts should be made to more actively engage government authorities, e.g., Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), and Ministry of Commerce (MOC) in participation in project activities. Two strategies are proposed.
Policy Analysis - Plans are underway in FY19 by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II and the General Directorate of Agriculture (GDA) to work on a strategic plan for plant protection and quarantine and with the Department of Agro-Industry on contract farming law. Work on these critical areas of policy should particularly explore the lack of enforcement capacity in these two arenas and provide clear policy prescriptions with action plans moving forward in the coming year.
Participation of Women and Youth – Efforts should be made to boost sales, employment, and investment opportunities for women and youth, particularly in supply, processing, and sales of high value fruits and cashews which accrue largely to men. This may include the facilitation of technical horticultural training, leveraging of start-up capital and co-financing opportunities through the two project grant facilities, and targeted business and financial management training in relation to high-value crops. The latter could include working with MFIs to establish a special agricultural loan program that incentivizes women and youth to obtain loans that include bundled services such as agronomic, business, and financial training.
The project should seek novel strategies to enhance the participation of women and youth by linking the Commercial Horticulture Agent (CHA) program with vocational education certification through the Ministry of Education to include intensive training and certification in MSA. This idea is discussed further in this report’s section on Gender and Youth.
Efforts should also be made to work with MFIs to establish an agricultural loan program that incentivizes women and youth to obtain loans that include bundled services such as agronomic, business, and financial training. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID CAMBODIA
Post-Harvest Processing and Storage USAID Cambodia should explore opportunities to identify a modest-scale investment by a private sector actor in cold chain transport and warehousing on a very limited basis as a pilot activity. If successful, it could be scaled-up.
Blended BLA-MSA Approach - Based on results of the pilot BLA-MSA blended approach in the coming 12 to 18 months, USAID Cambodia should explore internal or external funding streams to support collaborative MSA networking opportunities that promote the approach should it show signs of success, and explore the creation of a sub-national level knowledge-sharing practitioner forum that could eventually grow into a national-level structure that promotes a blended BLA-MSA archetype.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report x
Government Participation and Project Coordination Based on results of the pilot BLA-MSA blended approach in the coming 12 to 18 months, USAID Cambodia should pursue more opportunities for institutional learning between RGC authorities and Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II should the approach show signs of success. This may include greater coordination of learning events with the MAFF and MOC to linking Feed the Future Harvest II and RGC horticultural projects such as AIMS, jointly facilitating successful approaches to BLA-MSA.
LESSONS LEARNED Continuum from Direct Service Provision to Facilitation - The project has faced several challenges, particularly in the first year of startup, in working closely with buyers and suppliers to establish commercial partnerships that are novel and unprecedented in terms of how market actors approach one another in a business relationship. Due to levels of mistrust and lack of clarity and transparency in business dealings, the project has had to progressively adapt and introduce more rigorous verification and accountability measures to ensure more trust brokerage between buyers and suppliers. Thus, the project has progressively formalized measures to initiate a CP agreement, moving from MOUs, to semi-formal agreements and more recently, NDAs. A key adjustment made by the project in this regard has been to address challenges in assessing financial readiness and creditworthiness among buyers and other market actors by instituting NDAs, business growth plans, and more robust assessment criteria for participation in CPs.
The project continues to transition from a more direct service role (training farmers on seed, fertilizer, pesticide use) to a lighter facilitation, linking suppliers to agro-dealers. FGD sessions with suppliers suggest a reliance on project staff to provide agronomic support that continues, largely due to weak and unresponsive agronomic technical assistance from input retailers, particularly pertaining to pest and disease management and ineffective pesticides. The project is taking corrective measures through training activities to build more capacity of input suppliers, particularly the large firms, to provide more direct, hands on training to agro-input dealers at the local, retail level.
Target Setting Adjustments - As the project continues to implement a blended BLA-MSA model, the nature of annual target setting is now under revision to reflect a more flexible approach based on adaptive management as various system elements of the model are progressively operationalized over time. Adjustments have now been made to track investments for all market actors to more fully capture levels of investment through the entire horticulture value chain. Finally, the initial focus of the project on facilitating buyer-supplier partnerships is now being expanded to emphasize greater integration of input suppliers and MFIs within a broader configuration of market-based commercial partnerships.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report xi
I. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has made significant investments in recent years to boost agricultural productivity in Cambodia, particularly nurturing a nascent demand for safe, locally-grown horticultural products. The country program initiated a five-year initiative in 2010 - Helping Address Rural Vulnerability and Ecosystem Stability (HARVEST) (2010-2015) that has made significant strides in increasing the availability of nutrient-rich foods, improving nutritional outcomes, and boosting incomes among smallholder horticultural farmers. Despite these gains, Cambodian farmers face continued competitive pressures from regional neighbors Thailand and Vietnam, and challenges to increased efficiency and growth of the horticultural sector. USAID has built upon the momentum gained under HARVEST by implementing a new five-year phase, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II (2017- 2022), that expands development of horticultural markets by improving value chain actors’ capacity for market participation, improving market linkages, and facilitating improved governance and a more effective enabling environment. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II emphasizes a buyer-led approach (BLA) and market systems approach (MSA), and puts a high priority on developing sustainable commercial partnerships between suppliers, buyers, financial institutions, and other key market actors. By facilitating commercial partnerships, the project will catalyze the market’s ability to grow and develop into a more robust, complex system over time. The project buttresses USAID’s Feed the Future (FTF) objectives that address obstacles of long-term market sustainability and lagging private sector growth by making continued investments in commercial horticulture value chains in the FTF zone of influence (ZOI) - Pursat, Battambang, Siem Reap, and Kampong Thom (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Zone of Influence
The United States Agency for International Development in Cambodia (USAID/Cambodia) signed a five- year contract with the lead Implementing Partner (IP), Abt Associates, to implement the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity. The two prime Sub-Partners are International Development Enterprises (iDE) and Emerging Markets Consulting (EMC).
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 1 The Mitchell Group, Inc., (TMG) in partnership with the Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI), was contracted by USAID/Cambodia in October 2018 to conduct a mid-term evaluation (MTE) of the performance of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity in the project’s ZOI of Pursat, Battambang, Siem Reap, and Kampong Thom provinces. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess project implementation, identify learning opportunities, and provide findings and actionable recommendations for future activity planning and implementation of a BLA and MSA to grow the horticulture sector in Cambodia4. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this evaluation are based on a one-week period of desk review of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity documentation and a three-week period of field data collection by the Evaluation Team (ET) in the four provinces in November 2018, followed by one week of key informant interviews (KII) with Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Implementing Partners (IP), the USAID/Cambodia Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II technical management team, key Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II market actors, and one Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II government partner in Phnom Penh.
National Agricultural Context In Cambodia, agriculture is one of the key drivers of the economy – it contributed approximately 27% of the GDP in 20165 according to the World Development Indicators 2017. Though the relative importance of Cambodia’s agriculture to determining household incomes may have reduced since this report, the number of rural households depending on agriculture as the main source of income remains significant.
Agricultural transformation6 is defined by agriculture shifts from: (1) highly-diversified farms to more specialized farms; (2) subsistence orientation to market orientation (domestic and international trade); (3) reliance on household’s own resources as inputs (land and labor) to increased dependence on markets for inputs; and (4) on-farm food system functions to off-farm food system functions, i.e. input production and output processing. The process is a necessary condition for structural transformation. However, there are structural obstacles that prevent agricultural transformation in Cambodia; the majority of Cambodia’s rural livelihoods depend on agriculture, which is predominantly characterised by small-scale subsistence crop farming with low productivity. Additionally, Cambodia’s agriculture is not very diversified; rice paddy farming accounts for 75% of the 3.7 million hectares of cultivated land in 2012, and most of Cambodian farm households own less than two hectares of land7.
In addition to these constraints, the farming system is mainly rain-fed with limited access to or inadequate use of modern inputs. Second, there are inadequate support services, particularly output markets and infrastructure services8, which makes Cambodia’s agriculture unattractive to some commercialized farmers and investors. As a result, market access and the farm gate price are among the major concerns of Cambodian farmers. Moreover, from a broader point of view, the key challenges in Cambodia’s
4 According to the evaluation SOW, the purpose of the evaluation is to “…assess how key aspects of the program have been implemented, what has worked and why and will make key actionable recommendations for USAID and the implementing partner (Abt Associates) to improve the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity’s performance for the remaining period of the award.” Observations on learning that address implementation of a market systems approach focus on only one of the six evaluation questions (EQ2 on market systems). Other learning opportunities are more broad in nature, and specifically address what has worked (facilitating factors) and what has not (constraints) in an effort to contribute to the overall learning objectives of the Feed the Future program as stated in the SOW: “Key lessons learned in the agricultural development sector are being incorporated into the Program’s interventions with particular emphasis on addressing obstacles that hinder long-term sustainability of interventions and impede private sector growth.” 5 World Development Indicators (WDI) 2017 6 Timmer, P. (1988). The Agricultural Transformation. In Handbook of Development Economics (Vol. I, pp. 275–331). Amsterdam: North-Holland. 7 FAO-Food and Agriculture Organization. (2014). Cambodia country fact sheet on food and agriculture policy trends. Rome. 8 Yu, B., & Fan, S. (2011). Rice Production Response in Cambodia. Agricultural Economics, 42(3), 437–450.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 2 agriculture include poor coordination and little value-added in the value chains, uncertainties in agricultural markets, low agricultural lending, and weak governance and infrastructure. Hence, crop diversification (with heavy reliance on rice production), promoting market linkages and access, and ensuring price certainty for farm produce have been considered by the government as policy imperatives for Cambodia’s agricultural development9 which will pay dividends in terms of improving living standards and alleviating poverty in rural areas and contribute to economic growth. Horticulture is a potential sector in which USAID/Cambodia can support diversification of crop production and promote market-oriented farming.
Evaluation Purpose The purpose of the MTE is to assess project implementation, identify learning opportunities, and provide findings and actionable recommendations for future activity planning and implementation of a BLA and an MLA to growth of the horticulture sector in Cambodia. The MTE covers the period of implementation from April 18, 2017 until September 30, 2018. The evaluation is based on findings, conclusions, and recommendations derived from six key evaluation questions presented below.
The primary audience of the evaluation report includes the USAID/Cambodia Mission, specifically staff of the Food Security and Environment Office and Program Office, and Contractor administrative and technical staff involved in the implementation of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II project. Secondary audiences who may benefit from this MTE include other Missions implementing FTF programming, implementing partners using an MSA, NGOs, contractors, and donor organizations in the horticulture space in Cambodia. Finally, government actors concerned with the agriculture sector, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), and the Department of Commerce (DOC) are an important audience. The Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II MTE Statement of Work (SOW) is presented in Annex 1.
Evaluation Questions The Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II mid-term evaluation SOW lists six evaluation questions that form the basis of the MTE10:
1. To what extent has Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II contributed to the growth of the horticulture sector (including fruits, vegetables and nuts) in the FTF ZOI? 2. What are the observable system-level changes in horticulture market transactions that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has created or facilitated and what are the opportunities there that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II should focus on to maintain horticulture sector growth? 3. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving horticulture sector actors’ capacity for market participation? 4. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving market linkages? 5. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving governance and the horticulture sector enabling environment? 6. Are there any observable results from implementing gender action plans in horticulture value chains in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II?
9 RGC-Royal Government of Cambodia. (2014). National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018. Phnom Penh. 10 USAID, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II MTE SOW, Section C.3, pp. 4-5.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 3
II. ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is the primary mechanism for supporting smallholder and commercial suppliers and facilitating market systems development under USAID/Cambodia’s Food Security & Environment Development Objective, “Strengthening sustainable and resilient pathways out of poverty”.
The Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Results Framework (Figure 2) and Theory of Change provides the conceptual foundation underlying USAID/Cambodia’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) goal of accelerating Cambodia’s transformation to a democratic and prosperous country. The goal is specifically supported by Development Objective Three (DO3) which seeks to “reduce poverty in selected geographic areas and targeted populations”.
The CDCS DO3 has three Intermediate Results (IR): IR3.1: Food Security: Enhanced national and local strategies to improve market participation and linkages IR3.2: Natural Resources: Equitable and rational management of natural resources IR3.3: Governance: Improved economic enabling environment
Supporting each IR is the Program Purpose (PP): Accelerate the growth of the commercial horticulture sector in the ZOI.
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II will accelerate the growth of Cambodia’s commercial horticulture sector by achieving three key objectives11. Each objective will be achieved through a suite of activities, or Key Intervention Areas (KIA):
Objective 1. Improved Capacities for Market Participation Objective 1 will enhance the capacity for market participation among suppliers, agribusinesses, and other value chain actors, leading to sustainable increases in productivity and incomes of smallholder and commercial farmers, including women and youth. This will be achieved through the following KIAs (or activity categories): 1.1 Financial and business skills improved 1.2 Access to and use of market and climatic information increased 1.3 Financial opportunities increased
Objective 2. Improved Market Linkages Objective 2 will improve the commercial horticulture market system by building linkages among value chain actors, facilitating market information flow, and creating market incentives for private sector engagement. This will be achieved through the following KIAs (or activity categories): 2.1 Linkages between value chain actors created 2.2 Market incentives for private sector engagement and investment developed 2.3 Market chain coordination improved
Objective 3. Improved Governance and Enabling Environment Objective 3 will improve inclusive governance and the enabling environment for market-driven agricultural growth by strengthening capacity of and engagement among and between public, private, and civil society stakeholders. This will be achieved through the following KIAs (or activity categories):
11 These component objectives are also used interchangeably with ‘Sub-Purpose’ in the Results Framework.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 4
3.1 Horticulture sector advocacy and coordination platforms strengthened 3.2 The Royal Government of Cambodia’s (RGC) capacity to address horticulture constraints improved 3.3 Public private dialogue encouraged
By achieving the three objectives, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II will accelerate economic growth thereby reducing poverty and increasing resilience at both the household and systems levels. THEORY OF CHANGE AND RESULTS FRAMEWORK
The Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Theory of Change (TOC), as reflected in the activity Results Framework in Figure 2, involves three conditions (or sub-purposes) that must be met to achieve the overall purpose or objective of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II:
If capacities for market participation are improved, opportunities for market linkages are enhanced, and more inclusive governance and an effective enabling environment is fostered, then opportunities for growth of the horticulture sector in the ZOI will be accelerated.
Figure 2: Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Results Framework
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 5
III. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY EVALUATION TEAM
The ET was composed of two teams – a Qualitative Evaluation Team (QLET) and a Quantitative Evaluation Team (QNET) – working closely in tandem during the field data collection phase in the four provinces from November 7-20, 2018, with backstop support from the TMG home office to provide quality assurance and contract management support. Figure 3, below, summarizes team composition, roles, and responsibilities among team members.
Figure 3: Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II MTE Team
QUALITATIVE EVALUATION TEAM (QLET) - KIIs and FGDs Core team responsible for methodology design, data collection data (Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), participation in briefings, expertise on cross-cutting issues and strategies, data synthesis and analysis, writing the draft and final reports. The Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI) served as local counterpart institution assisting in design, management, and implementation of all qualitative instruments (KIIs/FGDs), including the staffing of facilitators, notetakers and interpreters/translators for all KII/FGD data collection sessions. The Team Leader was responsible for final review and analysis of all qualitative data. Dr. John Magistro International Team Leader & Evaluator; Qualitative Research Specialist – Smallholder Market Development, Gender, Livelihoods, and Resilience Analysis Dr. Socheat Keo National Evaluation Advisor; Agriculture and Food Security Specialist – Research Methods, M&E CDRI Local Resource Partner Firm – Data Collection, Logistics Support 1 CDRI Interpreter/ 3 Notetakers KII/FGD Implementers 1 CDRI Female Moderator/ Facilitator FGD Implementer QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION TEAM (QNET) – FAS Survey The Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI) worked with TMG on staffing the QNET to support the Evaluation Team Leader, National Evaluation Advisor and International Survey Team Leader (STL) to design and participate in Focused Assessment Surveys (FAS). CDRI in collaboration with the STL designed and implemented the FAS survey. The STL conducted statistical analyses including creation of graphs and tables. CDRI was responsible for scheduling field survey interviews and meetings and ensuring logistical support for transport, accommodation, equipment and supplies in the field and CDRI’s home office in Phnom Penh. The teams were provided designated work space at CDRI with access to printers, scanners and email. Dr. John McCauley International Survey Team Leader CDRI Local Resource Partner Firm - Data Collection, Quantitative Analysis 2 CDRI Enumerator Supervisors Local FAS Survey Supervisor 12 CDRI Enumerators FAS Survey Implementers TMG/HQ MANAGEMENT TEAM Mr. Jenkins Cooper Vice President of Operations Mr. Abi Fasosin Senior Strategic Advisor/Financial Management-Budgeting Mr. Jeremy Chevrier Senior Strategic & Technical Advisor/M&E Ms. Walidah Willoughby Program Manager
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 6
Evaluation Approach The MTE employs a mixed methods approach featuring Focused Assessment Surveys (FAS) and qualitative data analysis of key informant interviews (KII) and Focus Group Discussions (FGD). The analytical approach of the MTE focuses on a blended Buyer-Led Approach (BLA) and Market Systems Approach (MSA) in which Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II partners and non-partners were surveyed, interviewed, and organized in gender-segregated and mixed-gender groups12. The approach uses evaluation criteria across six thematic areas which are mapped to the six Evaluation Questions (EQ) presented in Section 1.1 above. Each thematic area addresses specific Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II objectives (sub-purpose) and corresponding Key Intervention Areas (KIA). The six thematic areas, with corresponding KIA evaluation criteria, include:
Table 1: Evaluation Questions and Criteria
Evaluation Question Evaluation Criteria EQ1: To what extent has (the project) • Sales Potential contributed to the horticulture sector’s • Employment Potential growth? • Investment Potential EQ2: What are the observable system- • Inclusive Economic Growth level changes that (the project) has • Inclusive Business Strategies created or facilitated, and what • Inclusive Enabling Environment opportunities should it focus on to maintain horticulture sector growth? EQ3: To what extent is (the project) • Financial and Business Skills improving horticulture sector actors’ • Access to and Use of Market and Climate Information capacity for market participation? • Financial Opportunities
EQ4: To what extent is (the project) • Linkages Between Value Chain Actors improving market linkages? • Market Incentives for Private Sector Engagement and Investment • Coordination Among Commercial Partners in the Market Chain EQ5: To what extent is (the project) • Advocacy and Coordination Platforms improving governance and the • RGC Capacity to Address Horticulture Constraints horticulture sector enabling • Public-Private Dialogue environment? EQ6: Are there any observable results • Staff Comprehension from implementing gender action plans in • M&E Progress horticulture value chains in (the project)? • Capacity Building Activities
• Access to Finance • Policy & Advocacy
Integration and triangulation of data is undertaken throughout this evaluation recognizing that due to variation in data variables, data collection methods, and difference in questions posed for each data set,
12 The terms ‘partners’ and ‘non-partners’ (synonymous with beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) are used throughout this MTE to reflect the more proactive participation of targeted groups of stakeholders under Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II. Non- partners (or non-beneficiaries) were selected to serve as a control group for purposes of measuring and comparing impact interventions among partner and non-partner groups. Further description of non-partner selection for the FAS sample is found in Annex II: Evaluation Methodology.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 7 there is not always a one-to-one correspondence or direct overlap of data findings from the FAS, KII/FGD, and project indicator data sets. In the case of FAS findings, many of which are not statistically significant, qualitative findings may be given more weight in providing greater explanatory value for an EQ, particularly as it pertains to positive facilitating factors and key constraints or challenges identified in the implementation of project activities13.
All detailed information on evaluation methodology including evaluation phases, data collection instruments, field schedule and sampling methodology, data collection sites, sampling frames, and evaluation limitations and challenges are found in Annex II: Evaluation Methodology.
13 The FAS instrument is not a large, exhaustive questionnaire, but rather consists of a small set of focused questions, many of which have a one-word response, or selection among a small list of possible responses. Thus, FAS information lends itself only to quantitative and statistical analysis. KII and FGD instruments are more open ended and allow for more discussion and contextual information which often sheds more light on a topic being addressed. Therefore, many findings in this study where quantitative data are very limiting or not directly related to evaluation criteria under an EQ may draw more heavily from qualitative data due to the greater contextual understandings that derive from more open-ended responses and discussions. While qualitative findings are not statistically representative, they nonetheless can provide incisive inferences about particular topics, especially as the relate to key facilitating factors and constraints with respect to implementation of project activities. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 8
IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS MID-TERM ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST INDICATORS
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II gauges the effectiveness of program activities by tracking the 13 performance indicators found in Table 2. Ten are Department of Foreign Assistance standard indicators used globally across USG programming, while three custom indicators (#11-13) are unique to Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II, tracking the progress of commercial partnerships and project-specific capacity-building activities addressing technology adoption and uptake of climate and market information, and management practices. Indicator 3, addressing climate resilience, is in the process of being discontinued and replaced by a market system custom indicator as of fiscal year (FY)19.
A synopsis of indicator results against targets through the end of FY18 reveals robust levels of achievement through September 2018 for most indicators. Figures on incremental sales (#1), job creation (#5), and private sector capital investment (#6) serve as key measures of growth of the horticulture sector among Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II market actors which shows positive promise to date. All indicators in Table 3 correspond to Key Intervention Areas (KIA) under each sub-purpose and evaluation question (EQ) and serve as one variable in evaluating project activities to date. These indicators are referenced as secondary supporting data to the extent that they address each sub-purpose and EQ in the sections below. Data disaggregated by sex will be discussed under EQ6 on gender and youth. As noted earlier, the emphasis of this MTE is to interpret and present the figures in Table 2 as a learning opportunity to provide guidance moving forward on how best to achieve full integration of a BLA focus with the new MSA and future direction of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II. A limitation of this study is that, based on guidance from USAID/Cambodia, two of the six EQs on growth of the horticulture sector and observations on market systems changes are somewhat premature due to the transitional nature of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II as it moves to a market systems development approach (see Table 2, below), and thus are given less weight in relation to the other EQs14.
Table 2: Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FY18 Results by Performance Indicators15
% FY 18 Actuals Life of Project # Indicator FY18 Target Achieved Target Men Women 1 Value of incremental $4,063,074 $2,026,066 244% sales (collected at farm- level) attributed to FTF $2,500,000 $37,273,961 implementation (EG.3.2- $6,089,140 19) 2 Number of for-profit 60 145 91% private enterprises, suppliers’ organizations, 225 2,034 water users associations, 205 women’s groups, trade
14 Other limitations to the study are described in more detail in the section Evaluation Limitations and Constraints, found in Annex II: Evaluation Methodology. 15 Source: Modified from Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 11, 2019. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 9
% FY 18 Actuals Life of Project # Indicator FY18 Target Achieved Target Men Women and business associations and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved organization-level technologies or management practices with USG assistance (EG.3.2-20,) 3 Number of people using 993 1,323 170% climate information or implementing risk- reducing actions to 1,360 10,134 improve resilience to 2,316 climate change as supported by USG assistance (EG.11-6) 4 Number of firms (excluding farms) or civil 92 58 150% society organizations (CSOs) engaged in agricultural and food security-related 100 835 manufacturing and services that have 150 increased profits or become financially self- sufficient with USG assistance (EG.3.2-21) 5 Number of full-time 127 63 174% equivalent (FTE) jobs 109 1,819 created with USG 190 assistance (EG.3-9) 6 Value of new private $285,380 $145,300 308% sector capital investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged $726,000 $12,126,000 16 by Feed the Future $2,235,046 implementation (EG.3.2- 22) 7 Number of agricultural N/A N/A 100% and nutritional enabling environment policies analyzed, consulted on, 1 17 drafted or revised, 1 approved and implemented with USG assistance (EG.3.1-12,) 8 30 44 24 227% 375
16 This figure does not include $1,804,366 in joint ownership capital investment. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 10
% FY 18 Actuals Life of Project # Indicator FY18 Target Achieved Target Men Women Number of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs, including farmers, 68
receiving agricultural- related credit as a result of USG assistance 9 Percentage of female 354% 1,541 1,742 participants in USG- assisted programs 15% designed to increase 30% 53% access to productive (1,742/3,283) economic resources (GNDR-2) Percentage of 118% 165 222 participants in USG- assisted programs 10% designed to increase 10 20% access to productive 12%
economic resources who (387/3,283) are youth (15- 29) (YOUTH-3) Percentage 334% 10 10 of commercial partnership members who achieve at 20% 11 least 80% of their 35% 67% commercial (20/30) partnership growth plan targets (Custom Indicator) Percentage of individuals 124% adopting new innovative 1,026 1,011 technology, climate- 50% smart agricultural, 12 75% market information 62% and/or (2,037/3,283) management practices (C ustom Indicator) Percentage 10 11 108% of commercial 65% 13 partnerships maintained 70% 85%
and/or expanded over (21/30) time (Custom Indicator)
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 11
PROJECT PURPOSE: CONTRIBUTE TO THE GROWTH OF THE HORTICULTURAL SECTOR Evaluation Question 1: To what extent has Feed the Future Harvest II contributed to the growth of the horticulture sector? There is no evidence to demonstrate growth of the horticulture sector due to a paucity of data from secondary sources on growth of the horticulture sector at both the national and provincial levels in Cambodia. Project data show continuing sector growth in: 1) sales in FY18 grew by $6 million compared with a $2.5 million target; 2) employment with 190 jobs versus a 109 target in 2018; and 3) investment in the horticulture sector in the ZOI grew by $2.2 million compared with a $0.7 million target. Findings from this evaluation only address progress to-date by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II in boosting sales, employment, and investment opportunities within the project ZOI. Findings on Sales17
There is partial evidence, supported primarily from Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II performance indicator data, of sales growth in the project. Sales seem to accrue primarily to men and high-value fruit and cashew supply chain actors (though we do not have raw data for performance indicators that would allow us to evaluate in terms of statistical significance).
This is supported by limited evidence from FAS data which reflect anticipated future sales among Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II male partners. KII/FGD data provide modest evidence, particularly among high value fruit and cashew supply chain actors, of increased sales attributed to project partnership. More weight is be given to Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II findings on sales data due to the annual monitoring protocol under the project. Project monitoring data provide evidence of a positive trend in making progress in boosting horticulture sales among project partners relative to project targets established through FY18. Project reporting on incremental sales (Indicator #1, Table 2) total more than $6 million, exceeding the FY 18 target by 144%18. Differences are noted by sex and by province. Two- thirds of sales accrued to men while the remaining one-third accrued to women19. Two-thirds (67%) of sales transactions occurred in Battambang Province while only 11% (approximately $714,000) were registered in Pursat Province (Table 21, Annex XVI). This low figure is explained by the fact that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II facilitation of buyer-supplier partnerships was only recently initiated in the region. Overall, data reflect the level of partnership activity in each province.
FAS survey results on self-reported anticipated improvements in sales over the next 12 months show no statistically significant difference between project partners and non-partners. However, differences are found by sex: male partners are more likely than non-partners to expect increased sales (71% vs. 60%, p=0.152), while conversely, female partners are less likely than non-partners to expect increased sales
17 Due to report length, all supporting data for each EQ are presented in figures and tables in the annex as cited under each EQ. 18 By the end of FY18 quarter 3, $4.4 million in incremental sales had been generated by 22 commercial partners - wholesalers, processors, an exporter, and agricultural cooperatives of various crops such as vegetables, mango, cashew nuts, chili, water- melon, longan, and oranges (FY18 Q3 Progress Report, pp. 24-25). 19 This is explained by the fact that cashew suppliers and processors who account for a large proportion of overall sales are mostly men. Male cashew suppliers and processors accounted for $2,307,890 in incremental sales in FY18, while women accounted for slightly less than half that amount ($103,065). Total cashew sales of $2,410,955 account for 40% of all incremental sales ($6,089,140). The large proportion of those sales are in Kampong Thom and Siem Reap provinces. Modified from Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. February 21, 2019.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 12
(51% vs. 64%, p=0.073), (Figure 4)20. This finding may be consistent with the project finding on sales by sex in the sense that the larger proportion of sales accruing to men may shape their positive perception of anticipated future sales, while women’s smaller proportion of sales may shape less optimistic perceptions of anticipated future sales.
Figure 4: Percentage of Respondents Expecting Improved Sales in Next 12 Months, by Partner Status and Sex
80 70.5 70 63.6 59.7 60 51 50 40 Partners 30 Non-Partners 20 10 0 Male Respondents Female Respondents
KII and FGD findings provide some modest evidence of a nuanced differentiation in the accrual of sales between two distinct sets of market actors: (1) high-value fruit and cashew supply chain actors - buyers, suppliers (growers), input suppliers, processors, and MFIs, and (2) vegetable suppliers (predominantly women). The former set of actors more often attribute increases in sales to commercial partnerships with numerous examples of sizeable gains in sales volume, while vegetable suppliers more often note modest sales levels despite project facilitation, and significant constraints in production, and/or expansion of crop area which often remained the same or declined. Much of this was attributed to price volatility, pest infestation, plant disease, and lack of collateral to access larger capital loans needed to expand production.
KII and FGD respondents were asked whether business sales, crop production, and surface area farmed has increased, decreased, or remained the same since participation in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II and to what extent such changes can be attributed to the project versus other factors. Buyers, input suppliers, processors, and MFIs more often noted increases in sales attributed to project partnership, while suppliers (generally female vegetable suppliers) more often noted that sales, production, and/or expansion of crop area remained the same or declined. The most common factors mentioned for price decline and/or stagnation were price volatility (weekly, monthly, seasonal), a decline in the farm gate price from the previous year, and pest and disease outbreaks due to climate variability21. Additional observations from KII/FGD respondents regarding increased sales are found in Annex XVI, KII/FGD Sales Data.
20 This finding is anomalous with no clear explanation and counter to what one would anticipate, thus requiring further investigation by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II implementing staff. 21 A female supplier of cucumbers in a women’s garden group in Battambang Province made one of the more poignant observations reflecting the dilemma of price instability: “Sadly, the price of cucumbers has dropped dramatically from 2,000 riels/kg last year to 200 riels/kg this year. Last year, one farmer could earn 6 million riels ($1,500) over her cucumber sales on a small area of land. The price was 2,000 riels/kg. This year, the price is 200 riels/kg for cucumbers. It’s not enough to pay just the pesticides. The cucumbers are good, but the price is just too low due to the surplus supply from other areas and imported vegetables.” Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 13
Findings on Employment There is partial evidence, supported by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II performance indicator data and prospective FAS data, of job creation since project inception and of anticipated future employment, particularly among men. Project findings on jobs creation show a positive trend relative to the project target. Men were the primary beneficiaries of two-thirds of new jobs while women were beneficiaries of the remaining one-third of the jobs. The largest proportion of job creation was in Battambang and Kampong Thom provinces. FAS findings reveal that female partners are significantly less inclined than non- partners to hire over the next 12 months. KII and FGD respondents provided little clear evidence of job creation among project partners22. Almost all buyers interviewed were small family-owned businesses with essentially no new job creation beyond the family enterprise. FGD respondents were individual farmers who also relied almost entirely on family labor .
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II findings show evidence of job creation in FY18, with support of FAS findings on anticipated job creation over the next 12 months. Project indicator performance (indicator #5) data reveal that 190 full-time jobs were created, exceeding the project target by 74%23. Essentially, twice as many jobs were filled by men (67% (127) than by women (33% (63)24, (Table 22, Annex XVI). The two provinces of Battambang (51%) and Kampong Thom (44%) constitute the large proportion of all jobs created.
FAS findings on plans to hire over the next 12 months found that overall, partners are significantly more likely than non-partners to hire (44% vs. 35%, p = 0.052), (Table 1, Annex X), and that male partners are more inclined than non-partners to hire over the next 12 months (69% vs. 63%). However, female partners are significantly less inclined than non-partners to hire over the next 12 months (52% vs. 64%, p=0.043), (Figure 5). Like the findings above on sales, there is a marked difference in the prospective outcomes of men and women in which men appear to be better poised to create new job opportunities than women in the horticulture sector. It is possible that the prominence of men as market actors in more remunerative end-buyer markets as large-scale brokers, processors and exporters of high-value fruits and cashews positions them better to expand their operations, while more women may be serving in less remunerative value chain enterprises such as suppliers of wet market vegetables. The available data offers no clear explanation of why female partners would be less inclined than non-partners to hire in the coming year.
22 Due to the purposive nature of sampling and problems of availability of informants on short notice, it may be possible that the KII sample is not representative of larger buyer and processor export firms which would be more likely to generate employment through CP arrangements with Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II. Therefore, no substantive conclusions can be drawn from KII and FGD data obtained on job creation. This obviously applies to any discernable differentiations by province or sex. 23 An example of jobs creation was 51 jobs at the farm level involving hired labor for crop planting and harvesting in the third quarter of FY18 (FY18 Q3 Progress Report, pp. 24-25). 24 These figures are nearly equivalent for the breakdown on sales figures for men and women. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 14
Figure 5: Percentage of Respondents with Plans to Hire, by Partner Status and Sex
80 69.4 70 62.7 63.6 60 52.3 50 40 Partners 30 Non-Partners 20 10 0 Male Respondents Female Respondents
Close to half of FAS respondents in Battambang and Pursat provinces anticipate hiring in the next 12 months (44% and 45%, respectively), whereas closer to one-third of respondents in Kampong Thom and Siem Reap expect to do so (37% and 32%, respectively) (Table 2, Annex X). New Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activities planned in Pursat likely explain the higher percentage of anticipated hiring in the next 12 months.
Information obtained through KIIs and FGDs provides little clear evidence of job creation among project partners25. Almost all buyers interviewed were small family-owned businesses with essentially no new job creation beyond the family enterprise. FGD respondents were individual farmers who also relied almost entirely on family labor.
Findings on Investment There is limited evidence, supported primarily from Feed the Future Harvest II performance indicator data, of increased investment activity among project market actors, particularly among men who account for two-thirds of all investments made. FAS findings reveal that female partners are significantly less likely than non-partners, to anticipate an improvement in business in the next 12 months26. Evidence of expanding investment opportunity under the project cannot be conclusively established from a small set of KII and FGD observations. A subtle distinction is noted, however, among high value-fruit and cashew suppliers and vegetable suppliers. The former, predominantly men, more often state having sufficient assets to access investment capital through formal lending institutions, while the latter, most often women, indicate that they have few fixed assets and therefore seek capital through informal lending sources, such as family, social networks, or local money lenders.
Specific data supporting increased investment among Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II partners is demonstrated in performance indicator #6 (value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector), which shows private sector capital investment over $2.2 million, exceeding the target by 208%27.
25 Due to the purposive nature of sampling and problems of availability of informants on short notice, it may be possible that the KII sample is not representative of larger buyer and processor export firms which would be more likely to generate employment through CP arrangements with Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II. Therefore, no substantive conclusions can be drawn from KII and FGD data obtained on job creation. This obviously applies to any discernable differentiations by province or sex. 26 Findings here, like those above on prospective hiring by women, are not clearly apparent, running counter to anticipated investment activities targeting project partners. 27 In the second quarter alone of 2018, private sector investment totaled $756,743. An example of how Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has spawned private sector capital investment is through training on agriculture lending for microfinance institutions (MFI) and input supply companies. As a result of such training services, three input supply companies – Nileda, VT Grow, and East West Seed – offered sales on credit to their agro-input dealers and farmers of $591,243 in second quarter of 2018 (FY18 Q2 Progress Report, pp. 7, 23-24). Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 15
When investment figures are disaggregated by sex, women within buyer Commercial Partnerships account for 34% of all new investments versus 66% for men (Table 23, Annex XVI). Among the four provinces, Battambang has the greatest proportion of investment value (32.2% or $720,556) and Pursat has the least (7%) (Table 24, Annex XVI).
The FAS evaluation team examined project levels of investment by asking respondents about their plans to invest in new equipment or major business purchases, attitudes regarding business improvement retrospectively and prospectively, and expectations regarding their business in the next 12 months. Findings for each question were disaggregated by sex and province and found to be statistically significant among female partners and non-partners when asking about plans to invest, and by province when asking about business expectations in the next 12 months, in a surprising direction: 52% of partners and 64% of non-partners responded that they planned to invest in their business in the coming year28 (Table 3, Annex X). Men are somewhat more likely than women to plan business investments (68% vs. 58%); (Tables 3, 4, Annex X).
Although not statistically significant, partners were less likely than non-partners to report improvements in business over the past year (44% vs. 48%,); however, partners are slightly more likely than non-partners to expect improvements over the coming year (58% vs. 52%,) (Figure 1, Annex X).
Prospective attitudes regarding business success differ somewhat based on the respondent’s province, with those in Pursat significantly more optimistic about their business success29 in the next 12 months than those in other provinces (82% vs. approximately 52%, p=0.003), (Table 5, Annex X).
KII and FGD findings provide some limited evidence of differential access to capital among high-value crop and vegetable suppliers in terms of factor inputs needed (agricultural inputs, technology, land, labor) to boost production and meet market demand through buyer partnerships. Suppliers of high-value fruits and cashews more often expressed capacity to receive capital upgrades through supply chain credit arrangements with buyers or by accessing formal MFI loans based on fixed assets. Vegetable suppliers commonly noted obstacles or inconveniences in accessing formal MFI loans such as fixed collateral requirements (notably land), loan repayment installments (monthly rather than end of the harvest season), insufficient loan amount, or formalities of application. Consequently, vegetable suppliers more often cited access to inputs or capital investments through informal loan arrangements with local input suppliers, under flexible repayment arrangements and at little or no interest.
Examples of one vegetable supplier lamenting the rigidity of loan conditions as well as buyers who have leveraged significant capital investments due to buyer-seller commercial partnerships facilitated through the project are found in Annex XVI, KII/FGD Investment Data.
28 This finding is anomalous and contrary to what would be anticipated, for which there is no clear explanation. 29 Business success was not formally defined during administration of the FAS but implies all aspects of business activity, including sales, employment, and investment. The ET has elected to align this finding under the evaluation criterion on investment potential, but it could also be applied to the criteria above on sales and employment.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 16
CONCLUSIONS: HARVEST II CONTRIBUTIONS TO GROWTH OF THE HORTICULTURE SECTOR Conclusion 1: Overall Performance of Sales, Employment, and Investment Metrics Sales, employment, and investment opportunities in the horticulture sector are increasing in the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II ZOI. Evaluation of all three metrics reveals that the proportion of men benefiting from increased sales, employment, and investment opportunities is twice that of women. The project’s cornerstone Buyer-Led Approach (BLA), which operationalizes a Commercial Partnership Framework, has been highly effective in galvanizing buyer-seller relationships and catalyzing sales, employment, and investment opportunities in the ZOI.
Conclusion 2: Sales Opportunities Men, as well as market actors selling high-value fruits and cashews, are benefiting the most from improved sales. Two-thirds of sales accrued to men while the remaining one-third accrued to women. KII and FGD findings provide some modest evidence of a nuanced differentiation in the accrual of sales between two distinct sets of market actors: (1) high-value fruit and cashew supply chain actors - buyers, suppliers (growers), input suppliers, processors, and MFIs, and (2) vegetable suppliers (predominantly women). The higher proportion of sales accruing to men than women is explained by the fact that cashew suppliers and processors who account for a large proportion of overall sales are mostly men.
Conclusion 3: Employment Opportunities Employment opportunities in the horticulture sector are being filled primarily by men, who are accessing two-thirds of all jobs created. KII/FGD findings are limited in scope and only identify small, family-run enterprises that show little evidence of significant job expansion beyond the family business. Due to small, purposive sampling, KII/FGD findings likely do not represent larger buyer and processor export firms that would be more likely to generate employment through CP arrangements with Project.
Conclusion 4: Investment Opportunities Investment opportunities thus far have accrued primarily to men, mirroring the findings for sales and employment prospects. Putative observations from qualitative data suggest that high-value fruit and cashew suppliers, primarily men, access formal loans more easily than do wet market vegetable suppliers who are primarily women. Fruit and cashew suppliers have fixed assets such as trees and land required as loan collateral, whereas largely female vegetable suppliers appear to have insufficient fixed assets (particularly small garden plots) needed to acquire working capital by MFIs.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 17
SYSTEM-LEVEL CHANGES IN HORTICULTURE MARKET TRANSACTIONS Evaluation Question 2: What are the observable system-level changes in horticulture market transactions that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has created? Positive strides have been made to date by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II in facilitating the integration of a buyer-led approach with a market systems approach (MSA) as a blended BLA-MSA market system model. Findings from project indicator reporting, FAS interviews, and contextual observations from KII/FGD respondents provide preliminary evidence that system-level changes in horticulture market transactions are taking root. This includes limited evidence of the potential for a spillover effect as market actors beyond the scope of the project are expressing a desire to participate in the hybrid BLA-MSA approach characterized by sustained market interactions, transparent dialogue, and good faith negotiations anchored in feelings of mutual trust. Supporting quantitative evidence suggests that a nascent horticulture market ecosystem is emerging whereby financial, informational, entrepreneurial, and agro-technological capacities are being adopted among a suite of market actors in an increasingly transparent and inclusive enabling business environment.
This section examines key sub-components of the overarching horticulture market system that are evaluated in more detail in subsequent chapters of this report. This section aims to provide general insights on systemic changes in the horticulture sector that are in an early stage of incubation as a result of Project investments. Observations provided here are summative in nature and drawn from evidence-based findings found in the subsequent report sections. Therefore, detailed quantitative measures on project performance to date are to be consulted in the ensuing chapters in order to obviate repetition of information.
Observations are organized by the purpose and sub-purposes of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II – (1) growth of the horticulture sector, (2) improved capacity for market participation, (3) improved market linkages, and (4) improved governance and the enabling environment. Both facilitative factors and key constraints are identified as inflection points to guide the project midway through the project in adopting actionable recommendations and adaptive programming strategies to ensure full attainment of the goals, purposes, and desired outcomes of the project.
PROJECT PURPOSE: GROWTH OF THE HORTICULTURE SECTOR
Results discussed under EQ1 concerning growth of the horticulture sector demonstrate that positive gains are being made thus far in catalyzing sales, employment, and investment opportunities in the project horticulture sector ZOI. Factors Facilitating System-Level Change
Blended BLA-MSA Model The early phase of the project shows promising signs of success. Introduction of an innovative Commercial Partnership (CP) framework that underpins a demand-driven Buyer-Led Approach (BLA) to horticulture market development has increasingly been wed with a Market System Approach (MSA). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II launching of a CP buyer-seller nexus since project inception has evolved from a ‘light’ hands-on approach to delivery of certain services (training, capacity building), to one in which transactional relationships are now mentored by a ‘light’ facilitation role. Feed the Future Harvest II’s sequential Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 18 graduation from a ‘light’ facilitation role to one of full withdrawal is elaborated in the recent FY19 Work Plan. This approach is illustrated in Annex XI. Furthermore, the project has recently formulated a Market Systems Development (MSD) Engagement Framework, which illustrates the articulation of the CP BLA model with intervention levels using an MSA approach (Annex XII). Working with Sub-Partner iDE, two teams30 are assisting in a design strategy that employs a two-pronged approach that: (1) uses existing CP engagement frameworks and tools; and (2) activates a new process based on an MSA approach using tools to tackle systemic challenges identified through CP engagements31.
KII and FGD respondents were asked to identify strengths and weaknesses of the CP framework agreement among buyers and sellers. They generally perceived the agreements to be quite helpful in improving transparency and building greater trust between buyers and suppliers. However, they noted challenges, particularly in enforcing verbal or semi-formal agreements, for reasons such as sales leakage among suppliers who would often sell to small-scale buyers outside the CP at slightly higher prices. A lack of trust and transparency by some buyers in negotiating a fair price for suppliers, particularly vegetable farmers, was often expressed by suppliers as an obstacle to enforcing agreed upon sales arrangements.
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has taken an iterative approach in addressing such challenges by introducing adaptive instruments such as sales growth plans for buyers which outline buyer constraints and solutions to increasing sales32. More recently, the project has introduced non-disclosure agreements (NDA) that appear to be effective in increasing transparency between buyers and suppliers33. Furthermore, the CP approach has become applicable beyond buyer-supplier relationships to other market actors such as input suppliers and MFIs in assessing gaps and constraints. This was cited by one KII respondent as an unanticipated positive expansion of the CP approach to other market actors. The refinement and extension of the above noted CP instruments is likely a key factor contributing to the positive achievement of project indicators on sales, employment, and investment, and the relatively robust level of performance to-date.
In conclusion, the initial design of the CP Framework and BLA as a market demand-driven approach has proven to be compatible with an MSA model. The BLA serves as an entry point by which more inclusive, sustained business relationships can take hold34, leading to a ‘crowding in’ effect that has been aptly described in project documentation and the MSA literature in general35. Evidence of appeal to the more integrative, holistic nature of a blended BLA-MSA model is borne out in consistent commentaries of KII and FGD respondents who describe Feed the Future Harvest II as a model activity that is attracting attention among other market actors outside the scope of the project. SUB-PURPOSE 1: IMPROVED CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION
Results discussed under EQ3 provide evidence that systemic changes in business, financial, informational, and agro-technical capacities are enhancing market opportunities among partners in the Harvest II horticulture sector ZOI.
30 Human Centered Design; Whitten Roy Partnership. 31 Abt Associates. (n.d.). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Commercial Partnership – Strategy Document for Engaging Buyers. 32 The buyer assessments and growth plans include a business profile (business transactions, relation to primary actors in the value chain, strategy for growth/expansion activities), objectives, constraints, opportunities, areas for improvement and proposed interventions with specific timeframes (FY18 Q1 Progress Report, p.5). 33 These observations are drawn from a series of KII meetings with the IP administrative and technical staff at their provincial and national offices. 34 Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Approach at a Glance, Annex III 35 Campbell (2014); USAID (June 2018); USAID. (January 2015).
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 19
Factors Facilitating System-Level Change
Horticulture Solutions Grant Facility KII/FGD respondents identified effective capacity-building activities that are enabling project partners to expand market opportunities as a result of new business, financial, informational, and agro-technical skills acquired. These capacities are being facilitated through novel grant mechanisms such as the Horticulture Solutions facility created by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II to stimulate input credit and supply chain finance, and credit expansion to supply chain actors through effective capacity building efforts in agricultural lending training of MFIs and input suppliers. Embedded service provision and bundling of input services such as supply chain financing coupled with agronomic extension and technical service provision are evident in early stages of the project.
This activity is proving effective in redressing the balance between market supply and demand to ensure that supplier capacity is bolstered through the provision of enhanced agronomic (seed, pesticide, fertilizer, technology) and financial (credit access) services to meet growing demand for consistent quantity and high-quality horticultural produce. The grantee, East-West Seed Co. Ltd. (EWS), is one example of how Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is facilitating technical solutions driven by private sector entities to test or scale innovations in knowledge transfer through agronomic upgrading of improved farm practices and delivery of quality seed, fertilizer and pesticides.
Bundled Input Services, Non-Collateralized Credit, Loan Refinancing, Input Supply Credit Numerous examples were provided by KII and FGD respondents of innovations in supply chain services that are occurring due to Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II facilitation that incentivizes market actors to provide new products and services. One example is Amret, an MFI that is now bundling microloans and one-stop-shop financial banking services to small-scale farmers. An example was also given of a farmer association accessing non-collateralized small group loans as a result of partnership in the project36. Due to effective CP relationships, several buyers stated that they are now linking more input suppliers to suppliers and providing better price discounts. Several buyers also observed that CP arrangements are enabling them to more easily access credit through MFIs and provide input supply credit to farmers at lower rates than the MFIs. These are concrete examples that transformative, systemic changes are underway across the horticultural business landscape, lending themselves to more sustained and trusting entrepreneurial relationships characteristic of an emergent horticulture market system.
36 This is another example of how Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is instilling a sense of confidence and trust in its working relationships with strategic partners such as MFIs, thus growing its reputation as a trustworthy client and hence the ancillary association of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II’s BLA-MLA model as a quality ‘brand' product.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 20
Factors Constraining System-Level Change
Market Information Gaps in access to market information across the full spectrum of market actors have been identified as a significant constraint that will need to be addressed by the project throughout the remainder of the project. Provincial government administrators in the Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (PDAFF), and Ministry of Commerce (MOC) frequently identified the lack of coordination and sharing of market information as a key obstacle to greater participation in market activities. This included not only accurate information on the price of horticulture crops but also the price and sourcing of agricultural inputs and technologies; the lack of information on contact lists of market buyers, input suppliers, financial lenders, processors and exporters; technical information on pest management and improved agricultural methods; and reliable, user-friendly climate information. Other KII respondents spoke of market information in its broadest sense to include production data, and supply-demand forecast information among MFIs needed to help them better assess creditworthiness among their agricultural clients.
Results from the FAS further reinforce these perspectives, as data suggest that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is not yet expanding access to market information for partners. Respondents were asked how often they receive market information about prices, costs, etc. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II partners lag behind their non-partner counterparts in terms of receiving information relevant to their place in the market. Approximately 62% of non-partners receive market information at least once per day, whereas only 53% of partners do. While the difference is not significant statistically, the trend is still somewhat concerning. The ET did not find any quantitative or qualitative data to explain this discrepancy. A conjecture is that the difference could be a function of partners having more stable access to market linkages and thus less of a perceived need to monitor market information, but regular information should still be a centerpiece of their market systems approach. It is also important to note that this question was asked of all partner types (buyers, producers, and input suppliers). The program did not work to directly support producers. Nevertheless, this would not explain a lower rate of information access among partners. SUB-PURPOSE 2: IMPROVED MARKET LINKAGES
Results discussed under EQ4 provide evidence that systemic changes in the quality of market relationships, management of supply chains, and incentives for investment are strengthening networks, linkages, and market opportunities among partners in the Harvest II horticulture sector ZOI. Factors Facilitating System-Level Change
Improved Supply Chain Management Through the Horticulture Solutions grant activity discussed above, the project has bolstered supplier capacity by facilitating horticulture knowledge transfer with larger grantee private sector firms like EWS that are delivering technical information on sustainable and profitable production systems to semi- commercial farmers37. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has recognized that an initial BLA focus on buyer-supplier CPs has been necessary but insufficient in smoothing service provision through the entire horticulture supply chain. There has been a progressive transition toward a more comprehensive approach to supply chain management which includes a more diverse set of market actors (input suppliers, processors, exporters, MFIs, end buyers). This shift toward a more systemic integration of all actors is slowly building confidence and changing the behavior of market actors as they begin to transcend
37 FY19 Work Plan, p.11. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 21 individualistic attitudes and embrace a more holistic understanding of the horticulture market system in which the ‘whole is greater than the sum of its parts’.
Supply Chain Finance The Horticulture Solutions grant facility has been an effective instrument in providing innovative solutions to the problem of input credit supply. In FY18, three input supply companies (VT Grow, Nileda, and East West Seed) received agricultural lending training through the project, facilitating $591,243 of supply credit to input retailers and suppliers. In addition, 19 percent of buyers in CPs offered cash advances to their suppliers in the second quarter of FY18, boosting yield and enhancing sales transactions38. These provide examples of how effective supply chain financing is addressing a systemic weakness by building stronger linkages among vital actors in the horticulture supply chain.
Commercial Horticulture Agent Program While not yet implemented in FY18, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II envisions addressing low technical capacity in the agricultural extension system of RGC by piloting a commercial horticulture agent (CHA) program that is needed to boost agronomic practice and technical knowledge among farmers in the project’s ZOI. The CHA will serve as a commercial extension agent providing sustainable training and technical services to buyers, agro-input suppliers, and farmers on a commission basis39. Factors Facilitating System-Level Change SUB-PURPOSE 3: IMPROVED GOVERNANCE AND THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
Results discussed under EQ5 provide evidence that advocacy efforts and coordination activities, as well as policy support to the Royal Government of Cambodian (RGC) in addressing horticulture constraints are strengthening the enabling environment for horticulture market development in the project ZOI. Factors Facilitating System-Level Change
Coordination Platforms, Policy Analysis, Donor Coordination Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activities promoting greater advocacy, information sharing, public- private sector coordination, policy analysis, and more effective government and donor coordination are examined in this study. The cumulative effect of the project’s interventions has been to build greater awareness and understanding among a suite of stakeholders about a broader ecosystem encapsulating many interactive domains of market actors, laws, institutions, and social, financial, regulatory, and environmental sub-systems. Thus, evidence to date, based on examples in this report, suggests that the collective effort of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II to lay the groundwork for a more dynamic enabling environment of horticulture market actors based on principles of inclusivity, ownership, and increased connectivity are effectively taking hold in the early stages of the project.
38 FY18 Q2 Progress Report, p.2. 39 CHAs will be trained by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II project with the aim of incentivizing buyers, local input suppliers, and farmers to procure CHA services, thereby ensuring a steadier supply of produce to meet buyers’ needs. These CHAs, perhaps local successful farmers, would not be paid by the project. FY18 Q3 p.16; Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II CHA Pilot Testing. Abt Associates. November 2018.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 22
CONCLUSIONS: SYSTEM-LEVEL CHANGES IN HORTICULTURE MARKET TRANSACTIONS Conclusion 1: Blended BLA-MSA Model There has been a progressive evolution toward a more holistic approach to development of the horticulture sector that blends a BLA-MSA approach that is inclusive of a diverse set of market actors. This shift toward a more systemic integration of all stakeholders is slowly building confidence and changing the behavior of market actors as they begin to transcend individualistic attitudes and embrace a more holistic understanding of the horticulture market system.
Conclusion 2: System-Level Changes in the Horticulture Sector The cumulative effect of the project’s interventions has been to build greater awareness and understanding among a suite of stakeholders about a broader ecosystem encapsulating many interactive domains of market actors, laws, institutions, and social, financial, regulatory, and environmental sub-systems. Thus, evidence to date suggests that the collective effort of the project to lay the groundwork for a more dynamic enabling environment of horticulture market actors based on principles of inclusivity, ownership, and increased connectivity are effectively taking hold in the early stages of the project.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 23
SUB-PURPOSE 1: IMPROVED CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION Evaluation Question 3: To what extent is Harvest II improving horticulture actors’ capacity for market participation?
There is clear evidence, supported by FAS, KII/FGD, and project indicator data, that market actors are improving their capacity for market participation.
Findings on capacity for market participation are based on three evaluation criteria: (1) improved business and financial management skills and practices, (2) uptake of new or improved technologies, market information, and horticultural production skills and practices, and (3) access to financial opportunities. Evaluation criteria 1 and 2 will be discussed together and 3 will be discussed separately.
Findings on Improved Business and Financial Management Skills, Market Information, and Production Practices Findings from Harvest II data and KII/FGDs provide evidence that project partners are improving their capacity to access market opportunities due to improved business and financial management skills, market information, and horticultural production practices acquired through project-facilitated, capacity-building interventions. FAS findings provide indirect evidence that project partners may be improving their access to market opportunities through support from NGOs such as Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II partnership, and potentially additional support from other NGOs.
Project indicator data (#12, Annex XIII) find that more than 61% of individuals have adopted new/improved technologies or practices, exceeding the target by 24%. Half of those individuals were women (50%). The evidence also shows that, while women-owned businesses did show improved capacity for market participation, their progress was not as pronounced as that of man-owned businesses. Evidence also shows that more individuals (2,038 of a target of 3,283, or 24%) than firms (205 out of a target of 225 or 9%) have adopted improved technologies or management practices.
Project indicator data (#12, Annex XVII) show that all categories of individual actors reported adopting new or improved production technologies and/or practices; from a low of 61% of suppliers and 69% of input retailers and agricultural cooperatives, to a high of 92% of other market actors (MFIs, input supply companies, and collectors) and all (100%) of buyers. When disaggregated by sex, women showed increased use of improved production technologies and/or practices, but at far lower levels than men did; women comprised 43% of buyers, 28% of input retailers and agricultural cooperatives, only 4% of other market actors and 53% of suppliers (#12, Annex XIII).
The FAS evaluation team examined changes in business and financial opportunities as a function of participation in the project. Respondent partners and non-partners were asked about levels of assistance (loans, materials, etc.) received from NGOs, government, and other businesses since Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II partnership began40. Partners are receiving significantly more assistance from NGOs
40 Due to the broad nature of this question, interpretation of FAS findings may be applied across each of the three evaluation criteria, in this case in terms of receiving assistance in the form of training in business and financial management skills. It may also be interpreted in terms of training, material, and/or financial support received to improve production skills and capacities, and assistance received in the form of training or support to more readily access agricultural credit.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 24 than non-partners, confirming partner participation in the project and likely additional support from other NGOs41 (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Percentage of Respondents Reporting Various Levels of Assistance (Loans, Materials, etc.) from NGOs
80 73.3 70 60 50 45.43 40 Partner 30 26.22 Non-Partner 19.82 20 13.12 8.14 10 6.4 4.52 2.130.9 0 None A Little Some Plenty Constant
KII and FGD findings provide evidence of effective interventions facilitated by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II that are enhancing participation among project partners in new market opportunities, as well as constraints to greater market participation among some market actors. The following groups of KII/FGD respondents identified the most effective capacity-building strategies facilitated by the project: • Buyers: Training and assistance in developing business assessments and growth plans, semi-formal written agreements with suppliers; • Suppliers: Training by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II and input supply firms on the adoption of improved horticultural practices such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM), climate-smart agricultural practices, climate resilient seed varieties, and improved water management technologies such as drip irrigation; • MFIs: Training in client needs assessments, training proposals, and new innovative approaches in agricultural lending to suppliers and other market actors; • Input Suppliers: Training in basic business management practices such as record keeping and agro- input marketing strategies.
KII and FGD respondents were also asked to identify difficulties that they encounter in trying to expand their participation in new market opportunities, despite the training they received by the project. The key constraints identified are presented below. Note that land ownership, which can be an impediment to market participation for suppliers, is not included among them. In fact, partners are significantly more likely to own their land (85% vs. 77%), but this is a function of the process of selecting program partners. It is neither an impediment to partners nor a program effect.
Price Volatility Price fluctuations for some horticulture crops, particularly vegetables, are cited as a key reason why buyer- supplier agreements are not tenable. Even among cashew suppliers, fluctuating prices coupled with shortage of domestic demand were identified as a major difficulty in expanding their market activities.
41 Roughly two-thirds (67.4%) of partners report receiving some support, plenty of support, or constant/complete support, whereas only about one-fifth (19%) of non-partners report receiving the same levels of support. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 25
Market Information One of the most recurrent challenges, mentioned by almost all market actors including buyers, suppliers, input suppliers, and MFIs, is a lack of reliable and timely market information. This includes accurate information on the price of horticulture crops; the price and sourcing of agricultural inputs and technologies; the lack of information on contact lists of market actors, technical information on pest management, improved agricultural methods, and reliable, user-friendly climate information. This view was echoed by staff in the Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (PDAFF), and Ministry of Commerce (MOC) 42.
Input Supply FGD and KII respondents frequently cited a lack of responsiveness among input suppliers to provide quality products and services, particularly to vegetable suppliers43. This was particularly the case for small- scale suppliers such as cashew farmers in Kampong Thom Province44. The inability of input dealers to provide effective pesticides in managing certain crop pests and diseases was cited often among suppliers in the FGD sessions.
Findings on Access to Agricultural Credit Findings from KII/FGD and Harvest II data provide evidence that project partners are accessing agricultural credit through project-facilitated linkages to financial services, enabling greater opportunities for market participation. FAS data indirectly support this finding through assistance being provided by NGOs partnered with Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II.
Findings are supported by performance indicator #8 in which horticultural business enterprises and suppliers receiving agricultural credit (68) have surpassed the project target (30) substantially (127%). The proportion of women buyers (including agricultural cooperatives and members of cooperatives) and suppliers ranges from one-quarter (25%) to nearly forty percent (39%), (Table 27, Annex XVII). The distribution of access to loans by sex and province varies widely and is heavily skewed, with almost all loans received in two of the four provinces (Battambang, Siem Reap). There is no clear explanation of the disaggregated findings by sex or province, and no explanatory information available from the qualitative data findings (Table 28, Annex XVII).
42 Several references were made to past and current donor-funded initiatives to introduce a market information systems (MIS) platform in Cambodia. The most frequently cited was the Agricultural Marketing Information System (AMIS) housed by the government of Cambodia (RGC) on a MAFF website (https://amis.org.kh/; https://amis.org.kh/en/page/info-agri-market) under the management of the Agricultural Marketing Office (AMO) in the Department of Planning and Statistics. AMO plans to develop AMIS to provide consistent, accurate and timely market information to concerned stakeholders in the agricultural sector. This is being done to assist market actors in generating higher returns from their relevant enterprises, and to contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction. The key information currently in the system includes daily price indexes for rice and vegetables; price trends of rubber and cassava; and monthly average prices of rice and vegetables by market. Several KII sources, including PDAFF government officials themselves, acknowledged the limited capacity and utility of the system, due to limited human and financial resources to gather accurate and reliable pricing of commodities and inability to track daily fluctuations in market price and location. 43 While Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II facilitates supplier and agro-input dealer linkages, there is a lack of quality control of agro-inputs and very few products available from reputable multinational companies that do not have a local presence in Cambodia. Thus, local input-suppliers may at times market inferior seed and pesticide that is beyond the control of the project. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II links buyers and suppliers only with the registered, reputable companies and follows the USAID mandated Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (EMMP) and recently-approved Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan (PERSUAP). Personal Communication: Alexis Ellicott, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Chief of Party, December 27, 2018. 44 One Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II staff member in Kampong Thom Province noted that agro-dealers are not motivated to assist small-scale cashew suppliers due to their limited production capacity.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 26
FAS findings from the section above (Figure 6) on changes in business and financial opportunities may also be used as a proxy measure of access to agricultural credit. The categories used for sources of assistance (NGOs, government, other businesses) are general and do not specify the most common sources of credit lending from MFIs and supply chain credit from larger private sector buyer firms. The findings do indicate that one-half of all partners surveyed receive little or no support from other businesses, which could imply supply chain actors such as buyers and processors. However, no conclusive observations can be drawn concerning access to agricultural credit from the FAS data.
FAS partner and non-partner respondents from women-owned businesses were asked about access to outside sources of financing or credit. Project partners report significantly lower access to outside financing and credit than do women-owned businesses not associated with Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II (40% vs. 56%, P = 0.098) (Figure 2 and Table 6, Annex X), which is in a counter-intuitive direction. Perhaps respondents interpreted the question to mean access to financing and credit outside of the project, in which case the findings would not be surprising given that project partners would rely on the program and wouldn’t need to seek outside sources.
The FAS evaluation team questioned respondents about levels of assistance (loans, materials, etc.) that they received from NGOs, government, and other businesses45. These results were broken down by project partners and non-partners. Only the findings on NGOs were statistically-significant, with partners significantly more likely than non-partners to report receiving some, plenty, or constant/complete support (67% vs.19%, p = 0.000), (Table 7, Annex X).
KII and FGD findings identified both positive approaches and barriers to accessing agricultural credit. Effective trends and innovations in financial lending included bundling of credit with input supply services, non-collateralized group credit, and loan refinancing opportunities. Respondents expressed a clear preference for more flexible supply chain credit arrangements facilitated through Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II commercial partnerships with suppliers.
When asked to describe their ability to access credit, whether facilitated through project MFI loan arrangements or through other mechanisms such as buyer supply chain credit, FGD and KII respondents cited several innovative lending options they’d been offered. They are described below.
Bundled Input Services There is some evidence from buyer and supplier respondents that buyers and MFIs are providing input packages to suppliers that involve bundling of supply credit with agronomic training directly from buyers or contracted through third party agro-extension services. There is also evidence that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II partner MFIs are introducing more diversified market services that bundle different types of financial services including credit provision and banking services.
45 Due to the broad nature of this question, interpretation of FAS findings may be applied across each of the three evaluation criteria, in this case in terms of receiving assistance in the form of training in business and financial management skills. It may also be interpreted in terms of training, material, and/or financial support received to improve production skills and capacities, and assistance received in the form of training or support to more readily access agricultural credit. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 27
Non-Collateralized Group Credit One project MFI loan officer in Battambang noted that through effective partnership and good faith measures facilitated by the project, a supplier group obtained a loan with no collateral requirement. The loans, however, are quite small ($625/family) and limited to small groups of only 2-6 farmers46. Many smallholders find such small loans to be insufficient in meeting their needs to expand production.
Loan Refinancing Some suppliers noted that they are now able to obtain second loans as a refinancing mechanism through MFI partnerships facilitated by the project. In such arrangements, the MFI is willing to accept the supplier’s previously-leveraged land title as collateral against new loan consolidation. However, loan rates can double and must be paid in three years. While such novel arrangements benefit both the supplier and the MFI, increasing one’s loan debt ratio can be a tenuous enterprise. Therefore, due diligence should be exercised by all concerned parties, including Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II, concerning loan indebtedness among partners).
Barriers to Accessing Credit KII and FGD respondents also noted several barriers limiting access to credit, which are described below.
Loan Collateral Requirements Small-scale farmers in developing countries often have difficulties meeting collateral requirements in obtaining agricultural loans– fixed assets in land or housing being the most common. In some instances, vegetable suppliers who have little or no land must rent garden plots, making them ineligible for loans which require ownership. Some farmers are non-resident temporary or seasonal laborers from other provinces, making them ineligible for formal institutional loans47. For smallholders with little land and small field plots, particularly market gardeners, land scarcity becomes a debt trap, as producers have insufficient land for crop rotations to maintain soil fertility and crop productivity, causing a downward spiral of decreasing returns to labor and declining productivity.
Individual vs Group Loans KII and FGD respondents identified notable disparities in MFI loan criteria among individuals and groups. Agricultural cooperative and association members are accessing small group loans from MFIs, while many individual farmers not organized in formal group structures have difficulty in accessing loans.
Loan Repayment Schedules Suppliers such as orange suppliers in Pursat Province described in FGDs how capital investments over the course of a full crop season were not compatible with monthly loan payment schedules due to shortages of short-term liquidity needed to meet monthly payments48. While this would appear to be less problematic for vegetable suppliers with staggered garden harvests of vegetables with varying growth cycles, many suppliers found it difficult to make monthly payments. One group of vegetable suppliers in
46 The loan officer described two types of loans provided by his MFI: (1) group loans – requiring no collateral, for 2-6 farmers, only up to $625 per family, at 1.5 % interest monthly, paid over 1 year; (2) individual loans – requiring collateral based on removable (tractor, car, or motorbike) or non-removable assets (house or land). There is no minimum size loan, which is based on asset value and must be 200% of loan to value; one or both asset categories are required to cover 200% of loan to value; most farmers prefer using non-removable assets; family loans of up to $100,000 are available, with a variable loan rate of .95% - 1.5%, with repayment up to 6 years. 47 KII MFI loan officer, Battambang Province, November 10, 2018. 48 “Growing oranges…takes three years to give yields; during that time, farmers have to spend a lot of money on inputs (fertilizers, pesticides), labor (spraying fertilizer and pesticides, cutting grass, and other maintenance), and machinery to prepare land… repayment should begin after the first harvest.” FGD orange suppliers, Pursat Province, November 7, 2018.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 28
Siem Reap Province expressed their preference for buyer supply chain credit over MFI financing because of greater flexibility in loan conditions and payment arrangements49. As project reporting indicates, the project is attempting to address these challenges by assessing the interest of partners such as AMK (MFI) and ACLEDA (bank) in introducing new, innovative approaches to lending such as supply chain finance (addressed below in EQ4 on improved market linkages).
CONCLUSIONS: IMPROVED CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION Conclusion 1: Improved Business, Financial Management, and Production Practices Overall, the project Harvest II improved the business, financial management and production practices of all horticulture supply chain actors. While individual women and women-owned firms also reported employing improved business and financial management and production practice as a result of participating in the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II program, their rates of adoption were not as high as those of participating men. There are no qualitative findings to explain why this is the case.
Conclusion 2: Access to Agricultural Credit Harvest II data and KIIs/FGDs show that partners are enjoying greater access to credit as a result of project-facilitated linkages to financial services. Once again, women, too, are benefitting from this increased access to agricultural credit, but at a lower rate than men. Data also showed that female project partners reported lower access to outside financing and credit than did non-partner women-owned businesses. This counter-intuitive finding can only be explained by the fact that perhaps the respondents interpreted the question to mean financing outside of the project.
49 “MFI policy is that farmers must pay interest or return the loan monthly on an assigned date, but … farmers don’t make any income until they harvest… If they owe the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II buyer, or input suppliers in their village, they can pay back anytime. They pay 100% or less depending on their ability.” FGD vegetable suppliers, Siem Reap Province, November 14, 2018. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 29
SUB-PURPOSE 2: IMPROVED MARKET LINKAGES Evaluation Question 4: To what extent is Harvest II improving market linkages? There is evidence of improved market linkages among Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II market actors through strengthened commercial partnerships, improvements in supply chain management, and incentives for investment.
Findings on improved market linkages are based on three evaluation criteria: (1) strengthened relationships among commercial partnerships (CP), (2) improvements in supply chain management, and (3) incentives for investment.
Findings on Strengthened Commercial Partnerships Findings from project and FAS data and KII/FGDs provide evidence that improved market linkages are taking root and that commercial partnerships are being strengthened. Findings across two out of three Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II indicators provide clear evidence that partners are operating more profitably and achieving growth plan targets. FAS findings provide suggestive evidence overall of some positive linkages among market actors that are taking hold. KII and FGD perceptions of the effectiveness of CPs in improving linkages to other market actors were largely positive. However, respondents did express mixed views about the quality of linkages to some market actors.
Project indicator data on firms operating profitably (# 4), and CP members achieving at least 80% of their growth plan targets (#11) show relatively strong evidence on proxy measures of improved market linkages. These include: 150 firms or CSOs that have increased profits or become financially self-sufficient, exceeding the project target by 50%; and 67% (20) of firms or CSOs that have achieved at least 80 percent of their growth plan targets, exceeding the project target by 234%; A third indicator on CPs maintained or expanded over time (#13) shows less robust but nonetheless positive performance: 70.0% (21) of CPs maintained and/or expanded over time, exceeding the project target by 8% (see Table 2 above for all indicator data).
Sex disaggregated data indicate that overall, a fair proportion (39%, 58) of women-owned firms have demonstrated profitable earnings when compared to all firms with profitable earnings. 50% (10) have achieved 80% of their growth plan targets as CP members when compared to all CP members achieving their growth plan targets; and a just over half (52%, 11) of all women in CPs have maintained and/or expanded over time when compared to all CPs that have maintained and/or expanded over time, demonstrating market sustainability to date. These figures are positive overall, suggesting that women are performing at or close to parity with men except for firm profitability where men outperform women (Tables 19, 20, 21 Annex XVIII).
Geographical disaggregation indicates that the largest proportion of women-owned enterprises and CPs are achieving profitability, reaching growth plan targets, and maintaining or expanding business activity in Kampong Thom Province, while they are less likely to in Pursat and Siem Reap Provinces. This may simply reflect the volume of project-related activities being implemented by the project in the respective provinces (Table 22, Annex XVIII).
FAS findings support project data findings on strengthened commercial partnerships by providing suggestive evidence of some positive linkages among market actors that are taking place in the project. This includes perceived positive relationships between partners and buyers, and suppliers and input suppliers. More partners than non-partners report having good or outstanding links to buyers (56% vs. 45%), (Table 8, Annex X). There is also suggestive evidence of a positive Feed the Future Cambodia
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 30
Harvest II impact in linking suppliers to input suppliers. Partners and non-partners report that they have either good or outstanding links to input suppliers (53% vs. 47%), (Table 9, Annex X). Not all market actors perceive their relationship to other actors positively, however. Input suppliers evaluated their links to both buyers and suppliers somewhat more negatively. Less than 45% of partner and non-partner input suppliers reported good or outstanding links to buyers and suppliers (40% vs. 46%), (Table 10, Annex X)50. While these results are not statistically significant the substantive difference is worth noting.
FAS respondents were also asked about the availability and reliability of market services. Input suppliers report usually having agricultural products only about one-half (52%) of the time, and always having products about one-fifth (22%) of the time, suggesting that input suppliers are not necessarily as reliable as desired in terms of access to seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and technologies (Table 11, Annex X). This is corroborated by a fair number of supplier respondents in FGD sessions who felt that timely access to agricultural inputs or agronomic technical support was lacking. When FAS respondents asked about the reliability of market actors, partners were significantly more likely than non-partners to identify buyers as the most reliable actor in the horticulture supply chain (35% vs. 19%, p = 0.00), (Figure 7). Finally, partners, both male and female are significantly more likely than non-partners (51% vs. 23%, p = 0.00) to have held meetings and group discussions with other supply chain actors in the past month, suggesting that they have participated in linkages to other market actors facilitated by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II (Figure 3, Tables 12-14, Annex X).
Figure 7: Percentage of Respondents Identifying Sectors as Most Reliable and Consistent Value Chain Actor, by Partner Status
40 35 35 30 23.17 25 19.91 17.65 19.1 20 17.19 15.84 11.59 11.28 15 10.67 8.6 10 7.01 Partners 5 0.911.81 0 Non-Partners
KII/FGD findings on strengthened commercial partnerships provide limited evidence supporting project and FAS findings. KII and FGD respondents were asked whether their relationship to other market actors since Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II partnership has improved, declined, or remained the same, and to what they attribute any change. They were also asked how any improvements in their linkage to other market actors could be facilitated by the project. In FGDs and KIIs, respondents identified some positive changes in their relationships to other market actors facilitated by the project, particularly in establishing CP relationships. Many of these respondents also identified key constraints to establishing stronger market linkages, including the difficulties in setting up formal contract farming arrangements, barriers to building greater trust and transparency with middlemen wholesalers and collectors, and the lack of investment opportunities needed to increase value addition through technical assistance and training on basic post-harvest storage technologies such as grading, sorting, washing, packaging, and cold chain storage and transport.
50 There were too few buyers to make statistical analyses of their views regarding links to producers and input suppliers possible, Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 31
Findings on Improved Supply Chain Management There is partial evidence, supported by Harvest II indicator and FAS data, and KII/FGD findings confirming improved supply chain management capacity among project partners.
Previous findings discussed in EQ3 drawn from three project indicators serve as proxy measures to gauge changes in supply chain management51. In summary, these performance indicators overall indicate that project partners are applying new business, financial, informational, and agro-technical skills acquired through project-facilitated training activities to effectively improve the delivery of horticulture supply chain services. Detailed findings of the performance indicators may be found in EQ3, however a cursory review of progress to date includes: #2 - 205 enterprises, organizations, etc., have applied improved organization- level technologies or management practices, falling 9% below the project target of 225; #8 - 68 horticultural business enterprises and suppliers receiving agricultural credit have surpassed the project target (30) substantially (127%); and #12 - 61% of individuals have adopted technologies or practices, exceeding the target by 24%.
FAS metrics of improved supply chain management are limited and pertain to a key measure in EQ3 on assistance received by partners and non-partners from NGOs, inferring that a gamut of technical training and capacity building services received from NGOs are foundational to strengthening supply chain management business capabilities. FAS findings reveal that partners are receiving significantly more assistance from NGOs than non-partners, confirming partner participation in receiving support services from Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II.
Findings of improved supply chain capacity draw primarily from contextual data gathered from KII/FGD respondents. Respondents, most often buyers, identified participation in CPs and the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II buyer-led approach as being highly effective in building trust and deepening relationships among market actors, thus enhancing linkages not only among buyers and suppliers, but also between other key service providers such as input suppliers and MFIs. Strategies in FY18 to improve supply chain management by linking suppliers directly to input suppliers, or buyers providing input credit and cash advances to suppliers were generally perceived as effective52. Despite the piloting of innovative approaches to supply chain finance, KII respondents observed on occasion that relationships among supply chain actors remain too individualized and transitory, posing persistent challenges in linking buyers to suppliers and other supply chain actors.
In KIIs, key informants explained how Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has served both as direct service provider and facilitator by introducing activities designed to bolster input credit and supply chain financing, and to stimulate capital investment in fruit and cashew processing facilities. This includes direct assistance by project technical staff in conducting trainings on agriculture lending for MFIs, input supply firms, and agro-input retailers to create more accessible loan opportunities for suppliers who have limited assets to access credit through formal loan institutions. KII respondents from Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II explained that staff have been progressively withdrawing as technical field agents and trainers over time. They have begun to identify third party private actors, referred to as ‘local experts’ by project
51 These include: indicator #2 – number of enterprises, organizations, etc., that have applied improved organization-level technologies or management practices; indicator #8 – number of business enterprises and suppliers receiving agricultural credit; and indicator #12 – percentage of individuals adopting new technologies, market information, and/or management practices. 52 In the second quarter of FY18, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II training of three input supply companies (VT Grow, Nileda, East West Seed) in agricultural lending facilitated $591,243 of supply credit to input retailers and suppliers. In addition, 19% of buyers in CPs provided cash advances to their suppliers to boost production capacity and guarantee buy-back. The total supply credit value of $9,000 helped 34 suppliers within four CPs to buy quality agro-inputs to improve their crop productivity and meet buyers’ specific demands. Source: FY18 Q2 Progress Report, p.p. 2,12.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 32 staff, who serve as agro-input specialists providing inputs and agronomic extension services, training farmers in improved production methods and technologies and pest disease management53. Project staff have observed that, while partners are increasingly becoming aware of this shift, some partners see dependency amongst some partners who still want staff to provide the direct technical support.
Findings on Incentives for Investment There is evidence from project indicator data of significant new private sector investment in the agriculture sector. KII/FGD findings suggest that two Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II grant mechanisms are perceived as effective instruments in leveraging seed capital for knowledge transfer from input supply firms to suppliers. Impediments and missed opportunities to boost value addition and strengthen local market linkages and enforcement of contract arrangements were also identified. FAS findings provide no information directly addressing incentives for investment.
Project indicator data (#6) presented in EQ3 on the value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector provide limited but strong evidence of actions undertaken to incentivize investment of the horticulture supply chain in the project ZOI. In resume, support for private sector capital investment of over $2.2 million exceeded the target by 208% in FY1854.
KII/FGD findings, while limited due to small sampling, nonetheless provides rich and incisive observations from which learning can be gleaned to provide conclusions and several useful recommendations based on critical barriers identified that impede effective delivery of horticulture supply chain services.
KII respondents felt in large part that two grant facilities established by the project, the Horticulture Solutions and Investment Accelerator grant mechanisms,55 have been effective in facilitating access to input credit and seed capital and transferring horticultural knowledge from input supply firms to suppliers. Respondents expressed satisfaction with the quality of technical training services provided on the use of improved seed varieties and improved production technologies and practices such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and climate resilience practices (CRP).
Opportunities for Investment and Improved Supply Chain Management Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms for Contract Farming A major obstacle to more effective market transactions and incentivized investments among supply chain actors identified among KII/FGD respondents has been the difficulty in establishing and enforcing formal contract arrangements, particularly among vegetable suppliers for a host of financial, technical, and agro- climatic reasons touched upon elsewhere in this report56. The lack of a mechanism to enforce contracts is identified as a persistent problem among the Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (PDAFF) authorities interviewed. Another challenge is that buyers are often unwilling to set up
53 In one instance, it was noted by a buyer that his suppliers complain that it takes too long to get help from an input supplier because the service is subsidized as a free service from Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II; if he paid himself, he says it would be much faster since the input supplier is far away with a busy schedule. This is likely a rare instance but does raise the general question of the extent to which direct subsidies have been provided by the project and the potential for unexpected negative consequences. 54 In the second quarter alone of 2018, private sector investment totaled $756,743. An example of how Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has spawned private sector capital investment is through training on agriculture lending for microfinance institutions (MFI) and input supply companies. As a result of such training services, three input supply companies – Nileda, VT Grow, and East West Seed – offered sales on credit to their agro-input dealers and farmers of $591,243 in second quarter of 2018 (FY18 Q2 Progress Report, pp. 7, 23-24). 55 See more detailed description of these grant facilities under EQ2 on the transition to a market systems approach (MSA). 56 Among these include lack of farm level investment in production technology and agronomic knowledge transfer, loan collateral requirements and repayment schedules, and climate risk factors, among others. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 33 contracts without a guaranteed market of end buyers such as hotels, restaurants, and supermarkets to sell to. The negative impacts of increasing climate variability were frequently cited. A melon buyer in Battambang Province cited poor quality watermelons due to recurrent years of extreme seasonal flooding as a key factor undermining the buyer’s willingness to set up contracts with suppliers.
Middlemen and End Buyers Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II respondents in the project’s provincial offices described the challenges in facilitating better linkages between end buyers with suppliers while simultaneously trying to work with a fragmented market of middlemen buyers (wholesalers, collectors). They indicate that suppliers may obtain more favorable pricing and production arrangements (contracts) if directly connected to larger end buyers, whereas middle-tier wholesalers and collectors at the local village level may not have the capacity to leverage capital to invest in supply chain credit and other vital services. While it is advantageous to develop supply chain financing by focusing on end buyer markets, project staff are trying to achieve an integrated MSA by working at the middle and end nodes of the supply chain.
Lack of Post-Harvest Value Addition Respondents often cite crop spoilage and post-harvest crop loss (particularly wet market vegetables) as a key problem impeding improved market linkages among actors in the supply chain. Wholesalers and collectors lack knowledge and capital to invest in packaging, cold chain transport, and storage. Buyers and suppliers lament the absence of training and knowledge-transfer to achieve value-addition and increase market share by adopting relatively low-cost technologies and improved practices in grading, sorting, washing, and packaging of produce. They added that cold chain storage and transport are largely non- existent in the provinces and that investment capital would be a highly cost-effective investment strategy in boosting returns to supply chain actors, particularly suppliers of vegetables and other highly perishable crops57.
CONCLUSIONS: IMPROVED MARKET LINKAGES Conclusion 1: Strengthened Commercial Partnerships Strengthened commercial partnerships are gaining ground among market actors under Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II. Efforts to boost profitable earnings, achieve growth plan targets, and sustain entrepreneurial activity among women have shown promise thus far. Nonetheless, concerted efforts are needed to increase firm profitability among women.
Conclusion 2: Improved Supply Chain Management Innovative practices have been introduced by the project to strengthen supply chain linkages among market actors. This includes novel approaches to supply chain finance in which buyers are increasingly serving as interlocuters in facilitating input credit and cash advances to suppliers to meet gaps in supplier financing.
Conclusion 3: Incentives for Investment Project grant mechanisms are proving beneficial in leveraging capital to accelerate knowledge transfer among market actors, particularly from input supply firms to suppliers. Structural obstacles remain that disincentivize investment among market actors such as lack of enforcement of farm supplier contracts. Investment is needed to boost farm income through relatively low-cost post-harvest value addition technologies such as grading, sorting, washing, and packaging.
57 A recent orange grower association partner in Pursat Province described how he is forced to sell his oranges quickly after harvest due to the lack of cold storage: “I need a better storage facility, I do not have good storage and must sell immediately after harvest…I want to store my oranges for long periods, like apple storage technology”, implying that storage would reduce crop loss and enable him to better time his market sales and fetch higher prices.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 34
SUB-PURPOSE 3: IMPROVED GOVERNANCE AND THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT Evaluation Question 5: To what extent is Harvest II improving governance and the horticulture sector enabling environment? There is evidence that advocacy efforts and coordination activities, as well as policy support to the Cambodian government (RGC) in addressing horticulture constraints are strengthening the enabling environment for horticulture market development in the project ZOI.
Findings on improved governance and the enabling environment are based on two evaluation criteria: (1) advocacy and coordination platforms, and (2) government capacity to address horticulture constraints.
Findings on Advocacy and Coordination Platforms There is evidence that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II advocacy efforts and coordination activities linking horticulture market actors through Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) events and Business-to-Business (B2B) workshops are effectively fostering communication and interaction among public and private sector actors, thereby improving government capacity to interact more closely with horticulture supply chain actors in the project ZOI. However, women’s participation in PPD and B2B events is substantially lower than that of their male counterparts.
Findings are supported by project reporting on participation of partners in PPD and B2B events, FAS findings on supplier capacity to sell their crops through CPs (which assumes an effectual enabling environment to actuate market transactions), and KII/FGD observations on the effectiveness of project advocacy and coordination activities.
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has undertaken a series of advocacy and coordination activities aimed at improving linkages and fostering more open, transparent dialogue among government officials and horticulture market actors. These include PPD events and B2B workshops. The latter are aimed at linking buyers and input suppliers to better coordinate service provision of inputs and knowledge transfer on improved horticulture practices. Through FY18, the project has facilitated five major PPD stakeholder consultation events (one national, four provincial), bringing together a diverse and inclusive array of public and private sector actors, NGOs, development donors, and implementing organizations to address challenges, issues, and constraints facing horticulture market actors58. These events are perceived as one of the most well appreciated activities undertaken by the project, corroborated by KII findings discussed further below. At the same time, KII respondents identified obstacles that hamper their business operations that are also discussed further below.
Findings on participation in PPD and B2B workshops disaggregated by province and by sex reveal that women’s participation is markedly lower than that for men (PPD: 21% vs. 80%; B2B: 26% vs. 74%), (Table 35, Table 36, Annex XIX). This may simply be a function of women’s lower representation in some segments of the horticulture supply chain, particularly as end buyers/processors, input suppliers, and MFI loan officers, whereas they are more prominent as suppliers, particularly in the vegetable subsector.
Findings by province indicate that women’s participation is highest in Siem Reap (PPD: 30%; B2B: 40%) and lowest in Kampong Thom (PPD: 13%; B2B: 17%), (Table 35, Table 36, Annex XIX). Again, it is likely that
58 The national PPD brought together 140 stakeholders from the public and private sectors. The group identified concerns related to the business enabling environment, including lack and abuses of contracts, unfair competition among agro-input suppliers, and lengthy/costly registration and certification processes. FY18 Q3 Progress Report. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 35 these figures reflect women’s lower representation in some segments of the horticulture supply chain noted above, which would vary by province.
FAS findings explore the outcome of advocacy and coordination activities by asking the difficulty that suppliers report in selling their crops, on the logic that improved governance, horticulture advocacy, and coordination can foster a better business environment in support of enhanced supplier linkages to buyers, thereby reduce crop loss or unsold crops. Data indicate that 64% of suppliers reported that they do not have any trouble finding buyers and that they are always able to sell their crops (Table 15, Annex X). While not disaggregated by crop, it is highly likely that fruit and cashew suppliers fare much better in selling their produce than do vegetable suppliers. This is based on KII and FGD observations discussed previously that vegetable suppliers often lamented their ability to sell all their produce, while such sentiment was not frequently stated by high value fruit and cashew suppliers.
FAS findings also explored changes in business and financial opportunities due to levels of assistance (loans, materials, training, technical assistance, etc.) received from NGOs, government, and other businesses59. Assistance received from government serves as a proxy measure to gauge improved business and financial opportunities that may arise as a result of effective governance and an improved enabling environment. A notably high percentage of partners and non-partners, (80% vs. 85%), reported receiving no government assistance and a very small percentage (4% vs. 2%) reported receiving plenty or complete support (Table 16, Annex X). While findings are not statistically significant, the marked absence of government support or involvement with project partners and non-partners alike may explain some of the perceived government limitations described further below in addressing horticulture constraints.
KII respondents were queried about their participation in PPD and B2B events and the extent to which they felt such platform activities had improved their ability to increase their network of market actors and expand their business activities. On several occasions respondents identified such events as one of the most effective activities facilitated by the project, resulting in expanded business opportunities and a greater awareness of the key challenges facing both public and private sector actors participating in the project being evaluated. Most importantly, respondents appreciated the effort of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II in fostering a greater sense of trust and openness among market actors in their business dealings60.
KII findings also suggest that platform activities are necessary, but not sufficient. Respondents requested more focused follow-on workshops or events to sustain newly-established market networks and to address key topical challenges such as contract farming and market information in smaller subgroups. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has already undertaken a donor coordination strategy that complements the overall advocacy and coordination platform dialogue events of the project. This includes harmonization of project efforts with other RGC and donor-funded initiatives to identify areas of collaboration, resource sharing, and mapping of horticulture sector strategy to avoid duplication and optimize the growth potential of the horticulture sector61.
59 Findings on assistance from NGOs were presented in EQ3. Assistance from government is examined here. 60 In one extreme example of gratitude for participation in PPD events, an orange association officer in Pursat Province waxed jubilantly: “…I met two very wealthy processors who are tycoons at a PPD event…. now I will set up a contract with them… normally I could never access such wealthy businessmen.” KII Orange Grower Association Officer, Pursat Province, November 7, 2018. 61 Among the most prominent areas of donor coordination include meetings and planning sessions with: the IFAD-funded Agriculture Services Programme for Innovation, Resilience and Extension (ASPIRE) project which is housed under the MAFF Department of Agricultural Extension; the General Directorate of Agricultural (GDA) project, Boosting Food Production (BFP); the IFAD-funded Accelerating Inclusive Markets for Smallholders (AIMS) project; and the EU-led effort on formulation of the Agriculture Sector Master Plan (ASMP) 2030. Source: FY18 Q2-3 Progress Reports. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 36
Government Partnership in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II One recurrent theme expressed by PDAFF chief administrators and the MOC in KIIs was the need for more direct and virtual participation, marketing, communications, and information sharing on Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II among public and private sector market actors, particularly PDAFF government authorities. This includes the need for better coordination and knowledge-sharing among administrators and technical staff at provincial and local levels, and expressed a desire to be more actively engaged with project staff and better informed of project activities, including an expressed interest in the project’s approach to facilitation and implementation of the MSA model. They also expressed the need for more follow up on issues and challenges identified during the PPD platform dialogue sessions. In particular, PDAFF and MOC officials uniformly expressed a desire to be more actively engaged with Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II staff and better informed of project activities. They generally felt that engagement with the project was ambiguous and passive, with little clear understanding of their role in advancing the goals of the project62. They also expressed a desire to explore further how they could better coordinate their horticulture programming activities with those of the project.
Findings on Government Capacity to Address Horticulture Constraints Progress is being made with Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II support to strengthen RGC capacity to address horticulture constraints. Efforts to date have focused on providing policy analysis as it relates to strategic planning and the future growth of agriculture and the horticulture sector, ensuring coordination and cooperation between the RGC and private sector interests. Project partners identified at least three areas in which more concerted effort is needed to improve RGC capacity in addressing horticulture constraints: (1) the status and implications of ‘agricultural loans’ as a formal legal category, (2) challenges in institutionalizing and enforcing contract farming agreements; and (3) challenges in enforcement of RGC SPS standards and guidelines.
Under sub-purpose 3 on improved governance and the enabling environment, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II tracks performance indicator #7: Number of agricultural and nutritional enabling environment policies analyzed, consulted on, drafted or revised, approved and implemented with USG assistance (EG.3.1-12, FTF 4.5.1-24). Results shows that one agricultural policy was analyzed in FY18, meeting the year’s annual target. This involved providing technical assistance in the formulation and drafting of the Agriculture Sector Master Plan (ASMP) 2030 and conducting stakeholder consultations to assess private sector perspectives in the horticulture sector63. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is also assisting the RGC in two other policy arenas, providing: (1) technical support to the Department of Horticulture and Subsidiary Crops (DHSC) to assist in the establishment of policy priorities and formulation of procedures on the National Horticulture Strategy 2019-2025; and (2) technical support to the Department of Plant Protection, Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (DPPSPS) on elaboration of the Plant Quarantine Strategic Plan 2019-202364.
Efforts are also underway by the project to assist the RGC with policy research and analysis in addressing enforcement issues around contract farming. The juridical status of agricultural lending has been brought to the attention of the project’s policy analyst as an ET finding from KII respondents and is being explored further at this time.
62 Several officials remarked that receiving Harvest II quarterly or monthly progress report updates were insufficient with little context to thoroughly understand Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II project developments. Suggestions on strategies that Harvest II may wish to consider in more fully engaging both government and private sector partners in post-PPD initiatives moving forward are presented in the Recommendations section of the report below. 63 This work will be expanded to assess private sector perspectives in the livestock subsector in FY19. FY18 Q1-3 Progress Reports. 64 FY18 Q1-3 Progress Reports.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 37
KII/FGD findings revealed that, while efforts are underway to assist the RGC in addressing policy constraints, there are several policy-related areas or gaps that continue to undermine the capacity of market actors to fully optimize their capacity as effective entrepreneurial agents in the market system. Key areas discussed further below include RGC policy (or lack thereof) on agricultural lending, difficulties surrounding lack of enforcement of buyer-supplier contracts65, and concerns about lack of enforcement of sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) food safety regulations.
Contract Farming As discussed in EQ 4, multiple KII and FGD respondents described in some detail difficulties in establishing and enforcing contract farming arrangements. A KII with a high ranking official in the Department of Agro- Industry (DAI) identified a “…critical shortage of foreign direct investment…” as a major constraint to growth of the horticulture sector due to lack of investor confidence in RGC and private sector capacity to enforce production contracts66. This was the case particularly with horticulture crops being sold to neighboring countries, Thailand and Vietnam67. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has begun to explore this problem in FY18, holding discussions with the MAFF Department of Agro-Industry (DAI) to identify policy priorities where the project can provide technical assistance, such as review of the current sub-decree on contract farming and transformation into formal law68. The RGC has formed an inter-ministerial Contract Farming Coordination Committee housed in the DAI to advance a sub-decree on contract farming as a full legal statute.
Government Policy on Agricultural Lending There was a lack of clarity among key informants interviewed (buyers, input suppliers, MFIs, PDAFF officials, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II staff) about the status of agricultural lending and loan rates as a legal category in Cambodia. Some individuals observed that MFIs do not offer a true agricultural loan at more favorable rates and lending conditions, but rather only business loans at a higher lending rate. It was noted in one KII that the RGC is developing a new policy on agricultural lending, and that plans are now underway for the Rural Development Bank (RDB) to disburse funds to MFIs to issue agricultural loans at lower rates. This is unconfirmed, however, and will require further exploration on the part of the project team addressing agricultural and other related policy concerns69.
SPS Food Safety Enforcement Concerns were expressed by KII respondents that there is lack of enforcement or quality control of both domestic and imported vegetables and unregulated use of high levels of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to produce more high quality, attractive horticultural crops for end buyer markets70. As noted above, the
65 See discussion above under Sub-Purpose 2: Improved Market Linkages, Key Constraints section on Contract Farming. 66 Among the actors that are impeding efforts to institutionalize contract farming on a broad scale, the individual cited an example of a promising foreign investment opportunity to export longan that failed due to wholesale brokers intentionally inflating market prices to subvert ‘takeover’ of their market from a foreign firm. KII DAI, Phnom Penh, November 28, 2018. 67 One respondent noted how the onerous bureaucratic requirement to carry out formal registration of a legal contract with three witnesses (buyer, supplier, PDAFF official) serves as a disincentive to buyers and suppliers under the current guidelines. 68 FY 18 Q2 Progress Report, pp.14-15. 69 One study carried out in 2010 by NGO Forum of Cambodia examines public expenditures in the agricultural sector over several decades and the role of multi- and bi-lateral government contributions to the national agricultural budget. The report does not, however, clearly identify legal statutes concerning the status of public financing of agricultural credit in the report. Source: Ngo Sothath and Chan Sophal (2010), “Agriculture Sector Financing and Services for Smallholder Farmers”, The NGO Forum on Cambodia. 70 One respondent noted that the RGC does not have an official policy but rather guidelines from the General Directorate of Agricultural (GDA) on Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) and recommended levels of pesticide and fertilizer use. MAFF currently applies ASEAN guidelines on GAP, called CamGAP but there is no apparent enforcement policy, only a general law on food safety that is applied. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has been researching this problem in FY18, holding meetings first in Quarter 2 with ICCO Cooperation to discuss potential collaboration in piloting a traceability system for safely produced vegetables; and
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 38 project is addressing this problem through technical support to the Department of Plant Protection, Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (DPPSPS) on elaboration of the Plant Quarantine Strategic Plan 2019-2023
CONCLUSIONS: IMPROVED GOVERNANCE AND THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT Conclusion 1: Advocacy and Coordination Platforms PPD and B2B advocacy and coordination activities have been effective in improving linkages and fostering more open, transparent dialogue among public and private sector actors in the project ZOI. There is an expressed desire among partners to hold follow on forums that focus on in-depth topics identified in platform events held thus far. Women’s participation in networking activities is roughly three times less than that of their male counterparts and should be further explored and addressed by the project.
Conclusion 2: Government Capacity to Address Horticulture Constraints RGC capacity to address horticulture constraints through more effective codification and enforcement of policies that pertain to the growth of the horticultural sector are underway but have achieved limited progress to date. At least three policy-related areas have been identified for concerted action to be undertaken by the project. These include: (1) ‘agricultural loans’ as a formal legal category, (2) challenges in institutionalizing and enforcing contract farming agreements, and (3) challenges in enforcement of RGC SPS standards and guidelines.
in Quarter 3 with GIZ and the CHAIN project to identify areas of collaboration, including joint work to obtain an official list of approved or suspended pesticides from the Department of Agricultural Legislation, and sharing of information by CHAIN on its “local safe vegetable strategy”. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II also envisions providing technical assistance in FY19 to the MAFF Department of Agro-Industry (DAI) to review a sub-decree or praka to implement the Plant Protection and Quarantine Law. Source: FY18 Q2 Progress Report, p.23; FY18 Q3 Progress Report, p.22; FY19 Work Plan.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 39
CROSS CUTTING INITIATIVES: GENDER AND YOUTH Evaluation Question 6: Are there any observable results from implementing a gender action plan in the horticulture value chain in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II ? There is evidence, supported by FAS, KII/FGD, and project indicator data, that women and youth are gaining access to jobs, productive economic resources, and agricultural financing, as a result of participation in project capacity building activities. Roughly one-half of FAS partner respondents report that most or all of their employees are women or youth, revealing their notable presence in the horticulture sector, at least in terms of the share of employees.
Findings on Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II efforts to promote gender and youth participation in horticulture sector market opportunities are based on the following criteria: (1) employment as horticulture supply chain actors, and access to productive economic resources; (2) capacity building in business management skills, pest and disease management, and agricultural lending training; and (3) access to finance.
Findings on Gender and Youth Employment and Access to Productive Economic Resources through Capacity Building Activities Findings from Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II indicator data indicate that women and youth are accessing jobs and productive economic resources as a result of project investment in capacity-building activities. Women are accessing half the number of jobs as men are, and female youth are gaining employment disproportionately more than male youth. FAS findings on employment provide limited support of project findings, while KII/FGD findings are anecdotal in suggesting that some limited job creation and access to productive economic resources is taking place. Project findings also reveal that women make up just over one-half of all participants in the project’s CPs and training activities.
Project findings on employment disaggregated by sex and youth show that one-third of all jobs created were filled by women, while two-thirds were filled by men (see Table 22, Annex XVI). These findings have also been presented in EQ1 in the section Findings on Employment. Youth filled 36% (69) of all jobs created, of which female youth filled 26% (49). Thus, female youth are gaining employment disproportionally more than male youth (71% of all youth jobs created). Female youth are also gaining employment disproportionally more than male youth in Battambang (68% vs. 33%) and Kampong Thom Provinces (87% vs. 13%). (Table 37, Annex XX). A large proportion of the jobs created for female youth involve harvesting vegetables in Battambang Province, and cashews in Kampong Thom Province.
FAS data do not explore job creation directly; rather they address the proportion of employees who are women and youth. This serves as one metric for understanding the current demographic composition of small firms and businesses by age and sex. Overall, about half (50%) of all FAS respondents report that most or all of the employees are women, and 22% report that none are. When disaggregated by partner status, some interesting differences appear. First, partner businesses are significantly more likely than non- partner businesses to be comprised of all women (27% vs. 16%, p = 0.081). Second, they are significantly less likely to be comprised of no women or less than half women (approximately 31% vs. 42%) (Figure 8). The correlation matrix is found in Table 17, Annex X. FAS and KII/FGD data shed no light on explanation of this finding.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 40
Figure 8: Percentage of Women Employees in the Business, by Respondents’ Partner Status
35 28.79 27.27 30 25.76 25.76 25 20.2 20 16.67 15.91 15.91 12.63 Partner 15 11.11 10 Non-Partner 5 0 None Less than About Half Most All Half
FAS data also explore youth employment by asking respondents about the share of employees who are youth. Overall, approximately 45% of respondents report that most or all of their employees are youth, while about one-fifth (22%) report that none are. No significant differences are found when comparing partner and non-partner responses (Table 18, Annex X). However, findings do reveal that youth are well- represented among both partner and non-partner enterprises currently. This partially supports the project’s finding that youth are filling just over one-third of all jobs created under the project.
Qualitative evidence provides only a small sample of jobs being filled by women and youth. Per discussion in EQ1 on job creation, most respondents noted that they run small, family-owned enterprises. KII respondents in the private sector who own or manage a business were asked about the proportion of their employees who are women or youth. The small number of respondents indicated women and youth were well represented in their business71.
To boost economic opportunities for women and youth in the horticulture sector, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II elaborated a Gender Action Plan (GAP) in FY17 with the aim of mainstreaming gender and youth activities into the overall project strategy72. Among the key strategies of the GAP, the project is focusing on how to improve women’s access to credit and capacity building in business management skills (including banking and investment), and women-specific business mentoring programs73. One of the key activities involving women has been their participation in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II grant activities as trainers, demonstrating new technologies such as AMK Microfinance Institution’s “E-Farmer Support App” for provision of improved production information. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is also using a grant facility, the Investment Accelerator, which has created a set-
71 A small sample of numbers of women and youth employed among KII respondents includes: Orange Grower Association - 27 employees (harvest and carrying, spraying and maintaining crop daily by men age 17-40), women count and do cooking (age 18- 20). 3 women do counting, wife receives money from transporter; youth (men) carry oranges to truck; Amret - 40 employees – 11 women (youth); 9 men are youth; 1 woman is senior officer customer service (manages other women); 50% are women or youth; Agricultural association - 10 of 19 employees are women (1 youth); 0 male youth; 1 woman is a Board member, 3 are committee members (controllers - all women); 6 women are staff; MOC - circa 70% are women; Watermelon buyers - all (12) are male youth who do harvesting, counting, weighting, loading/unloading; East West Seed has ten field staff, three are female youth (ages 25 to 26). 72 The GAP entails six strategies: 1) enhancing staff understanding and preparedness; 2) use learning from M&E; 3) seek out opportunities for women and youth; 4) tailor capacity building; 5) tailor access to finance; and 6) incorporate gender and youth into policy work. Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Gender Action Plan, p.6. Revised December 7, 2017. 73 FY18 Q 2 Progress Report, p.17.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 41 aside payment for job creation with plans to include a targeted percentage of jobs for women74. The project is also exploring ways to increase youth engagement in the CPs and business skills training sessions and anticipates a new strategy in FY19 to recruit and train youth as commercial horticulture agents (CHA) who will offer their services as technical horticultural extension agents to be employed through select private sector market actors75.
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is also seeking to boost access to productive assets including land, housing, businesses, livestock, financial assets (savings & credit), wage or self-employment, and income. Project indicators #9 and #10 (Table 2 above) provide evidence of achievement to date among women and youth in accessing productive economic resources76. Findings on indicator #9 (percentage of female participants increasing access to productive economic resources) reveal that roughly one-half (53%, 1,742) of all partners accessing productive economic resources were women, exceeding the project target by 254%. Findings on indicator #10 (percentage of youth participants increasing access to productive economic resources) indicate that 12% (387) of all participants were youth, exceeding the project target by 18%. Among all youth, 57% (222) of those accessing productive economic resources were females.
Women’s participation in training activities vary by market supply chain service. They represent roughly one-third (31%) of all suppliers receiving pest and disease management training. Just under one-third (30%) of all agro-input retailers receiving business management training, and 4% of MFI staff and input supply company staff receiving agricultural lending training (Table 7).
Table 7: Number and Percentage of Women and Youth Participants in Harvest II Activities77 Total Type of Partner and Activity # of Women % of Women # of Youth % of Youth Participants Buyers Engaged in Harvest II 30 13 43% 3 10% CP Suppliers Engaged in Harvest II 378 140 37% 42 11% CP Suppliers Receiving Training and Follow-up Visits on 1,081 504 47% 131 12% Climate Resilience Practices (BTB) Suppliers Receiving Training and Follow-up Visits on 1,109 892 82% 123 11% Climate Resilience Practices (PUR & SRP)
74 Ibid. 75 The new CHA commercial extension agent model is described in more detail under EQ2 addressing the transition to a Market Systems (MSA) approach. FY19 Work Plan, p.25. 76 Data for these two indicators were generated from women and youth who had access to productive economic resources resulting from project interventions such as female and youth suppliers (producers) and private sector women and youth (buyers, input suppliers) who own or made decisions on their business, either selling horticulture produce or agro-inputs. Data also include non-partner suppliers since they also participate in generating income resulting from their farm businesses; as well as women and youth who also received training from Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II partner grantees. Results for these indicators were calculated following the Feed the Future Monitoring System guidance reference (March 2018), Performance Indicator Reference Sheet for GNDR-2 (pp. 169-171) and YOUTH-3 (pp. 182-183). Source: personal communication – Kallyan Ith, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. December 10, 2019. 77 Figures in the table on training and follow-up visits on Climate Resilience Practices are not evaluated in this report due to discontinuation of the activity. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 42
Total Type of Partner and Activity # of Women % of Women # of Youth % of Youth Participants Suppliers Receiving Pest & Disease Management Training 401 125 31% 54 13% (KPT & SRP) MFI Staff & Input Supply Company Staff Receiving 50 2 4% 12 24.0% Agricultural Lending Training Agro-input Retailers Receiving 234 66 30% 22 10.1% Business Management Training Total 3,283 1,742 53% 387 11.8%
Youth participation is relatively consistent, ranging from about 10-12% for most activities, revealing the modest presence overall of youth in the horticulture sector. The one exception is MFI and input supply staff (24%), where remuneration for these professional occupations may be more attractive to young women and men. The project has slightly exceeded their target levels (10%) of youth participation, due in part to economic and cultural factors that pose challenges to their participation in the horticulture market system. KII and FGD respondents note a demographic and cultural shift in which youth are now less interested in farming78, saying that many youth are seeking wage labor in larger cities and neighboring Thailand. As a result, parents and older-aged farmers are increasingly forced to rely on costly agricultural machinery to meet labor shortages.
This observation is supported by data from an authoritative study of Cambodian agriculture in 2015 by Australian Aid and the World Bank which notes that both young women and young men are finding remunerative employment in the garment and construction sectors in nearby countries, especially Thailand. Thus, rural families are increasingly concerned about the availability of family labor for farming79.
Findings on Access to Finance Project indicator data indicate that, while women make up roughly one-half of all participants in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activities, about one-quarter to just over one-third of all women buyers and
78 A large proportion are migrating to Thailand and as far away as Korea to work in the garment, farming, and construction sectors where they are paid daily and have immediate cash liquidity, whereas farming is an investment with delayed return and high risk. Thus, retention of youth to work on family farms with relatively low income and strenuous work has become increasingly unattractive to young people. One PDAFF authority interviewed noted there are few programs or projects within MAFF to recruit youth in farming. 79 The study notes that young women are attracted to the relatively high, regular pay from garment factories. The study documents an average monthly wage for young women working in garment factories at about $162.5/month. For young men working in construction, wages rose from $72/month in 2005 to $120/month in 2013. The study notes that this is about 10% above the agricultural wage in Cambodia. Most FGD respondents in the study felt that migration of young rural workers would continue, and the subsequent lack of labor force would negatively affect future farm production and farm budgets. On the other hand, the study also notes the positive impacts of migration, as remittances are being used for working capital and investment in agriculture and off-farm income activities. The study also provides an incisive perspective on the lack of access to extension, training, information, and technology services that are adapted to women’s needs, including disaster risk management training and programming: “As Cambodian women are increasingly finding alternative employment in the garment sector and other nonfarm sectors, there is increased demand from women for new services in rural areas such as a savings market for remittances and child care options. For women staying in agriculture, access to extension and other agricultural services remains a large constraint to increased productivity, much larger than for men. Women’s needs are often neglected, partially due to the low number of female extension workers and the lack of training and information tailored to women. Mechanization also creates new challenges as female-headed households have less ability to control providers of mechanized services. And hazardous weather events disproportionally impact female-headed households, as their exposure to trainings and programs for disaster risk management remains limited.” Source: Australian Aid and World Bank, 2015, p. 31. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 43 suppliers are accessing credit. Among all youth, access to credit is proportional to their level of participation in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II. FAS data reveal that partner businesses owned by women are significantly less likely to access outside financing than non-partner women-owned businesses. KII/FGD findings are limited to an understanding of factors that constrain women’s access to credit including loan collateral requirements, repayment schedules, high loan rates, bureaucratic loan application procedures, and small loan portfolios for some small-scale suppliers.
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II findings on access to finance among women and youth are based on disaggregation of data from performance indicator #8. While roughly one-half (53%) of all participants in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II’s activities are women, access to credit by women buyers (including agricultural cooperatives) and suppliers ranges from 25% (2) to nearly 40% (22). Men fare much better in credit access, ranging from 61% (34) to 75% (6), (Table 27, Annex XVII). The lower rates of access to credit for women may be a function of several factors, including difficulties in qualifying for loans (per previous KII/FGD data presented on women's constraints in accessing loans), or the possibility that some women simply are not in need of additional financing to conduct their business activities.
Youth participation in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activities (12%) appear to be proportional to their capacity to access credit (11%), (Table 27, Annex XVII) This may likely be due to their relatively young age serving more as laborers than business and land owners in which case the need for capital financing may be greater than for older adults.
FAS respondents were asked about their access to credit. Overall, one-half (51%) note that they benefit from outside financing. However, partner women-owned businesses report significantly lower access to outside financing and credit than non-partner women-owned businesses (40% vs. 56%, p = .098). This finding is unanticipated, but it is possible that respondents interpreted the question to mean access to financing and credit outside of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II, since partners are already relying more on project assistance to access credit. In this case, the findings would not be surprising, (Table 6, Annex X).
KII and FGD findings on access to credit identify a range of constraints. Those constraints include loan eligibility requirements such as collateral (owning land other fixed assets), repayment schedules, high loan rates, documentation and bureaucratic procedures for loan applications, and small loan portfolios for some small-scale suppliers. These constraints may likely contribute to the relatively modest levels of credit access (25% to 40%) among women buyers and suppliers in the project. Further elaboration on credit constraints are found in EQ3, Findings on Access to Agricultural Credit.
CONCLUSIONS: GENDER AND YOUTH Conclusion 1. Gender and Youth Employment and Access to Productive Economic Resources through Capacity Building Activities The project is making progress in improving participation of women and youth in market opportunities in the horticulture sector in the project ZOI. However, market opportunities for women and youth lag behind that of men, particularly in accessing job opportunities in more remunerative supply chain services such as buyers/processors of cashew nuts, input suppliers, and MFI loan officers.
Conclusion 2. Gender and Youth Access to Finance Women’s access to financial services such as agricultural credit is disproportionally low in relation to their participation in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II CPs and project activities. KII/FGD respondents have identified multiple constraints, including loan eligibility requirements (collateral assets in land, other fixed assets), repayment schedules, high loan rates, documentation and bureaucratic procedures for loan
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 44 applications, and small loan portfolios for some small-scale suppliers. Youth capacity to access financial services is commiserate to their participation in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activities but remains relatively low. These constraints may likely contribute to the relatively modest levels of credit access (25% to 40%) among women buyers and suppliers in the project.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 45
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Recommendations below are based on findings and conclusions presented in the preceding sections of the report. In addition, KII/FGD respondents discussed priority interventions that they would like to see going forward in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II (see Annex XIV).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTING PARTNER Growth of the Horticulture Sector
Commercial Partnership (CP) Framework and Buyer-led Approach (BLA) The project should seek to deepen, diversify, and adapt the use of existing business and financial assessment tools, semi-formal and formal written agreements, NDAs, and growth plans beyond a buyer- centric focus to include input suppliers and MFIs to achieve more effective integration of all market actors within a holistic horticulture market system. Capacity for Market Participation
Improved Business and Financial Management The project should facilitate training of market partners in the provision of more innovative bundling of agronomic, financial, and business management services coupled with buyer or MFI-led non-collateralized financing. A range of additional services such as more accurate and timely access to market and climate information, and mobile banking services could be added to a suite of ‘agro-accelerator’ packages with a selection menu ranging from basic to advanced loan options.
Market Information Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II should explore leveraging EMC capacity to identify a highly specialized MIS private sector firm or other venture capital source interested in investing in a pilot MIS IT-based platform on a limited scale in one of the provinces in the project’s ZOI. If piloted successfully in one ZOI province, the MIS could then be scaled up as a private sector-funded MIS model to other Harvest II provinces and potentially beyond if adopted by MAFF/PDAFF.
Post-Harvest Processing and Storage The project should prioritize opportunities based on a basic cost-benefit analysis to facilitate low cost investment in post-harvest processing technologies and storage such as grading, sorting, washing, and packaging. This strategy could be linked to a bundled portfolio of CHA agro-input extension services and technical solutions to provide a line of more attractive and sophisticated ‘agro-accelerator’ loan packages to be designed and promoted through partner MFIs.
Access to Credit and Credit Indebtedness Current project efforts to increase awareness of MFIs of the need for more innovative models of pro- poor agricultural lending that minimize collateral requirements and/or shift the burden to buyer-led financing should be augmented with training of MFIs on credit indebtedness and more robust assessment tools to better capture informal levels of indebtedness. This could also be introduced into the CP
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 46 assessment process when seeking to establish buyer-supplier partnerships and more formalized business growth plans.
Supply Chain Finance The project should augment their approach toward improved supply chain management by exploring creation of novel supply chain financing packages with partners that increase bundled package options described above. The project may wish to consider recruiting a supply chain finance specialist to help bolster efforts at scaling up supply chain management. This should be done in concert with the Cambodia Microfinance Association (CMA) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to develop trainings on new options packages involving supply chain finance for MFI partners like AMK and ACLEDA. These should be monitored closely as a promising practice for replication and scale up.
Supply- and Demand-Side Investment The project should redress the balance between market supply and demand by boosting horticulture supply through more farm-level investment while also generating demand through processor-led investment to achieve value addition. Efforts should be made to facilitate increased buyer or private sector co-investment in farm level technologies such as drip irrigation and post-harvest value addition described above. Improved Governance and the Enabling Environment
Coordination Platforms and Dialogue Events The project should facilitate a series of focused in-depth all-day dialogue workshops addressing specific thematic challenges in the horticulture sector, allowing for more sustained interaction and networking among participants from previous PPD and B2B events. This could be led or co-facilitated in close collaboration with private sector actors in the horticulture sector.
Government Participation and Project Coordination Efforts should be made to more actively engage government authorities in participation in project activities. Strategies may include: (1) follow up and ongoing participation in PPD coordination activities; and (2) participation of PDAFF, MOC and other relevant departmental officials to attend as observers of some key project activities such as field site visits to allow for direct RGC-project staff interaction and learning.
Policy Analysis Plans are underway in FY19 by Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II and the GDA to work on a strategic plan for plant protection and quarantine and with the Department of Agro-Industry on contract farming law. Work on these critical areas of policy should particularly explore the lack of enforcement capacity in these two arenas and provide clear policy prescriptions with action plans moving forward in the coming year.
Participation of Women and Youth Efforts should be made to boost sales, employment, and investment opportunities for women and youth, particularly in supply, processing, and sales of high-value fruits and cashews which accrue largely to men. This may include the facilitation of technical horticultural training, leveraging of start-up capital and co- financing opportunities through the two project grant facilities, and targeted business and financial management training in relation to high value crops. The latter could include working with MFIs to establish a special agricultural loan program that incentivizes women and youth to obtain loans that include bundled services such as agronomic, business, and financial training. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 47
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID/CAMBODIA
Post-Harvest Processing and Storage USAID Cambodia should explore opportunities to identify private sector modest-scale investment in cold chain transport and warehousing on a very limited basis as a pilot activity for potential scale-up if successful. While such investments typically require high capital outlays, there is a slow but growing interest among foreign-owned firms, particularly in fruits and cashews, to expand export processing of such high value crops. Thus, an initial capital investment in one small-scale cold storage warehouse and fleet of one or two refrigerated trucks should be explored with a private sector agro-business firm or other investment entity.
Blended BLA-MSA Approach Based on results of the pilot BLA-MSA blended approach in the coming 12 to 18 months, USAID Cambodia should explore internal or external funding streams to support collaborative MSA networking opportunities that promote the approach should it show signs of success, and explore creation of a sub- national level knowledge sharing practitioner forum that could eventually grow into a national level structure to promote a blended BLA-MSA architype and serve as a center for collaborating, learning, and adapting (CLA), to include training and capacity building services centered around MSA. A medium to long-term vision should be adopted to build upon the current success and momentum of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II by laying the groundwork now for future investments that expand the BLA-MSA model through donor coordination and promotion of a BLA-MSA knowledge management platform.
Government Participation and Project Coordination Based on results of the pilot BLA-MSA blended approach in the coming 12 to 18 months, USAID Cambodia should pursue more opportunities for institutional learning between RGC authorities and Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II should the approach show signs of success. This may include promotion of a practitioner network and knowledge sharing platform as discussed above, as well as greater coordination of learning events with MAFF and MOC in linking Feed the Future Harvest II and RGC horticultural projects such as AIMS in which successful approaches to BLA-MSA could be jointly facilitated across the two projects.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 48
LESSONS-LEARNED
Continuum from Direct Service Provision to Facilitation The project has faced several challenges, particularly in the first year of startup, in working closely with buyers and suppliers to establish commercial partnerships (CP) that are novel and unprecedented in terms of how market actors approach one another in a business relationship. It has taken time to increase awareness and understanding of the BLA and CP contractual engagement. Due to levels of mistrust and lack of clarity and transparency in business dealings, the project has had to progressively adapt and introduce more rigorous verification and accountability measures to ensure more trust brokerage between buyers and suppliers. Thus, the project has progressively formalized measures to initiate a CP agreement, moving from MOUs to semi-formal agreements and, more recently, non-disclosure agreements (NDA). A key adjustment made by the project in this regard has been to address challenges in assessing financial readiness and creditworthiness among buyers and other market actors by instituting NDAs, business growth plans, and more robust assessment criteria for participation in CPs.
The project continues to transition from a more direct service role (training farmers on seed, fertilizer, pesticide use) to a lighter facilitation, linking suppliers to agro-dealers. FGD sessions with suppliers suggest a reliance on project staff to provide agronomic support continues, largely due to weak and unresponsive agronomic technical assistance from input retailers, particularly pertaining to pest and disease management and ineffective pesticides. The project is taking corrective measures through training activities to build more capacity of input suppliers, particularly the large firms, to provide more direct, hands on training to agro-input dealers at the local, retail level.
Target Setting Adjustments As the project continues to implement a blended BLA-MSA model, the nature of annual target setting is now under revision to reflect a more flexible approach based on adaptive management as various system elements of the model are progressively operationalized over time. The annualized structure of buyer- supplier contracts, for example, may no longer be easily tailored to address annual performance targets, given the more fluid nature of project interventions under the new MSA framework. Adjustments have now been made to track investments for all market actors to more fully capture levels of investment through the entire horticulture value chain.
Finally, the initial focus of the project on facilitating buyer-supplier partnerships is now being expanded to emphasize greater integration of input suppliers and MFIs within a broader configuration of market- based commercial partnerships.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 49
VI. ANNEXES
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 50
ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
SECTION C – DESCRIPTION / SPECIFICATIONS / STATEMENT OF WORK
C.1 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
This evaluation will assess the progress of implementation of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity (AID-442-C-17-00003) and inform its future work plans and implementation. The evaluation will assess how key aspects of the program have been implemented, what has worked and why, as well as make key actionable recommendations for USAID and the implementing partner (Abt Associates) to improve Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity’s performance for the remaining period of the award.
The primary audience of the evaluation report will be the USAID/Cambodia Mission, specifically staff of the Food Security and Environment Office and Program Office, and the Contractor’s staff involved in the implementation of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity.
The evaluation will cover the period of implementation from April 18, 2017 until September 30, 2018.
C.2 FEED THE FUTURE CAMBODIA HARVEST II INTRODUCTION
In 2009, the U.S. government launched the Presidential Initiative “Feed the Future” (FtF) as its flagship global hunger and food security initiative (www.feedthefuture.gov). Globally, FtF works from farms to markets to tables to increase incomes and decrease malnutrition, particularly among children under five. This comprehensive approach of increasing agricultural productivity, strengthening markets, and creating an enabling policy environment, is the cornerstone to achieving the Initiative’s goal of sustainably reducing poverty and hunger around the world. Cambodia is one of the 19 countries of the FtF Initiative. In each country, programming focuses on a specific geographic area called the Zone of Influence (ZOI). Cambodia’s ZOI includes the four provinces of Battambang, Pursat, Siem Reap and Kampong Thom.
The Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II activity (referred to as the Program) is intended to help USAID/Cambodia meet FtF objectives by strengthening the commercial horticulture value chains in the ZOI. USAID/Cambodia has a broad portfolio of activities in Cambodia that serve to increase food security and nutrition. USAID/Cambodia emphasizes the importance of considering the successes and lessons learned of all USAID/Cambodia FtF programs including the Helping Address Rural Vulnerability and Ecosystem Stability (HARVEST) as well as lessons from other donor funded projects.
Similarly, the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) has adopted (or, is in the process of drafting) various strategies and policies that are intended to support value chain development, market systems improvement, trade facilitation, and extension service enhancement. Key lessons learned in the agricultural development sector are being incorporated into the Program’s interventions with particular emphasis on addressing obstacles that hinder long-term sustainability of interventions and impede private sector growth.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 51
Additionally, this Program is closely coordinating all activities with other programs funded by USAID as well as those funded by other donors that complement the objectives of the Program. The Program is the primary mechanism for supporting smallholder and commercial producers and facilitating market systems development under USAID/Cambodia’s Food Security & Environment Development Objective, “Strengthening sustainable and resilient pathways out of poverty”. The Program is engaging the private sector all along the value chain to establish, develop, and/or strengthen various actors’ capacity to effectively and efficiently participate in the horticulture sector in Cambodia. Actors include those who are tangentially associated with and essential to strengthening the value chain. More specifically, the Program seeks to achieve the following: (1) Enhance the capacity for market participation among producers, agribusinesses and other value chain actors, that leads to sustainable increases in productivity and incomes of smallholder and commercial farmers, including women and youth; (2) Improve the commercial horticulture market system by building linkages among value chain actors, facilitating market information flow, and creating market incentives for private sector engagement; and (3) Improve inclusive governance and enabling environment for market-driven agricultural growth by strengthening capacity of and engagement among and between public, private, and civil society stakeholders. By achieving the three objectives, the Program will accelerate economic growth thereby reducing poverty, and increase resilience at both the household and systems levels.
(see Attachment J.1 for the full Section C – Description/Specifications/Statement of Work of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Activity)
C.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The Contractor must answer all evaluation questions below:
1. To what extent has Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II contributed to the growth of the horticulture sector (including fruits, vegetables, and nuts) in the FtF ZOI?
2. What are the observable system level changes in horticulture market transactions that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has created or facilitated and what are the opportunities there that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II should focus on to maintain horticulture sector growth? 3. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving horticulture sector actors’ capacity for market participation?
4. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving market linkages? 5. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving governance and the horticulture sector enabling environment? 6. Are there any observable results from implementing gender action plan in horticulture value chain in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II?
C.4 EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The Contractor must develop an evaluation approach and methodology to answer the proposed evaluation questions. The Contractor must apply mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative), where appropriate. The Contractor must provide the rationale behind the methods selected, why they are appropriate and how they provide rigor to answering the evaluation questions. The
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 52
approach and methods proposed by the evaluation team are subject to USAID’s approval as part of the evaluation work plan.
USAID will make the following documents such as work plans, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) plans, progress reports, technical reports, Data Quality Assessment reports, available to the evaluation team before commencement of the award to inform the evaluation design and planning. These documents are intended for use only by the evaluation team and not to be shared with any third parties, unless otherwise instructed by USAID.
Data must be disaggregated by sex, as relevant. The evaluation team must take into account gender issues when analyzing data and identify any potential gender inequality pertaining to each evaluation question as appropriate. Data collection and analysis
USAID requests that the evaluator complete the following table as part of its detailed design and evaluation plan. Please note that another format may be used if the table is not preferred, but any chosen format should contain all the information specified for each question.
Evaluation question Data source Data collection method Data analysis (including sampling method methodology, where applicable)
C.5 DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
All deliverables are internal to USAID/Cambodia and the Contractor unless otherwise instructed by USAID/Cambodia.
(1) Evaluation Work Plan: Within 14 calendar days of the effective date of the task order, the Contractor must submit the proposed Evaluation Work Plan to the TOCOR. The Evaluation Work Plan must include:
a. the anticipated schedule for the evaluation and logistical arrangements; b. proposed submission date of each deliverable in accordance with the anticipated schedule; c. the evaluation team members, including names of key personnel and proposed enumeration team composition, delineated by roles and responsibilities; and d. evaluation design including: i. a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the evaluation questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the analysis plan; ii. all data collection instruments or their main features; iii. the list of potential interviewees and organizations; and
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 53
iv. known limitations to the evaluation design. USAID/Cambodia will provide consolidated comments on the Evaluation Work Plan through the TO COR within seven (7) calendar days.
The Contractor must submit a revised Evaluation Work Plan to the TOCOR for approval within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of comments.
The Contractor must have an approved Evaluation Work Plan in place before proceeding with field work. (2) In-briefing: The evaluation team is required to have an in-brief with USAID/Cambodia in person to discuss the team’s understanding of the evaluation, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and to answer questions the team may have. The in-brief must occur within seven (7) calendar days after the team submitted draft Evaluation Work Plan. (3) Field Work – Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection: The evaluation team must complete all field work activities within four weeks following the approval of the Evaluation Work Plan by the TOCOR. It is expected that the team will be able to finish actual field work within three weeks and use one more week for data verification if needed. (4) Data Analysis and Reporting: The evaluation team must complete data analysis and reporting within the 49 calendar days following the approval of the Evaluation Work Plan by the TOCOR. (5) Regular Updates on the Field Work: The evaluation team leader must brief the TOCOR on progress made with the field work on a weekly basis, in person or by electronic communication in an informal report to be sent via email, agreed upon in advance. Any delays or complications must be communicated to the TOCOR as early as possible to allow for quick resolution and to minimize any disruptions to the evaluation.
(6) Exit Briefing Workshop: The evaluation team must hold an exit briefing workshop after field work and prior to leaving the country. The workshop should include a Power Point presentation of initial findings from the evaluation without any recommendations for possible modifications to program approaches, results, or activities. This will be a half-day workshop with approximately 50 participants, including those from USAID, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II implementing partner, and selected key horticulture actors whom the evaluation team selected for key informant interviews. The evaluation team must provide the COR with a list of potential participants for the workshop at least one week prior to the workshop date. The evaluation team must consult with the COR about workshop content and arrangement prior to the workshop date. During the workshop the evaluation team will present and facilitate the discussion about the evaluation key findings. The evaluation team must appropriately use the results from the workshop for evaluation report. (7) Draft Evaluation Report: The draft evaluation report must be consistent with the guidance provided in Section C.7 Final Report Format. The report must address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the evaluation team considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. The Contractor must submit the draft Evaluation Report to the TOCOR within 49 calendar days following the approval of the Evaluation Work Plan. Once the draft evaluation report is submitted, the TOCOR will disseminate the draft report to USAID/Cambodia and to the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II implementing partner to review and comment on. USAID/Cambodia will provide comments on the report within 14 calendar days following the receipt of the draft report (one set of comments from USAID/Cambodia and another from the implementing partner).
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 54
(8) Final Evaluation Report and Cleaned Data: The evaluation team must address/incorporate all comments/suggestions and submit the Final Report to the TOCOR within 14 calendar days of receipt of comments from USAID on the draft report. All data and records must be submitted in electronic form in an easily readable format, organized and documented for use by those not fully familiar with this evaluation. (9) Evaluation Team Composition: The evaluation team must be composed of an Evaluation Team Leader, a National Evaluation Advisor, and an enumeration team:
• Evaluation Team Leader
This is a senior-level evaluation advisor who will lead the evaluation team to design the evaluation, develop the evaluation plan, interact with USAID/Cambodia and stakeholders, implement the evaluation, including qualitative data collection and analysis, and handle and submit all required deliverables. The Team Leader will have appropriate educational level and work experience in line with the appropriate Labor Category set forth in the IDIQ in leading evaluations on agribusiness, agriculture value chains or related programs. S/he must demonstrate strong knowledge and background in the agribusiness and/or horticulture value chains sectors. S/he must have a degree in Agribusiness, Development Studies, Economics or another relevant field.
• National Evaluation Advisor
The National Evaluation Advisor will support the Evaluation Team Leader in designing, planning and implementing the evaluation, including qualitative data collection and analysis. In addition to that, s/he will ensure contextual relevance of the design and implementation of the evaluation. The National Evaluation Advisor must have a minimum of 10 years of experience in agriculture value chains or related fields, of which at least three years must be in conducting evaluations in agribusiness. S/he must have least a Master’s Degree in Agriculture, Economics, Social Studies, or another related field; a Bachelor’s degree would be acceptable with three additional years of experience. As a member of this evaluation, s/he must demonstrate strong contextual knowledge of agriculture, especially horticulture, and value chains in Cambodia.
• Enumeration Team
The local enumeration team will help the team collect and analyze quantitative data. The enumeration team will at a minimum include a Survey Team Leader, a Database Specialist, Fieldwork Manager(s) and a sufficient number of enumerators. The enumeration team members must have experience in successfully conducting similar quantitative data collection and analysis.
The TOCOR of this evaluation may join the evaluation team to observe some of the data collection efforts.
A member of the USAID/Cambodia’s Program Office staff may accompany the Contractor during data collection and/or data analysis, in both Phnom Penh and in the field. The staff will not directly participate in the data collection, responsible for writing the report findings or arranging logistics. C.6 ILLUSTRATIVE EVALUATION SCHEDULE AND LEVEL OF EFFORT
This evaluation must be completed within 16 weeks after the effective award date. This period includes preparatory work before arrival in-country and finalization of deliverables after the trip.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 55
Level of Efforts Team Leader
National Evaluation Advisor Activity/Deliverable
Submission of Draft x Evaluation Work Plan Mission’s Feedback on Draft Evaluation Work x Plan Submission of revised x Evaluation Work Plan Mission’s review and approval of the x Evaluation Work Plan Initial Briefing at the x Mission Field Work – Data x x x x Collection Data Analysis and x x x x Report Weekly Update x x x x
Exit Briefing x Workshop Submission of Draft x Evaluation Report Mission’s Feedback on x Draft Evaluation SubmissionReport of Final x Evaluation Report
C.7 FINAL REPORT FORMAT
The final evaluation report must include:
• an abstract; • executive summary; • background of the local context and the activity being evaluated; • evaluation purpose and evaluation questions; • evaluation methodology and limitations; and • findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” (https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/How-to-Note_Preparing- Evaluation- Reports.pdf) and A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 201
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 56
(https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201mah). An optional evaluation report template is available in the Evaluation Toolkit (https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/evaluation- report- template).
The executive summary must be 2–5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned.
The evaluation methodology must be explained in detail in the report. Limitations to the evaluation must be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology.
The annexes to the report must include:
• Evaluation SOW; • Detailed description of the evaluation design and methods; • Statements regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team, if any; • All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as surveys, interview questions, checklists, and discussion guides; • All sources of information, properly identified and listed (including documents reviewed, sites visited, and key informants, assuming they gave permission to be identified); • Signed disclosure of any conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, by including a statement by evaluation team members that attest to a lack of conflict of interest or describes existing conflicts of interest relative to the Activity being evaluated; and • Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the team.
In accordance with ADS 201, the Contractor will make the final evaluation report publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse within 90 days of the approval by USAID.
C.8 CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT
USAID will evaluate the quality of evaluation report based on the Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 201, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report (https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201maa). See the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit (https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/evaluation-report-checklist-and-review-template) for additional guidance.
END OF SECTION C
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 57
ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
EVALUATION ETHICS AND QUALITY STANDARDS
The Evaluation Team will comply with USAID’s Scientific Research Policy and quality standards ADS 201 and ensure that the highest ethical standards are maintained, and informed consent is obtained from all evaluation respondents, where relevant, such as during surveys, interviews, focus group discussions or other data collection sessions.
The Evaluation Team will strive to maintain high standards in methods, quality, and data security. All data collection activities will adhere to country-level Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements and the professional standards of the American Evaluation Association. All data will be handled in such a manner as to protect the identities of respondents to safeguard against situations where their comments could potentially have a negative impact on their security or community status. Confidentiality and privacy rights are guaranteed under TMG’s policies and procedures, in conjunction with gender-sensitivity and cultural- sensitivity.
Data will be disaggregated by sex at the outcome and output levels and for all people-level indicators; and geographic location (province vs. county and urban vs. rural) where appropriate. Limitations to the evaluation will be disclosed in the evaluation report, including limitations associated with the evaluation methodology, such as selection bias, recall bias and unobservable differences between comparison groups.
EVALUATION TEAM
The MTE will have three teams working collaboratively and in tandem as a holistic team to mitigate evaluation bias and challenges and accentuate quality assurance. Table 2 shows the three MTE teams, and their roles and responsibilities.
Table 2: Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II MTE Team QUALITATIVE EVALUATION TEAM (QLET) - KIIs and FGDs Core team to conduct the MTE, design the methodology, collect data (through Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), participate in briefings, provide expertise on cross-cutting issues and strategies, contribute to analysis, write the draft report and finalize the report. The Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI) will assist in the design, management, and implementation of all qualitative instruments (KIIs/FGDs) including the staffing of facilitators, notetakers and interpreters/translators for all KII/FGD data collection sessions. The Team Leader will be responsible for final review and analysis of all qualitative data.
Dr. John Magistro International Team Leader & Evaluator; Qualitative Research Specialist – Smallholder Market Development, Gender, Livelihoods, and Resilience Analysis Mr. Socheat Keo National Evaluation Advisor; Agriculture and Food Security Specialist – Research Methods, M&E CDRI Local Resource Partner Firm – Data Collection, Content Analysis 1 CDRI Interpreter/ 3 Notetakers KII/FGD Implementers 1 CDRI Female FGD Implementer Moderator/Facilitator
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 58
QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION TEAM (QNET) – FAS Survey The Survey TL and the Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI) will work with TMG on staffing the QNET to support the Evaluation Team Leader, National Evaluation Advisor and International Survey Team Leader to design and participate in Focused Assessment Surveys (FAS). This team will design the FAS survey and conduct statistical analyses including creation of graphs and tables. CDRI will schedule appointments, confirm interviews and consultations and ensure logistical support (transport, accommodation, equipment and supplies) and equipment and supplies in the field and CDRI’s home office in Phnom Penh. The teams will be provided designated work space at CDRI with access to printers, scanners and email. Dr. John McCauley International Survey Team Leader CDRI Local Resource Partner Firm - Data Collection, Quantitative Analysis 2 CDRI Enumerator Supervisor Local FAS Survey Supervisor 12 CDRI Enumerators FAS Survey Implementers TMG/HQ MANAGEMENT TEAM Mr. Jenkins Cooper Vice President of Operations Mr. Abi Fasosin Senior Strategic Advisor/Financial Management-Budgeting Mr. Jeremy Chevrier Senior Strategic & Technical Advisor/M&E Ms. Walidah Willoughby Program Manager
The Evaluation Team Leader (ETL), Dr. John Magistro, will be responsible for development of the evaluation and overall team coordination, their roles and responsibilities, assigning individual data and information collection, regular updates to USAID, and writing the report. The Dr. Magistro will lead the KII/FGD data instrument design and organize and lead an in-country training workshop for the qualitative (QLET) and quantitative (QNET) teams. The ETL will assume responsibility for the overall workshop agenda and will lead the qualitative training component. The local National Evaluation Advisor (NEA), Dr. Socheat Keo, will support the ETL with KII/FGD design and assist with workshop organization and training, supervising and conducting FGDs and KIIs, participate in briefings and key meetings and contribute to the analysis of key sections of the report. The local firm, Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI), will also support the ETL and NEA with KII/FGD design, implementation, data coding and cleaning, analysis and creation of graphs and tables for the final report. CDRI will also provide the logistical space, equipment and training support as-needed for the MTE training workshop.
The Survey Team Leader (STL), Dr. John McCauley, will lead and supervise the FAS survey design and assist with both the FAS and KII/FGD sampling frame design. Dr. John McCauley will also train and supervise an Enumerator Supervisor (ES) to be selected by CDRI. The STL and ES will work in tandem to train the enumeration team and supervise FAS survey data collection, coding, cleaning, management, analysis and write up of key findings for the final report, including preparation of supporting graphs and tables. The STL will supervise and work closely with CDRI in this effort. CDRI will support all members of the ET and the STL in the tasks cited above: designing the FAS survey questionnaires, implementing the survey, conducting data coding and cleaning, preparing key findings and generating relevant supporting graphs and tables for the final report. The STL will oversee training of the QNET at the MTE training workshop with assistance from CDRI. CDRI will assist with logistical support to the teams in the field (transport, lodging, equipment, supplies) in addition to providing office space in Phnom Penh and access to printers, scanners and email.
Evaluation Team Leader: Dr. John Magistro is an international development anthropologist with over 25 years of experience in applied research, analysis, management, and evaluation of agricultural and environmental sector programs. Dr. Magistro has more than 10 years of experience serving as a coordinator, team leader, and evaluator of USAID programs and projects operating at the nexus of smallholder market systems, food security, agricultural production, natural resource management, and climate change adaptation and resilience. He has worked extensively supporting USAID investments in economic growth and pro-poor market development in South and Southeast Asia, and in Sub-Saharan
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 59
Africa. This includes serving as Director of Planning and Impact Assessment for 6 years with a US-based INGO (International Development Enterprises) that specializes in smallholder horticultural market development, overseeing M&E and program reporting functions across 7 IDE country programs in Asia (India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Myanmar). Dr. Magistro has also served in various research, management, evaluation, and technical advisory capacities involving agricultural market development as a AAAS Fellow at USAID, US Peace Corps Feed the Future food security expert, and as a qualitative research specialist and team leader on numerous USAID ex-ante baseline studies and ex-post evaluations while employed 5 years at the University of Arizona and over the course of 10 years as a technical consultant for private and non-profit USAID contractors. His most recent evaluation experience relevant to the Team Leader position includes serving as Senior Research Scientist and Qualitative Study Specialist on the Evaluation and Learning (EVELYN) Mechanism Project for USAID’s Food for Peace Office, serving as team leader for one of three performance evaluations under the Development Food Assistance Activity (DFSA) in Niger, and co-authoring the final report (Summative Performance Evaluation of Food for Peace Title II Projects LAHIA, PASAM-TAI and Sawki in Niger, 2018).
National Evaluation Advisor: Dr. Socheat Keo is a seasoned professional with over 14 years of experience in Cambodia in multiple sectors, including: impact assessment conduction, evaluation, quality assessment and control, report authorship, and team leadership, in the context of agricultural and food security. Due to his dense experience with a variety of donor agencies, Dr. Keo has served key personnel positions in three (3) projects and contributed as an integral team member to five (5) others. Dr. Keo has collaborated with the Cambodian Development Resources Institute, Arbitration Council Foundation (ACF), the Asian Development Bank, and the Korean Development Institute (KDI). Additionally, he has extensive experience in key informant interviews, designing assessment tools, government policies and literature, data collection, and data analysis. Due to the comprehensive range of activities, studies, projects, and contributions he has made in Cambodia, Dr. Keo is considered an expert on the most recent development initiatives and the sustainable, successful impacts that have been made, as well as those that have not. Dr. Keo earned his PhD in International Agricultural Development from the University of Michigan; a Master of Arts in Economics; and an MBA in Financial Management. Dr. Keo speaks English and is a native Khmer speaker.
Survey Team Leader: The Database Specialist, Fieldwork Manager, and Enumeration Team will work under the technical direction of Dr. John McCauley. Dr. McCauley is a development and conflict specialist with over 15 years of research and field experience. He is a practitioner of evidence-based social science with training in survey, experimental, quantitative, and qualitative research methodologies. The Survey Team Leader will supervise surveys including data gathering, handling, coding, and cleaning.
Local Resource Partner: Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI) will work with TMG in providing the Enumeration Team to support the Evaluation Team Leader and National Evaluation Advisor to design data collection tools and instruments and participate in the Focused Assessment Surveys. They will also provide logistics support to the team while in the field, including their office, which is conveniently located in Phnom Penh. CDRI will schedule appointments; confirm interviews and consultations; and ensure car rental, hotel reservations, and equipment and supplies. The team will enjoy designated work space at CDRI with access to printers, scanners and email.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 60
SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION The Scope of Work (SOW) of USAID/Cambodia midterm performance evaluation80 provides guidance on the scope of the evaluation. The evaluation at the mid-point of the Activity will assess HARVEST II from its commencement on April 18, 2017 to mid-term September 30, 2018.
The Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II ZOI covers four provinces in Cambodia. The MTE will cover the four provinces, as stated in the SOW: Battambang, Pursat, Siem Reap, and Kampong Thom. In addition, key actors in the horticultural value chain (buyers, wholesalers, retailers, supermarkets) in Phnom Penh linked to suppliers in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II will be interviewed.
The Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II mid-term evaluation SOW presents six evaluation questions that will form the basis of the MTE81:
1. To what extent has Feed the Future Cambodia Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II contributed to the growth of the horticulture sector (including fruits, vegetables and nuts) in the FtF ZOI?82
2. What are the observable system-level changes in horticulture market transactions that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has created or facilitated and what are the opportunities there that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II should focus on to maintain horticulture sector growth?
3. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving horticulture sector actors’ capacity for market participation?
4. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving market linkages?
5. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving governance and the horticulture sector enabling environment?
6. Are there any observable results from implementing gender action plans in horticulture value chains in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II?
EVALUATION APPROACH83
The MTE will be conducted in three phases: (1) Desk Review and MTE Work Plan, (2) Field Phase and (3) Analysis and Report Writing. Each of these phases, including the quantitative and qualitative methodologies to be employed, are elaborated further below in this section.
80 USAID defines a performance evaluation as follows: Performance evaluations encompass a broad range of evaluation methods. They often incorporate before-after comparisons but generally lack a rigorously defined counterfactual. Performance evaluations may focus on what a particular project or program has achieved (at any point during or after implementation); how it was implemented; how it was perceived and valued; and other questions that are pertinent to design, management and operational decision making. Source: USAID ADS 201, p147 81 USAID, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II MTE SOW, Section C.3, pp. 4-5 82 Per In Brief meeting with USAID on October 29, 2018, the ET received guidance that the data available to evaluate questions 1 and 2 will be limited given the fact that the project has recently shifted from a buyer-led to a market systems development approach. Therefore, the evaluation will be learning-focused and seek to provide insights and recommendations that can better assist USAID and the IP to adjust interventions that will achieve system-level changes throughout the remainder of the project. 83 The ET will consult with the IP to receive input on sample size and selection, and identification of direct beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries for purposive sample selection.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 61
The MTE proposes an integrated methodological and analytical approach as the cornerstone for analysis of project performance and progress to date. The first, a mixed methods approach featuring Focused Assessment Surveys (FAS) and qualitative data analysis of key informant interview (KII) and focus group discussions (FGD) is discussed in the field methodology section below.
The analytical dimension will focus on a market system approach and include beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries in the mixed methods collection of data using surveys, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions84. The approach will assess evaluation criteria across six thematic areas which correspond to the six evaluation questions (EQ) outlined in Section 2.3 above. Each thematic area (EQ) will address specific Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II objectives (sub-purpose) and corresponding Key Intervention Areas (KIA). Sub-EQs will address the KIAs as evaluation criteria under each EQ.
The six thematic areas (EQs), with corresponding evaluation criteria, include:
EQ1: To what extent has Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II contributed to the growth of the horticulture sector (including fruits, vegetables and nuts) in the FTF ZOI? Evaluation Criteria: • Sales Potential • Employment Potential • Investment Potential
EQ2: What are the observable system-level changes in horticulture market transactions that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has created or facilitated and what are the opportunities there that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II should focus on to maintain horticulture sector growth? Evaluation Criteria: • Inclusive Economic Growth • Inclusive Business Strategies • Inclusive Enabling Environment
EQ3: To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving horticulture sector actors’ capacity for market participation? Evaluation Criteria: • Financial and Business Skills • Access to and Use of Market and Climate Information • Financial Opportunities
EQ4: To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving market linkages? Evaluation Criteria: • Linkages Between Value Chain Actors • Market Incentives for Private Sector Engagement and Investment • Coordination Among Commercial Partners in the Market Chain
EQ5: To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving governance and the horticulture sector enabling environment? Evaluation Criteria: • Advocacy and Coordination Platforms • RGC Capacity to Address Horticulture Constraints
84 Mixed methods data collection involving beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries is presented in detail in Section 2.4.3 below under Qualitative Methods and Quantitative Methods sub-headings.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 62
• Public-Private Dialogue
EQ6: Are there any observable results from implementing gender action plans in horticulture value chains in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II? Evaluation Criteria: • Staff Comprehension • M&E Progress • Capacity Building Activities • Access to Finance • Policy & Advocacy
Phase 1: Desk Review Phase 1 of the evaluation includes a desk review of key project documents (Annex 2) provided by USAID/Cambodia which include: Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Work Plans; Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II MEP; Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Annual and Quarterly Progress Reports; Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Baseline Survey Report; Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II indicator data, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Agricultural Policy Assessment; and Expanding the Market Systems Development Approaches of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Project.
The MTE Work Plan submitted as the first contract deliverable in Phase I is based upon review of the above documents and addresses information presented in Section C of the USAID/Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II MTE SOW.
Evaluation Questions Design Matrix An effective evaluation must draw from appropriate sources and employ the planned methodologies such that the key questions of interest can be answered. From the desk review the ET formulated an Evaluation Questions Design Matrix, outlining the six key Evaluation Questions (EQ), data sources, data collection methods and analytical methods to be used (Table 3).
Phase 2: Field Phase The field phase will commence after USAID approval of the Evaluation Work Plan, and will supplement secondary data sources with detailed information, as well as to gather information that can contribute to the validation and triangulation of the analysis. The Evaluation Team Leader will provide regular progress updates to USAID during the Field Phase in addition to TMG’s communications with USAID throughout the evaluation.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 63
Table 3. Evaluation Questions Design Matrix Evaluation Question Data Sources Methodologies Analysis Methods 1. To what extent has Feed - Professional associations85 - FAS - Modified the Future Cambodia - Project buyers (exporter, - KII with association leaders content analysis Harvest II contributed to processor, wholesale buyer, - Desk review & direct obs. - Desk analysis the growth of the collector)86 - Participant observation - Statistical horticulture sector? - Leader of agricultural cooperatives - FGD with association analysis and farmer association growers and board - Gender, - Owner/Manager of wet markets members87 location - Ago-input companies / agro-input analyses dealers - Lead firms (include Makro, Aeon, Lucky supermarkets) 2. What are the observable - Professional associations - FAS - Modified system-level changes in - Project buyers (exporter, - Participant observation content analysis horticulture market processor, wholesale buyer, - KII with market actors - Desk analysis transactions that Feed the collector)88 - Desk review - Statistical Future Cambodia Harvest II - Leader of agricultural cooperatives analysis has created? and farmer association - Gender, - Owner/Manager of wet markets location - Ago-input companies / agro-input analyses dealers Lead firms (include Makro, Aeon, Lucky supermarkets) 3. To what extent is Feed the - Beneficiary and non-beneficiary - FAS - Modified Future Cambodia Harvest II producers89 - KIIs w/ agribusiness owners content analysis improving horticulture - Buyer information - FGDs with producers - Desk analysis actors’ capacity for - Transportation records - FGDs with women - Statistical market participation? - KIIs with formal financial analysis lending institutions (banks, - Gender analysis micro-finance) 4. To what extent is Feed the - Buyers - FAS - Modified Future Cambodia Harvest II - Producers - FGDs with mixed content analysis improving market - Agro-input suppliers stakeholders - Desk analysis linkages? - Financial institutes - KIIs with new agri- - Statistical businesses & producers analysis - Observation of links - Gender, location analyses 5. To what extent is Feed the - Project legal/staff reports - Desk review of docs. - Modified Future Cambodia Harvest II - Legislative tracking - FAS content analysis improving governance and - Credit bureaus - KIIs with lenders, association - Desk analysis the horticulture sector - Min of Agriculture planning office leaders, government officials - Statistical enabling environment? - Local government offices90 - FGD w/ growers, borrowers analysis - Gender analysis 6. Are there any - Company registries - FAS - Content observable results from analysis
85 An illustrative list of provincial associations includes: Pailin Longan Farmer Association in Pailin; Orange Farmer Association, Pursat; Banteay Srey Agriculture Cooperative, Siem Reap; and Stoeng Sangkae Agricultural Cooperative, Battambang. 86 Project as well as non-project market actors will be included in data collection to address this question. 87 FGDs will be conducted with board members and producer members in the above associations and cooperatives. 88Project as well as non-project market actors will be included in data collection to address this question. 89 The project targeted market actors include buyers, producers, agro-input suppliers and financial institutes. Non-target actors include labor service groups, groups training producers by private sector grantees, and suppliers of buyers who are located outside the ZOI. 90 To include government staff from Department of Horticulture and Subsidiary Crops, Department of Plant Protection Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary and Department of Agro-Industry.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 64 implementing a gender - Professional association - KIIs with project grantees - Desk analysis action plan in horticulture membership lists and buyers (gender - Statistical value chain in Feed the - Women entrepreneurs segregated, and mixed groups analysis Future Cambodia Harvest II? - Business leaders of men, women) -Gendered KIIs – IP staff analysis - FGD with producers (gender segregated and mixed groups – men, women)91
The evaluation will be evidence-based using a mixed-methods approach, where qualitative methods - key informant interviews (KII) and focus group discussions (FGD) - will complement the quantitative data collection method - a Focused Assessment Surveys (FAS)92 - that includes both beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries from the four targeted provinces.
The mixed-methods approach will provide disaggregated data across the five market actor groups (or nexus points) for analysis by geographical area, gender and age.
Qualitative Methods The QLET will collect data using KII semi-structured question guides (Annex 3) and FGD guide sheets (Annex 4). Maximum variation sampling will be used to select a wide range of the most appropriate individuals, experts and groups to include in the KII and FGD sessions93. KIIs will be based on a semi- structured interview format with 40 stakeholders. Individuals selected for the KIIs will include implementing partner staff, female agribusiness owners, stakeholders in different value chain domains, agribusiness financiers, government officials, horticultural land owners and lessors and farm association members.
FGDs will complement FAS data collection by targeting 16 groups of suppliers who have been selected through commercial partnerships arranged by the project to meet buyers’ demands in terms of quality, quantity and price. FGDs will focus on crop specific suppliers to include: • Battambang - five FGDs by horticultural crop (longan, mango, cucumber, chili, cauliflower/cabbage); • Siem Reap - three FGDs (one cashew, two mixed vegetables); • Kampong Thom - three FGDs (two cashew, one mixed vegetables); • Pursat - one FGD (orange farmer association).
In addition, four FGDs will be arranged with non-targeted suppliers who directly have benefited from training by private sector grantees and agricultural cooperatives who have successfully accessed loans. All FGD groups will be asked to share their perceptions on value chain weaknesses and possible solutions. A combination of mixed and gender-segregated FGDs will be arranged to capture a balance of perspectives
91 FGD groups will seek views of both men and women, in mixed and gender segregated groups, Variation in age, particularly youth, will also be sought in FGD group composition. 92 Focused Assessment Surveys are rapid assessment surveys designed as short questionnaires of 5-10 questions. They elicit targeted responses across a wide range of respondents. Their main advantage over conventional surveys is that they focus participant discussion on the topic of central interest which tends to enhance honesty in responses and reduce social desirability bias as well as survey fatigue. They also allow the survey team to tailor the short questionnaires to different participant groups as appropriate and to reach a range of participants in a cost-effective manner. 93 Maximum variation sampling, a form of purposive sampling, is used to capture a variety of perspectives ranging from positive experiences of those who have benefited from Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II to those who have experienced shortcomings or negative results. This approach can also help to identify common themes that are evident across the value chain and to explore their origins. The sampling of initial interviewees will be largely pre-determined in collaboration with USAID/Cambodia and local partners, but as the interviews and discussions progress, emergent/opportunistic and snowball sampling techniques will be used to pursue interesting leads and perspectives.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 65 in terms of understanding the unique challenges that both male and female suppliers and buyers face in the value chain. These qualitative data will be complemented by government reports, business registration records (to the extent possible) and participant observation of value chain interactions and processes.
KII, FGD and direct observation data will be collected simultaneously with the collection of FAS data by the QNET. As described in Section 2.2 (Evaluation Team), the Team Leader (TL) will work in tandem with one interpreter, and one note-taker from CDRI to conduct the KII sessions, while the National Evaluation Advisor (NEA) will moderate FGD discussions with support of a note-taker from CDRI. The NEA will also supplement the TL as a second team leading KIIs with a notetaker.
Content analysis will be used to analyze the FGD sessions. Information will be organized by key themes, sub-themes and identifying attributes that link to and inform the FAS quantitative analyses. In this manner, salient quotes, observations and frequent patterns of response to specific questions can be structured and organized for analysis. Each FGD session will be digitally recorded and then reviewed and synthesized by the FGD field teams to identify key themes and sub-themes to be analyzed by gender. The results will then be used to support evidence-based findings and conclusions for each evaluation question.
Quantitative Methods A non-random snowball sampling technique94 will be used to survey approximately 500 respondents to be weighted proportionately by level of project activity across the four provinces, drawn principally from four sectors within the horticulture value chain: suppliers, buyers (collectors, wholesale buyers who have transported their products from the farm gate to markets), input suppliers, and post-harvest processors. We propose a snowball sampling strategy given the fact that beneficiaries and others implicated in the horticulture value chain constitute only a subset of individuals in the study area, so a randomized population-based survey technique would introduce inefficiencies. Instead, the enumeration team will identify an initial group of suppliers and suppliers, processors, transporters, etc. for FAS data collection. These respondents will then be asked to identify a) Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II beneficiaries within the same domain of the horticulture value chain, b) beneficiaries with whom they engage across other domains of the value chain and c) non-beneficiaries who also work in the horticulture value chain. The sampling strategy will thus yield a variety of critical and comparative perspectives.
As noted above, the quantitative data collection will rely on a Focused Assessment Survey (FAS). Focused Assessment Surveys are akin to rapid assessment surveys; they use short questionnaires meant to elicit targeted responses from respondents across a range of relevant sectors. The key advantage over conventional surveys is that they keep participants’ focus trained on the topic of central interest, which tends to enhance honesty in responses and reduce social desirability bias as well as survey fatigue. They also allow the survey team to tailor the short questionnaires to different participant groups as appropriate and to reach a range of participants in a cost-effective manner. The survey instrument includes a few basic demographic questions, 5-7 general value chain questions and a few questions tailored to respondents in each sector. The instrument will allow us to make comparisons across sectors regarding progress and constraints and will also allow us to gather information specific to each sector to better determine where potential opportunities and breakdowns may lie. The quantitative data will highlight surprises, shortcomings and unintended program consequences that will be corroborated by qualitative data findings as well.
94 Snowball sampling is defined as follows: Snowball sampling (also known as chain-referral sampling) is a non-probability (non- random) sampling method used when characteristics to be possessed by samples are rare and difficult to find. This sampling method involves primary data sources nominating another potential primary data sources to be used in the research. In other words, snowball sampling method is based on referrals from initial subjects to generate additional subjects. Therefore, when applying this sampling method members of the sample group are recruited via chain referral. Source: https://research- methodology.net/sampling-in-primary-data-collection/snowball-sampling/.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 66
The survey instrument is included in the Annex, listing the demographic questions, the general questions and the sector specific questions. Enumerators will have different versions that include only one of the sector-specific sections, so that they can efficiently administer the FAS to respondents based on their work domain. The instruments will be finalized in collaboration with CDRI prior to data collection, to ensure cultural and local appropriateness.
The Survey Team will be supervised by the international Survey Team Leader. After the training of enumerators by the Survey Team Leader and CDRI, the team will conduct the surveys in the same locations (4 provinces) in which the qualitative data collection (KIIs and FGDs) takes place, seeking out individuals in beneficiary-heavy communities but also incorporating non-partner individuals.
The Survey Plan—approach and methodology, staffing, enumerators, questionnaire and field plan—is shown in Section 4: Survey Plan.
Phase 3: Analysis and Report Writing The analysis of data for the evaluation report will include the analysis of the FAS survey data, triangulated with the analysis from the KIIs and FGDs and the information from the desk review. The KIIs and FGDs will involve qualitative data analysis, whereas the survey questionnaire will involve quantitative data analysis. For the qualitative data analysis, for example, the ET will organize the data by relevant emergent themes and sub-themes from the KII and FGD notes. A comparison of notes, with the results of the survey, will elicit deeper insights and findings. Triangulation of all data and evidence will determine the robustness, validity, and reliability of the findings.
Upon completion of the Field Phase, preliminary data analysis will be conducted by the qualitative (QLET) and quantitative (QNET) teams in country to prepare an Exit Brief Workshop (PowerPoint presentation) with initial key findings (without recommendations) for USAID, the implementing partners, and the evaluation team (ET). The ET will use the results from the workshop to incorporate in the draft evaluation report. Upon receipt of feedback and comments from USAID/Cambodia on the first draft report, a Final MTE Report will be submitted to USAID/Cambodia. The ET will ensure that the Final MTE Report adheres to all formatting requirements in the SOW95. The evaluation report will include: an abstract, executive summary, background of the local context and description of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II, the purpose of the evaluation and evaluation questions, evaluation methodology and limitations, and findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Evaluation Methodology Limitations Potential limitations of the evaluation approach and methodology are outlined in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Approach and Methodology Limitations TOOLS SPECIFICATIONS LIMITATIONS Desk & Data Activity documents, reports, studies, Review surveys etc. including cooperative agreement, annual work plans, M&E plan, progress reports (annual and quarterly) and other related documentation FIELDWORK
95 USAID, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II MTE SOW, p10.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 67
TOOLS SPECIFICATIONS LIMITATIONS Key Informant These will be open-ended qualitative Scheduling/timing challenges. Lack of Interviews key-informant interviews, with confidence, freedom of expression, or (KII) individuals or 2-3 people. expectations of what the evaluator wants to hear may bias responses. Mitigation: The evaluation team (ET) includes one senior local expert with contextual knowledge and experience; informing interviewees of the evaluation’s confidentiality and privacy policies; and the ET will frame questions in terms of improvement to aid the Activity to reach its end-of-Activity goal, targets, and success. Focus Group 16 FGDs will be used to gain Quieter individuals may either feel Discussions information and opinions from threatened or safer in a group (FGD) various groups of beneficiaries environment. (suppliers, women-owned Mitigation: The ET will deploy agribusinesses, transporters, buyers, experienced group interview skills and be post-harvest processors) targeted in mindful of group dynamics. The FGDs male and female partner groups are structured and all views and opinions are important and valid. Survey The Survey Team will conduct a Challenges of choosing participants to purposive, non-random sampling of support individuals using Focused Assessment a representative range of beneficiaries Survey (FAS) interviews involving and non-beneficiaries. beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of Mitigation: The Survey Team will work Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II. with the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II IP to identify buyers in the horticulture value chain and will sample outward using a snowball sampling approach, to identify subsequent potential participants. Given that the survey is not designed to be randomized or representative of the population but rather to target the value chain sectors, snowball sampling is ideal.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 68
Table 5: Summary of the Evaluation Plan Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Locations Battambang, Pursat, Siem Reap and Kampong Thom; Phnom Penh buyers from suppliers in ZOI Methodology Desk Review, Focused Assessment Survey, KIIs, FGDs Tools FAS questionnaire, structured KII questions, semi-structured FGD guide sheet Sampling Horticultural suppliers, women-owned agribusinesses, input suppliers, buyers (ZOI, Phnom Penh), collectors/wholesalers, processors, agribusiness financiers, government officials, horticultural land owners and lessors, trade association members Focus of • Growth of the horticulture sector Evaluation • System level changes in horticulture market transactions Questions • Improving horticulture actors’ capacity for market participation • Improving market linkages • Horticulture sector enabling environment • Observable results from implementing a gender action plan in horticulture value chains Indicators • Improved links to other sectors of the horticulture value chain • Improved efficiency in bringing goods to market • Improved incorporation of women-owned agribusinesses into the value chain • Greater autonomy and efficiency in decision-making processes • Improved preservation of produce quality through value chain processing Evaluators Quantitative Evaluation Team – Survey Team Leader, CDRI -12 enumerators, 2 Enumeration Supervisors Qualitative Evaluation Team – Team Leader, National Evaluation Advisor, 1 female moderator, 1 interpreter, 3 note-takers (CDRI)
KII PLAN
Key informant interviews will be held with a range of stakeholders and beneficiaries. The KIIs will generally be one-on-one or small group interviews with USAID/Cambodia, Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II implementing partners, sub-partners, direct and indirect beneficiaries96, community leaders, horticultural value chain actors and government officials. A general list below of stakeholders from public, private, and civil society sectors will be specified with input from USAID, the implementing partners, and those who are most closely associated with key actors in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II.
An illustrative list of potential interviews to be held include: • USAID/Cambodia program managers, staff (Project Management Specialist- Agriculture/Economist, M&E Specialist, Deputy Director) • Implementing Partner (Abt Associates) (COP, M&E Manager, Private Sector Development Specialist, Technical Expert - Agriculture Policy/Enabling Environment) • Sub-Partners (iDE, EMC) (iDE, EMC) • Government Ministry officials and Local/Provincial Government officials (e.g. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Provincial Department of Agriculture) • Village chiefs, commune council members, farmers, heads of household, villagers • Savings groups members, Micro-finance lenders • Horticultural cooperative members • Women-owned agribusiness • Regional, local trade associations • Processors • Buyers (including collectors, wholesalers)
96 Indirect beneficiaries (or non-targeted market actors) would include customers of input suppliers, and group training farmers from one of the input supplier grantees, such as East West Seed (EWS).
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 69
• Retailers (in ZOI and Phnom Penh) • Equipment, input suppliers • Business registration, regulations offices
The ET will use purposive sampling using a maximum variation sampling approach to select a wide range of the most appropriate individuals, experts, and groups to include in the qualitative data collection. Purposive sampling allows for a more strategic selection of interviewees based on the desk review and identified knowledge gaps. Maximum variation sampling, a form of purposive sampling, is used to capture a wide range of perspectives relating to the implementation of Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II components and interventions. It allows for a variety of perspectives ranging from the typical to the more extreme outliers (to capture intended and unintended consequences). It also helps to identify common themes that become evident across the sample.
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II beneficiaries include male and female members of the horticulture value chain. The ET will include both male and female qualitative data participants to ensure appropriate representation, which will be facilitated through Focus Group Discussions.
FGD PLAN Per Table 3 above, FGDs will target 16 producer groups who have been selected through commercial partnerships arranged by the project to meet buyers’ demands. FGDs will focus on crop specific suppliers as described above and will involve mixed and gender segregated groups that also cover a range in age from youth to adults and older members. The ET will conduct 12 FGDs with project beneficiaries, and four with indirect beneficiaries (or non-targeted suppliers) as noted also above (under Qualitative Methods section). This will include five FGDs in Battambang, three in Siem Reap, three in Kampong Thom, and one in Pursat.
In each province, the FGD will be scheduled for half a day, totaling two FGDs per day. The number of FGDs will vary per province as noted above. At least one day will be devoted to review of recorded sessions and full data analysis and synthesis in each province. Each day, two FGDs will be held following each other in a morning or afternoon time frame according to availability of the participants (e.g. male FGD followed by a female FGD). Each session is expected to take 1.0 to 1.5 hours.
The venue will be a quiet, sheltered setting protecting the privacy of each group in which they can feel comfortable speaking and sharing their experiences. The FGD will include structured open-ended questions. There will be a general introduction presenting the purpose of the MTE and the discussion, followed by a general opening question. This will then be followed by about 10-15 specific core questions for an in-depth discussion, and end with a concluding question. The questions will explore the six EQs as they pertain to people’s attitudes and experiences in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II’s interventions to elicit responses to the key question of whether program participation is improving their market participation and linkages.
Two teams, led by the National Evaluation Advisor (NEA) as moderator with a note-taker, and one female moderator with a note-taker will lead the discussions and manage group dynamics and the flow of the session. CDRI will provide the female moderator and note-takers who will record the discussion and manage digital recording of the session.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 70
Table 6: Summary of the Focus Group Discussion Plan and Planned Dates FGD No. PURSAT Focus Groups 1- FOCUS: VILLAGE-LEVEL INTERVENTIONS (RURAL) 2 Themes: Growth of the Horticulture Sector; System Level Changes in Horticulture Market Transactions; Capacity for Market Participation; Effectiveness of Market WEDNESDAY - Linkages, Enabling Environment, Gender and Youth THURDAY 6-8 Male Suppliers (1) NOVEMBER 6-8 Female Suppliers (1) 7-8 Age Group: Varied, including youth FGD No. BATTAMBANG FOCUS: VILLAGE-LEVEL INTERVENTIONS (RURAL) Focus Groups 3- Themes: Growth of the Horticulture Sector; System Level Changes in Horticulture 8 Market Transactions; Capacity for Market Participation; Effectiveness of Market
Linkages, Enabling Environment, Gender and Youth FRIDAY - 6-8 Male Suppliers (2) TUESDAY 6-8 Female Suppliers (2) NOVEMBER 6-8 Mixed Group Non-Targeted Suppliers (2) 9-13 Age Group: Varied, including youth
FGD No. SIEM REAP Focus Groups 9- FOCUS: VILLAGE-LEVEL INTERVENTIONS (RURAL) 10 Themes: Growth of the Horticulture Sector; System Level Changes in Horticulture Market Transactions; Capacity for Market Participation; Effectiveness of Market WEDNESDAY- Linkages, Enabling Environment, Gender and Youth THURSDAY 6-8 Male Suppliers (1) NOVEMBER 14- 6-8 Female Suppliers (1) 15 Age Group: Varied, including youth
FGD No. KAMPONG THOM FOCUS: VILLAGE-LEVEL INTERVENTIONS (RURAL) Focus Groups Themes: Growth of the Horticulture Sector; System Level Changes in Horticulture 11-16 Market Transactions; Capacity for Market Participation; Effectiveness of Market Linkages, Enabling Environment, Gender and Youth FRIDAY- 6-8 Male Suppliers (2) TUESDAY 6-8 Female Suppliers (2) NOVEMBER 16- 6-8 Mixed Group Non-Targeted Suppliers (2) 20 Age Group: Varied, including youth
SURVEY PLAN
The Survey Team (ST) will conduct the FAS survey data collection in the same four provinces targeted for qualitative data collection: Pursat, Battambang, Siem Reap and Kampong Thom. The purpose of the survey is to generate systematic, quantitative data in order to track patterns in value chain experiences among individuals in a number of implicated sectors. In collaboration with our local survey partner CDRI, the Survey Team will collect the data through face-to-face surveys with a total of approximately 500 respondents; roughly 150 in Battambang and Siem Reap and 100 in Pursat and Kampong Thom. Among those respondents, the Survey Team will aim for a partner to non-partner ratio of approximately 3:1, which will ensure greater statistical power for sub-group analyses among the partner group. Of course,
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 71 given the snowball sampling technique that we will use, we cannot stratify the sample ahead of time by sector or by beneficiary/non-beneficiary.
Preparation A Survey Team of twelve enumerators (balanced male, female) and two survey coordinators will take part in training for 3 days that includes sampling strategies, survey delivery, questionnaire content, translations, and piloting of the survey. TMG’s international Survey Team Leader (STL) will oversee the training and piloting, and the locally-based survey coordinator will oversee the data collection in the field. The Survey Team will work separately from the ET’s qualitative data collection but will coordinate wherever possible.
Sampling
Sample Size The survey is intended to complement and serve as an empirical foundation for the in-depth insights from the qualitative data collection. With this in mind, the ST elected to set the sample size to attain a margin of error of plus or minus four percent (+/-4%) at the 95 percent level of confidence. A sample size of approximately 500 is the most efficient sample size that enables the ST to achieve that degree of precision. This relatively small sample size will not have consequences for the representativeness of the survey, given that respondents will be selected non-randomly.
The ST will begin with the expectation of drawing approximately 150 respondents from Battambang and Siem Reap and 100 from Pursat and Kampong Thom. Among those respondents, we will aim for approximately 375 total beneficiaries and about 125 non-beneficiaries. Among them, the ST will endeavor to include roughly equal shares of suppliers, buyers, input suppliers, and post-harvest processors. Exact numbers will be a function of the snowball sampling process.
Selection Procedures for Communes Within each of the four provinces, the ST will collect data from communes that complement the qualitative data collection. Details for each province are listed below:
Within each province, the ST identified communes according to three criteria: 1. Between two and three communes per province, based on the availability of respondents via the snowball sampling approach. The number of surveys per commune, district, and province will vary according to the proposed weighting of data collection per province described above (approximately 150 surveys per province in Battambang and Siem Reap; 100 in Pursat and Kampong Thom). 2. Communes will correspond to those areas where the qualitative data collection takes place, identified based on heavy concentrations of beneficiaries. Specific communes will be identified in collaboration with CDRI prior to the start of data collection. 3. Commune selections were altered, if necessary, to ensure that the included communes do not all lie in the same district within each province, and in the event of difficulty in accessing any specific communes.
Sampling Procedures for Individual Respondents Sampling procedures will be similar across partner and non-partner populations given the sector-specific nature of the program activities. Details are explained below.
A. Beneficiaries
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 72
The ST will start with the names of key beneficiaries provided by the Implementing Partner as initial potential respondents. The ST will reach out to them directly via the contact information provided by the IP or indirectly through their activity leaders, taking care not to reference the USAID-funded activities as the reason for their inclusion. The ST will aim for a balance across genders but cannot pre-determine the gender stratification given uncertainties about which beneficiaries we will be able to reach when. With assistance of the IP, we will also ensure a balance across the various types of beneficiaries. Upon each initial interview, the ST will request the names of other individuals, from different horticulture sectors, who took part as beneficiaries in the program activities.
Summary of Sampling Strategy: • Target of 75 percent beneficiaries in each commune. • Identify initial beneficiaries with the assistance of the IP. • Contact individuals to set up interviews. • Conduct the survey, using the sector-specific portion appropriate for each individual based on her/his domain within the horticulture value chain. • Seek a relative balance of females and males to the extent possible. • Request names and contact information for other individuals who took part in the program, with special emphasis on crossing over to different horticulture sectors. B. Non-Beneficiaries Individual beneficiaries in each commune will be familiar with others in their horticulture sector who did not participate as beneficiaries in the program activities. The ST will request names and contact information for those individuals to serve as a comparison group. Upon contacting those individuals, the ST will request an interview and will conduct the same FAS survey as administered to the program beneficiaries. Whenever possible, non-partner respondents will not be informed of their status as members of a non-beneficiary, comparison group so as not to provoke strategic responses to survey questions.
Again, among non-beneficiaries, the ST will endeavor to include a balance of women and men and to include individuals from the different horticulture sectors.
Content The survey instrument—the questionnaire—includes three sections: basic demographic measures, a set of questions suitable for respondents from across the horticulture value chain and a series of questions tailored to specific sectors. It will be translated into Khmer for the enumerators to facilitate data collection.
The sector-specific sections of the survey instrument are color-coded for the different sectors. Data entry will use paper questionnaires97.
The general survey questions include measures that overlap with key indicator questions from existing data. This will allow the Survey Team to compare and evaluate potential changes to this point in the program life. Responses will be disaggregated by beneficiary/non-beneficiary, as well as by sector.
Analysis
97 Dictation may be considered to expedite data entry and will be explored further by the ET prior to commencing field data collection.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 73
The FAS as well as the qualitative instruments (KII, FGD) will structure the six evaluation questions (EQ) to address the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II objectives (sub-purpose) and Key Intervention Areas (KIA). We will cover the 6 EQs as thematic categories with sub-EQs that address the KIAs as evaluation criteria under each EQ.
TMG’s team of analysts will conduct multivariate analyses that control for key demographic features and determine the principal determinants of horticulture value chain progress and setbacks. Logistic and OLS regressions will be conducted using a standard software package (R, STATA, SPSS, etc.). Key outcomes will be based on differences between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Outcomes will also be disaggregated by sex to determine and differences between male responses and female responses.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 74
WORK SCHEDULE
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 75
DELIVERABLE DATES PHASE TASKS NO. DAYS DUE PHASE 1 DELIVERABLE: Draft Work Plan Within 14 CD Wed Oct 17 Desk DELIVERABLE: Final Work Plan Within 7 calendar days of Review receipt of comments Sun Oct 28 DELIVERABLE: In-Briefing Within 7 calendar days after the team submitted draft Evaluation Work Plan Mon Oct 29 PHASE 2 DELIVERABLE: Field Work – Complete all field work Field Quantitative and Qualitative Data activities within four weeks Collection following the approval of the Evaluation Work Plan Tue Nov 20 PHASE 2 DELIVERABLE: USAID Exit Brief After field work and prior to Field leaving the country Fri Nov 30 PHASE 3 DELIVERABLE: Draft Evaluation Report Within 49 calendar days Report following the approval of the Evaluation Work Plan Tue Dec 18 DELIVERABLE: Final Evaluation Report Within 14 calendar days of receipt of comments from USAID on the draft report Tue Jan 15
EVALUATION SECTION MOVED FROM MAIN REPORT TO ANNEX
Evaluation Phases and Data Collection Instruments The MTE was conducted from October 1, 2018 to January 21, 2019 in three phases: (1) Desk Review and Work Plan drafting, (2) Fieldwork (data collection in Cambodia), and (3) Analysis and Report Writing. Each phase, including the quantitative and qualitative methodologies to be employed, are summarized below and elaborated in further detail in Annex II.
Desk Review An initial one-week desk review of key project documents provided by USAID/Cambodia and the IPs was augmented with additional documents received by the ET during the field data collection phase. Illustrative examples of key Harvest II documents include: Work Plans, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan, Annual and Quarterly Progress Reports, Baseline Survey Report, indicator data, Agricultural Policy Assessment, and Expanding the Market Systems Development Approaches of [the] Harvest II Project. A full list of documents consulted for the MTE are found in Annex III.
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) The field phase entailed simultaneous data collection by the quantitative and qualitative data collection team in four provinces using FAS, KII, and FGD field instruments. Several KII questionnaires were designed for specific respondent groups, including market actors (buyers98, input suppliers, microfinance institutions (MFI), processors/exporters), government officials, IPs, and USAID Harvest II staff (Annex IV). KIIs were semi-structured, and interviewers took notes on each KII. FGD guide sheets with questions (Annex V) were designed for two groups: (1) Harvest II suppliers (growers)99 who are directly linked to Harvest II buyers, and (2) non-target groups of suppliers who have received technical training on climate smart agriculture/resilience from Harvest II grantees, and more recently in specific agronomic practices (now
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 76 termed ‘knowledge transfer’ under Harvest II)100. KIIs and FGDs were recorded and all field notes were translated from Khmer to English.
Quantitative Focused Assessment Survey (FAS) Quantitative data collection in the same four provinces involved design of a Focused Assessment Survey (FAS). Focused Assessment Surveys are essentially a rapid assessment survey using short questionnaires meant to elicit targeted responses from respondents across a range of relevant sectors. The FAS were tailored to three different respondent groups: buyer/collectors, input suppliers, and suppliers. They were administered to Harvest II partners and non-partners who serve as a control group. The survey instrument includes a few basic demographic questions, 5-7 general value chain questions and a few questions tailored to the three respondent groups. The FAS survey instrument is found in Annex VI. The evaluation team conducted the survey among 549 respondents; details on the sampling methodology are provided below. It is important to note that comparisons between partners and non-partners must be interpreted with caution, as these groups were not rigorously balanced according to pre-program attributes; producers working with the program are more likely to own land, so we cannot treat the two groups as identical. Nevertheless, the comparison provides a foundation for evaluating relative progress over the life of the program.
Analysis and Report Writing The analysis of data for the MTE involves triangulation of FAS survey data with KII and FGD observations organized by salient response patterns and thematic areas that provide contextual understanding and descriptive analyses to better interpret quantitative findings101. KII and FGD findings are organized as recurring identified factors that either facilitate or constrain the achievement of Key Intervention Areas (KIA) under each sub-purpose and evaluation question (EQ). Where possible, the ET has also used supporting secondary data from the Harvest II performance indicators to support FAS and KII/FGD data findings.
Preliminary findings based on the most salient recurring factors that facilitate or constrain achievement of KIAs were organized by EQ and presented by the Evaluation Team Leader in a three-hour morning Exit Brief session on November 30, 2018 to USAID/Cambodia Harvest II staff and the IPs with participation of ET supervisors from CDRI and the National Evaluation Advisor. Feedback from the briefing has been integrated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in this MTE report.
Field Schedule and Sampling Methodology Training of the ET in the design and administration of the field instruments was undertaken by the Team Leader and Survey Team Leader at CDRI in Phnom Penh on November 2-3, 2018 (see Annex VII). This was followed by a day of field testing of the data collection instruments in Pursat and Battambang provinces on November 5th and revision of the tools on November 6th. This was then followed by field data collection across the four provinces from November 7 – 20th.
Purposive sampling drawing from Harvest II beneficiary lists in all four provinces was used for the FAS survey and KII/FGD data collection. A snowball sampling methodology was used for the FAS survey: using a list of partners provided by the IP, the evaluation team contacted all members on the list in order to generate the sample of partners. To identify non-partners, the evaluation team began with
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 77 recommendations from partners of horticulturalist workers nearby in the same sector, and from those initial recommendations sought additional recommendations from each surveyed respondent. Selection criteria involved identifying a diversity of Harvest II partners (crops, market actors), geographical areas with an intensity of Harvest II actors and activities, and geographic accessibility given the time and logistics constraints of the ET102.
Maximum variation sampling103 was used to select a wide range of the most appropriate individuals for the FAS surveys, and for experts and groups to include in the KII and FGD sessions. KIIs represented a diversity of market actors already noted (buyers, wholesalers/processors, input suppliers, MFIs, processors, exporters, suppliers), as well as government officials at provincial levels, IP staff, and USAID/Cambodia Harvest II staff.
FAS Sampling Frame The initial sample proposed for the FAS survey was to interview 500 respondents, including roughly 150 in Battambang and Siem Reap and 100 in Pursat and Kampong Thom. Among these respondents, the Survey Team was to target a partner to non-partner ratio of approximately 3:1. Based on discussions with the Survey Team during training and difficulties in identifying sufficient numbers of Harvest II partners, the ratio was revised downward to 2:1. The final figure on surveys administered was 549 across the four provinces; 328 partners and 221 non-partners. Table 2 below provides a summary of the numbers of surveys administered by province and market actor category. For more details on the FAS sampling frame see Annex VIII. FAS surveys were administered in 18 districts and 36 communes (Figure 3) in the ZOI: • Pursat – 2 districts, 3 communes • Battambang – 6 districts, 17 communes • Siem Reap – 3 districts, 4 communes • Kampong Thom – 7 districts, 12 communes
Figure 9: FAS Sample Sites
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 78
Table 3: Sampling Frame for Focused Assessment Surveys (FAS)
Province Partner Non-Partner Total Buyer/ Input Buyer/ Input Producer Producer Collector Supplier Collector Supplier Pursat 1 11 21 7 4 16 60 Battambang 7 28 97 17 25 38 212
Siem Reap 4 9 38 5 4 8 68 Kampong Thom 7 29 76 21 21 55 209 Subtotal Partner & 328 221 Non-Partner Grand Total 19 77 232 50 54 117 549
The FAS sampling methodology is not intended to be randomized or representative of the population in the study area. Instead, because the objective was to evaluate patterns in responses among suppliers, buyers, and input suppliers, the evaluation team used targeted sampling methodologies and is confident that those included in the survey represent a range of program partners and non-partners that is broadly consistent with the population of suppliers, buyers, and input suppliers in the study area.
KII/FGD Sampling Frame A total of 43 KIIs were administered along with 16 FGDs for the qualitative portion of the evaluation104. The range of respondents among market actors, government officials, IPs, and USAID/Cambodia staff are presented by province as well as disaggregated by sex in Table 3. A detailed field schedule of all meetings held with KII/FGD respondents, including preliminary meetings in Phnom Penh are found in Annex IX. A summary of the number of respondents includes: • Key Informant Interviews (KII) – Total KIIs: 43; 32 in four provinces; 11 in Phnom Penh; • Focus Group Discussions (FGD) – Total FGDs: 16; 16 in four provinces; 12 partners, 4 non-target grantee participants (indirect beneficiaries); • Total Respondents KII – 52 (39 men, 13 women); FGD – 85 (47 men, 38 women); FGD Average Size – 5.3105; FGD Range in Size – 3-8.
KII interviews and FGD sessions were administered in 18 districts and 28 communes (Figure 4) in the ZOI: • Pursat – 1 district, 1 commune • Battambang – 6 districts, 13 communes • Siem Reap – 4 districts, 4 communes • Kampong Thom – 7 districts, 10 communes
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 79
Figure 4: KII and FGD Sample Sites
Table 4: Sample for KIIs, FGDs KII, FGD Protocol Category Total Respondents by Province Pursat Battam- Siem Kampong Phnom bang Reap Thom Penh M F M F M F M F M F Market Actors KII Buyers – Vegetables 1 2 2 1 1 3 Buyers – Fruit, Cashew 2 2 1 1 Input Suppliers 1 1 2 MFIs 2 1 Processors – Fruit 1 1 Exporters – Fruit 1 Government Ministry Representatives (MAFF, DOC) National 1 Provincial 2 1 1 2 Implementing Partners, Subcontractors Abt Associates 1 1 2 2 iDE 2 1 2 2 2 EMC 1 USAID USAID 2 1 1 14 5 6 7 3 11 5 KII Subtotal 1 19 6 10 16 KII Total 52 F Targeted Suppliers G Vegetables 10 6 5 3 1 D Fruits 5 11 1 Cashews 3 7 11 Non-Targeted Suppliers (Grantee Indirect Beneficiaries) Vegetables 3 6 8
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 80
KII, FGD Protocol Category Total Respondents by Province Pursat Battam- Siem Kampong Phnom bang Reap Thom Penh M F M F M F M F M F Fruits 5 Cashews 10 24 13 3 1 10 12 FGD Subtotal 3 10 37 16 22 FGD Total 85
Evaluation Limitations and Challenges The selection of four provinces (the Harvest II ZOI) was predetermined by USAID. As noted, partner lists provided by USAID and the Implementing Partner were used to select respondents based on criteria noted above. The ET was mindful of response bias and was explicit in their pre-interview and pre- discussion consent protocol to inform respondents that project interventions would not be influenced or determined by the nature of responses to questions. No evidence of selection or recall bias was apparent. The ET also believes the market actors interviewed were not unique or different from the average partner in the project. Among KII market actors (buyers, processors, input suppliers, MFIs) interviewed, 72 percent (18) were male and 28 percent (7) were female. These figures are nearly identical with market actors participating in Harvest II: 71 percent (197) male and 29 percent (81) female. Among FGD respondents, 55 percent (47) were male and 45 percent (38) were female. This is relatively comparable to the proportion of Harvest II suppliers: 63 percent (238) male and 37 percent (140) female106.
Challenges at the startup of field data collection for both the quantitative and qualitative teams included difficulties contacting respondents by phone on the Harvest II partners list to schedule interviews and focus group sessions. Individuals frequently did not respond to calls in which case alternate names would be selected until a contact was made by phone. This affected the ratio of partner to non-partner respondents for the FAS as larger numbers of partners could not be identified or were unavailable with short notice to be interviewed, thus non-partners were interviewed by default. The multiplicity of market actors (buyers, suppliers, processors, exporters, input suppliers, MFIs), many of whom were often away throughout the day at distant markets or other workplace settings posed significant challenges and slowed scheduling of interviews and meetings. This problem was particularly challenging for the FAS survey team.
Individuals on the provided lists often did not answer their phones and were away from their homes for myriad of reasons –working in their fields; visiting relatives; away on migration to other provinces or Thailand; changed phone numbers; wrong addresses; change of career and no longer selling agricultural inputs; repeated names; individuals on lists who were but not owners of the land being farmed; etc. As a result, the survey team was only able to achieve a 1.5:1 ratio of partners to non-partners instead of a 2:1 ratio. Despite these challenges, the survey team was still able to administer 549 interviews, well above the target of 500. The consequence of including a lower ratio of partners to non-partners is that performing analyses at additional levels of disaggregation within the subset of partners becomes more difficult to do with statistical precision, given the somewhat lower numbers. The higher number of interviews overall helps to mitigate this challenge.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 81
Due to the complexity of the sample frames which were designed to capture information from specific market actors, as well as public and private sector stakeholders, non-random purposive selection of respondents had to be used. As noted, this sampling methodology is not intended to be representative of the population, but it is broadly representative of the horticulture actors in the evaluation area. If there is bias in the FAS data, it stems from the non-random selection of partners at the outset of the program, as those selected for partnership were more likely to own land. There could also be unintended bias from the snowball sampling procedure if the process systematically excluded more or less successful partners and non-partners, but there is no reason to suggest that this occurred. KIIs and FGDs were conducted among a smaller number of targeted individuals; the purpose of those data collection strategies was to add in-depth insight. Causality cannot be firmly established, and findings cannot be generalized to other contexts, but the combination of patterns from the FAS data among partners and non-partners and the in-depth insights from qualitative data contribute to a better understanding of Harvest II results. The recurrence of qualitative themes provides additional insight and context in better understanding both strengths and weaknesses in key intervention areas of the Harvest II program.
Due to the purposive nature of sampling and problems of availability of informants on short notice, it may be possible that the KII sample is not representative of larger buyer and processor export firms which would be more likely to generate employment through CP arrangements with Harvest II. Therefore, no substantive conclusions can be drawn from KII and FGD data obtained on job creation. This obviously applies to any discernable differentiations by province or sex.
Given the complexities in the sampling frame, the relatively small sample size of 549 (a decision that was made and approved in view of the limited number of program partners at this stage) and the fairly short period of program implementation prior to the evaluation, there are fewer statistically significant findings than one might hope to see in a midterm evaluation. While the sample is large enough to reveal statistically significant differences between partners and non-partners where substantively meaningful differences exist, differences that at this stage are substantively smaller do not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. The FAS data are nevertheless useful in that, when treated as complementary to the qualitative data, they provide insight into the patterns and trends among producers, buyers, and input suppliers. The data can thus be used as a learning device, with some hints regarding potential differences between partners and non-partners and regarding the aspects of the program that seem to be generating change at this early stage. The data will also serve as a useful comparison point for tracking progress at the end of the program.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 82
ANNEX III: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abt Associates. (August 2017). Feed the Future Cambodia Agricultural Policy Assessment.
Abt Associates. (July 2017). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Initial Work Plan.
Abt Associates. (October 18, 2017, revised December 7, 2017). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Gender Action Plan. Abt Associates. (October 2017). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Baseline Report. Abt Associates. (October 30, 2017. Revised December 5, 2017). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FY17 Annual Report.
Abt Associates. (January 30, 2018). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Quarterly Performance Report.
Abt Associates. (March 2018). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Performance Monitoring and Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan. Abt Associates. (April 30, 2018, revised June 15, 2018). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Quarterly Performance Report.
Abt Associates. (July 30, 2018). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Quarterly Performance Report.
Abt Associates. (September 01, 2018, revised October 31, 2018). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FY19 Work Plan.
Abt Associates. (2018). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Draft MSD Strategy for Harvest II Discussion.
Abt Associates. (November, 2018). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II CHA Pilot Recommendations.
Abt Associates. (November, 2018). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II CHA Pilot Testing.
Abt Associates. & Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2018). Draft Agricultural Sector Master Plan (ASPM) 2030 “Crop Subsector Master Plans”.
Abt Associates. & Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2018). Draft Agricultural Sector Master Plan (ASPM) 2030 “Livestock Subsector Master Plans”.
Abt Associates. (2018). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Grant Factsheet “Investment Accelerator Program”.
Abt Associates. (2018). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Grant Factsheet “Horticulture Solutions”.
Abt Associates. (n.d.). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key FY18 Accomplishments at A Glance. Abt Associates. (n.d.). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Approach at Glance.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 83
Abt Associates. (n.d.). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II FY18 Results by Performance Indicators. Abt Associates. (n.d.). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Year 1 Project Results. Abt Associates. (n.d.). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Market System Development (MSD) Engagement Framework. Abt Associates. (n.d.). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Market System Development (MSD) Buyer Framework. Abt Associates. (n.d.). Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Commercial Partnership – Strategy Document for Engaging Buyers.
An, S., & Culas, R. J. (2015). Impact of Contract Farming with Farmer Organizations on Farmers’ Income: A Case Study of Reasmey Stung Sen Agricultural Development Cooperative in Cambodia. Australasian Agribusiness Review, 23(23), 1–11.
Center for Policy Study - CPS. (December 2017). Boosting Food Production Annual Report 2017.
Cai, J., Ung, L., Setboonsarng, S., & Leung, P. (2008). Rice Contract Farming in Cambodia: Empowering Farmers to Move Beyond the Contract Toward Independence. ADBI Discussion Paper 109.
Campbell, Ruth. (2014). A Framework for Inclusive Market System Development. ACDI/VOCA and USAID.
Christiaensen, L., & Devarajan, S. (2013). Making the Most of Africa's Growth. Current History, 112(754), 181–187.
FAO-Food and Agriculture Organization. (2014). Cambodia country fact sheet on food and agriculture policy trends.
IFAD (2016). Accelerating Inclusive Markets for Smallholders Final project design report
MAFF -Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. (2017). Annual Report 2016-2017.
MAFF -Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. (2015). Agricultural Sector Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018.
MAFF -Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. (no date). Contract Farming in Cambodia. Department of Agro-Industry.
Ravallion, M. (2001). Growth, inequality and poverty: Looking beyond averages. World Development, 29(11), 1803–1815.
RGC-Royal Government of Cambodia. (2013). Rectangular Strategy-Phase III, 2014-2018.
RGC-Royal Government of Cambodia. (2014). National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018.
Ngo Sothath and Chan Sophal (2010). The NGO Forum on Cambodia “Agriculture Sector Financing and Services for Smallholder Farmers”.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 84
Rural Development Bank (2017). Annual Report 2017
Timmer, P. (1988). The Agricultural Transformation. In Handbook of Development Economics (Vol. I, pp. 275–331). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
USAID. (June 2018). Expanding the Market Systems Development Approaches of Feed The Future Cambodia Harvest II Project. Draft Report.
USAID. (August 2018). USAID/Cambodia Integration of Real-time Data for Adaptive Management Approaches "Scoping Assessment Report".
USAID. (2017). Feed the Future: Global Food Security Research Strategy.
USAID. (January 2015). Market Systems for Resilience. The LEO Report #6.
World Bank. (2008). Growth and poverty reduction in Agriculture’s three worlds. In World Development Report 2008 (pp. 26–49). Washington DC: World Bank.
Work Bank. (2009). Cambodia Sustaining Strong Growth for the Benefit of All: A Systematic Country Diagnostic.
Some relevant links: http://aspirekh.org/home-4/ https://amis.org.kh/en/page/info-agri-market https://moc.gov.kh/aims/ https://amis.org.kh/ https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/economic-growth-and-trade/development-credit-authority- putting-local-wealth-work
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 85
ANNEX IV: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW (KII) QUESTIONS
1. Buyers KII QUESTION GUIDE Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide for Private Sector Stakeholders Buyers, Wholesalers/Collectors, Processors Date of interview: / /2018 Location Province: District: Commune: City/Village: Interviewer Name: Notetaker Name: Interviewee Name/Title/Organization: KII Category: Buyer Input Supplier Wholesaler/Collector Financial Lender Processor Crops: Interview time: Start: End:
Welcome and thank you for taking part in this interview.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF INTERVIEW My name is ……….... and I am conducting a midterm evaluation of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II project on behalf of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). My colleague ………… will assist me by taking notes. Hereafter, we will refer to the project as ‘Harvest 2’.
The purpose of this interview is to determine your experiences and opinions on whether ‘Harvest 2’ is performing well and reaching its overall goal to improve your participation and linkage to horticultural market opportunities.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT The information in this interview will be kept secure and confidential and your name will not be used in our evaluation report.
Our interview is expected to last about 1 hour.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
OK, let’s begin.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 86
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide for Private Sector Stakeholders Buyers, Wholesalers/Collectors, Processors • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants in the same group category and by province (if outside Phnom Penh) 1. GENERAL QUESTIONS Participation in Project
1.1 Describe briefly your collaboration in H2 and in what activities you are being assisted.
Also describe which crops you buy from H2 suppliers and the location of the suppliers.
1,2 How long have you been collaborating in the project?
2. INTERVENTION AREA – GROWTH OF THE HORTICULTURE SECTOR Market Growth
2.1 Since your participation in H2 has your volume of market purchases increased, decreased, or no change?
If no change, go to 2.3
2.2 If market purchases have increased, can you estimate by how much since you began participation in H2?
Ask estimated daily increase in volume purchased before H2 in kg [……………………] and since H2 in kg [……………………..]
a. Since your participation in H2 has your volume of market sales increased, decreased, or no change?
If no change, go to 2.6
2.4 If market sales in H2 have increased, can you estimate by how much since you began participation in H2?
Ask estimated daily increase in volume sold before H2 in kg [……………………] and since H2 in kg [……………………..]
2.5 To what do you attribute your change in purchase and sales volume?
Do not ask for the answers below – open ended question
- Participation in H2 project activities (specify activities)
- Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
- A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
2.6 Since your participation in H2, have your investment opportunities increased, decreased, or no change?
Investment opportunity = accessing more credit, purchasing equipment or technologies
If no change, go to 2.8
2.7 To what do you attribute your change in investment opportunities?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 87
Do not ask for the answers below – open ended question
- Participation in H2 project activities (specify activities)
- Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
- A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
2.8 How can H2 better assist you to improve your capacity to grow as a business?
3. INTERVENTION AREA: CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION Market Participation
3.1 Do you believe training or assistance you have received from H2 has improved your capacity to find new clients and improve your market opportunities? Y/N If Yes, or No, why?
Market participation = ability to increase market share (volume of sales and earnings) by improving financial and business skills, access to market information, input suppliers, micro-finance lenders, or other agricultural/business services in H2
3.2 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in improving your capacity to find new clients and improve your market opportunities?
3.3 How can H2 better assist you to improve your capacity to find new clients and improve your market opportunities?
4. INTERVENTION AREA: IMPROVING MARKET LINKAGES Market Linkages
4.1 Since your collaboration in H2, has your relationship (or your interactions) with your business clients through H2 improved, declined, or no change?
Relationship = the quality of your interaction with your business client – is there now more stability, reliability, trust, fairness, transparency in the relationship than before H2?)
If no change, go to 4.3
4.2 If there has been a change, to what do you attribute this change?
Do not ask for the answers below – open ended question
- Participation in H2 project activities (specify activities)
- Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
- A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
4.3 How can H2 better assist you to improve your relationship (or your interactions) with your clients?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 88
5. INTERVENTION AREA: HORTICULTURE SECTOR ENABLING ENVIRONMENT Enabling Environment
5.1 Did you participate in a public-private dialogue or other networking events such as Business to Business (B2B) workshop (or stakeholder meetings) through H2?
If yes, when and what event/s?
5.2 Since your collaboration in H2 has your ability to network with public or private sector actors improved, declined, or no change?
If no change, why? Then go to 5.4
5.3 If there has been a change, to what do you attribute this change?
Do not ask for the answers below – open ended question
- Participation in H2 project activities (specify activities)
- Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
- A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
5.4 How can H2 better assist you to improve your capacity to network and improve relations with other actors in your horticultural sector?
6. INTERVENTION AREA: RESULTS OF GENDER ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Gender and Youth – Social Inclusion
6.1 Does your business employ women and/or youth? Y/N
Note role or task and how long, if possible
6.2 If so, for how long have you employed women and/or youth and what percentage of your total labor force do they currently represent?
7. IMPLEMENTATION & RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations - Continuous improvement
7.1 With respect to H2 interventions supporting your business, overall, what do you feel is working and what is not?
7.2 Are there any recommendations you would make to improve H2 collaboration with your business or any other key partners in the project?
EXTRA OBSERVATIONS:
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 89
2. Input Suppliers KII QUESTION GUIDE Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide for Private Sector Stakeholders Agro-Input Suppliers and Grantees Date of interview: / /2018 Location Province: District: Commune: City/Village: Interviewer Name: Notetaker Name: Interviewee Name/Title/Organization: Interview time: Start: End:
Welcome and thank you for taking part in this interview.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF INTERVIEW My name is ……….... and I am conducting a midterm evaluation of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II project on behalf of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). My colleague ………… will assist me by taking notes. Hereafter, we will refer to the project as ‘Harvest 2’.
The purpose of this interview is to determine your experiences and opinions on whether ‘Harvest 2’ is performing well and reaching its overall goal to improve your participation and linkage to horticultural market opportunities.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT The information in this interview will be kept secure and confidential and your name will not be used in our evaluation report.
Our interview is expected to last about 1 hour.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
OK, let’s begin.
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide for Private Sector Stakeholders Agro-Input Suppliers and Grantees • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants in the same group category and by province (if outside Phnom Penh) I. GENERAL QUESTIONS Participation in Project
1,1 How long have you been collaborating in H2?
1.2 With the assistance of H2, who are you providing services to (buyers, suppliers, wholesalers/collectors, processors)?
1.3 Briefly describe the kinds of services you are providing in H2.
2 INTERVENTION AREA – GROWTH OF THE HORTICULTURE SECTOR Market Growth 2.1 Since your participation in H2 has your volume of market sales or services provided to H2 clients increased, decreased, or no change?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 90
If no change, why? Then go to 2.4
2.2 Can you estimate by how much your market sales and services to H2 clients have increased?
Ask estimated monthly or annual increase in sales and services before H2 in riel [……………………] and since H2 in riel [……………………..]
2.3 Since your participation in H2, are you receiving or giving new loans or credit (cash, input supplies) to your H2 clients? Y/N If Yes, who are you receiving or giving new loans or credit (cash, input supplies) to? (buyers, suppliers, wholesalers/collectors, processors, other)
2.4 How can H2 better assist you to improve your capacity to grow as a business?
3 INTERVENTION AREA: CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION Market Participation
3.1 Do you believe training or assistance you have received from H2 has improved your capacity to find new clients and improve your market opportunities? Y/N
If Yes, or No, why?
Market participation = ability to increase market share (volume of sales and earnings) by improving financial and business skills, access to market information, input suppliers, micro-finance lenders, or other agricultural/business services in H2
3.2 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in improving your capacity to find new clients and improve your market opportunities?
3.3 How can H2 better assist you to improve your capacity to find new clients and improve your market opportunities?
4 INTERVENTION AREA: IMPROVING MARKET LINKAGES Market Linkages
4.3 Since your collaboration in H2, has your relationship (or your interactions) with your business clients through H2 improved, declined, or no change?
Relationship = the quality of your interaction with your business client – is there now more stability, reliability, trust, fairness, transparency in the relationship than before H2?)
If no change, go to 4.3
4.4 If there has been a change, to what do you attribute this change?
Do not ask for the answers below – open ended question
- Participation in H2 project activities (specify activities)
- Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
- A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 91
4.4 How can H2 better assist you to improve your relationship (or your interactions) with your clients?
5 INTERVENTION AREA: HORTICULTURE SECTOR ENABLING ENVIRONMENT Enabling Environment
5.5 Did you participate in a public-private dialogue or other networking events such as Business to Business (B2B) workshop (or stakeholder meetings) through H2?
If yes, when and what event/s?
5.6 Since your collaboration in H2 has your ability to network with public or private sector actors improved, declined, or no change?
If no change, why? Then go to 5.4
5.7 If there has been a change, to what do you attribute this change?
Do not ask for the answers below – open ended question
- Participation in H2 project activities (specify activities)
- Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
- A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
5.8 How can H2 better assist you to improve your capacity to network and improve relations with other actors in your horticultural sector?
6 INTERVENTION AREA: RESULTS OF GENDER ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Gender and Youth – Social Inclusion
6.1 Does your business employ women and/or youth? Y/N
Note role or task and how long, if possible
` 6.2 If so, for how long have you employed women and/or youth and what percentage of your total labor force do they currently represent?
7 IMPLEMENTATION & RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations - Continuous improvement
7.3 With respect to H2 interventions supporting your business, overall, what do you feel is working and what is not?
7.4 Are there any recommendations you would make to improve H2 collaboration with your business or any other key partners in the project?
`
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 92
3. Financial Lenders KII QUESTION GUIDE Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide for Private Sector Stakeholders Financial Lenders and Grantees Date of interview: / /2018 Location Province: District: Commune: City/Village: Interviewer Name: Notetaker Name: Interviewee Name/Title/Organization: Interview time: Start: End:
Welcome and thank you for taking part in this interview.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF INTERVIEW My name is ……….... and I am conducting a midterm evaluation of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II project on behalf of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). My colleague ………… will assist me by taking notes. Hereafter, we will refer to the project as ‘Harvest 2’.
The purpose of this interview is to determine your experiences and opinions on whether ‘Harvest 2’ is performing well and reaching its overall goal to improve your participation and linkage to horticultural market opportunities.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT The information in this interview will be kept secure and confidential and your name will not be used in our evaluation report.
Our interview is expected to last about 1 hour.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
OK, let’s begin.
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide for Private Sector Stakeholders Financial Lenders and Grantees • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants in the same group category and by province (if outside Phnom Penh) II. GENERAL QUESTIONS Participation in Project
1,1 How long have you been collaborating in H2?
2.2 With the assistance of H2, who are you providing services to (buyers, suppliers, wholesalers/collectors, processors, input suppliers)?
2.3 Briefly describe the kinds of services you are providing in H2. 2. INTERVENTION AREA – GROWTH OF THE HORTICULTURE SECTOR Market Growth 2.1 Since your participation in H2 have the number of loans to H2 clients increased, decreased, or no change?
If no change, why? Then go to 2.4
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 93
2.2 Can you estimate by how much your volume of loans (in riel) to H2 clients have increased?
Ask estimated monthly or annual increase in loan volume in riel to H2 clients [……………………..]
2.3 Since your participation in H2, who are the H2 clients you are providing loans to? (buyers, suppliers, wholesalers/collectors, processors, input suppliers)
2.4 How can H2 better assist you to improve your capacity to grow as a business?
3. INTERVENTION AREA: CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION Market Participation
3.4 Do you believe training or assistance you have received from H2 has improved your capacity to find new clients and improve your market opportunities? Y/N
If Yes, or No, why?
Market participation = ability to increase market share (volume of sales and earnings) by improving financial and business skills, access to market information, input suppliers, micro-finance lenders, or other agricultural/business services in H2
3.5 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in improving your capacity to find new clients and improve your market opportunities?
3.6 How can H2 better assist you to improve your capacity to find new clients and improve your market opportunities?
4. INTERVENTION AREA: IMPROVING MARKET LINKAGES Market Linkages
4.5 Since your collaboration in H2, has your relationship (or your interactions) with your business clients (buyers, wholesalers/collectors, suppliers, input suppliers, processors) through H2 improved, declined, or no change?
Relationship = the quality of your interaction with your business client – is there now more stability, reliability, trust, fairness, transparency in the relationship than before H2?)
If no change, go to 4.3
4.2 What are the major constraints among your H2 clients, especially suppliers, to access loans from your institution? (interest rate of loan, collateral or assets required like amount of land, other)
7.3 What can be done to improve the ability of suppliers to access loans for horticultural production?
7.4 How can H2 better assist you to improve your relationship (or your interactions) with your business clients (buyers, wholesalers/collectors, suppliers, input suppliers, processors)?
5. INTERVENTION AREA: HORTICULTURE SECTOR ENABLING ENVIRONMENT Enabling Environment
5.9 Did you participate in a public-private dialogue or other networking events such as Business to Business (B2B) workshop (or stakeholder meetings) through H2?
If yes, when and what event/s?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 94
5.10 Since your collaboration in H2, has your ability to network with public or private sector actors improved, declined, or no change?
If no change, why? Then go to 5.4
5.11 If there has been a change, to what do you attribute this change?
Do not ask for the answers below – open ended question
- Participation in H2 project activities (specify activities)
- Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
- A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
5.12 How can H2 better assist you to improve your capacity to network and improve relations with other actors in your horticultural sector?
6. INTERVENTION AREA: RESULTS OF GENDER ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Gender and Youth – Social Inclusion
6.1 Does your business employ women and/or youth (age 15-29)? Y/N
Note role or task and how long, if possible
6.2 If so, for how long have you employed women and/or youth and what percentage of your total labor force do they currently represent?
7. IMPLEMENTATION & RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations - Continuous improvement
7.5 With respect to H2 interventions supporting your business, overall, what do you feel is working and what is not?
7.6 Are there any recommendations you would make to improve H2 collaboration with your business or any other key partners in the project?
EXTRA OBSERVATIONS:
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 95
4. Government KII QUESTION GUIDE Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide Local & National Government Ministries and Departments Date of interview: 12 / 11 /2018 Location Province: District: Commune: City/Village: Interviewer Name: Notetaker Name: Interviewee Name/Title/Organization: Interview time: Start: End:
Welcome and thank you for taking part in this interview.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF INTERVIEW My name is ……….... and I am conducting a midterm evaluation of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II project on behalf of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). My colleague ………… will assist me by taking notes. Hereafter, we will refer to the project as ‘Harvest 2’.
The purpose of this interview is to determine your experiences and opinions on whether ‘Harvest 2’ is performing well and reaching its overall goal to improve your participation and linkage to horticultural market opportunities.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT The information in this interview will be kept secure and confidential and your name will not be used in our evaluation report.
Our interview is expected to last about 1.5 hours.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
OK, let’s begin.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 96
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide Local & National Government Ministries and Departments • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants and generally the province is identified (if outside Phnom Penh) I. DESIGN AND COLLABORATION Partnership, Collaboration, Effectiveness
1.1 What have been the areas of collaboration of your office with H2?
1.2 Which crops have you been working with in H2?
1.3 When did your office begin to collaborate in the project?
2 INTERVENTION AREA – GROWTH OF THE HORTICULTURAL SECTOR Market Growth First, explain the term ‘horticulture sector’.
2.1 In general, do you believe the growth potential of the horticulture sector is being achieved in your region/province? Y/N If Y, or N, why?
2.2 Do you believe H2 has been effective in increasing sales, employment, and/or investment opportunities in the horticulture sector among buyers and/or suppliers in your area of intervention? Y/N If Y (or N), why?
2.3 What would you propose to improve the effectiveness of H2 in facilitating sales, employment, and/or investment opportunities among buyers and/or suppliers in your area of intervention?
3 INTERVENTION AREA – SYSTEM LEVEL CHANGES IN HORTICULTURE MARKET TRANSACTIONS System Level Changes One market systems feature is a relationship of trust, reliability, and transparency between market actors.
3.1 Do you believe there are systemic problems in the horticulture sector in your region/province? Y/N
3.2 If yes, what are those systemic problems?
3.3 How can H2 help address or resolve those systemic problems?
4 INTERVENTION AREA: CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION Market Participation
4.1 Do you believe market participation capacity (i.e., financial and business skills, access to and use of market information, and financial opportunities) among H2 buyers and/or suppliers in your area has improved? Y/N If Y, or N, why?
4.2 What would you propose to improve market participation capacity (i.e., financial and business skills, access to and use of market information, and financial opportunities) among H2 buyers and/or suppliers in your area?
5 INTERVENTION AREA: IMPROVING MARKET LINKAGES Market Linkages Market linkages involves the commercial partnership linking buyers to suppliers.
5.1 Do you believe market linkages among H2 buyers and/or suppliers in your area have improved? Y/N If Y, or N, why?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 97
5.2 What would you propose to improve market linkages among H2 buyers and/or suppliers in your area of intervention?
6 INTERVENTION AREA: HORTICULTURE SECTOR ENABLING ENVIRONMENT Enabling Environment Business enabling environment activities include – policy, regulations, and public-private dialogue.
6.1 Did you participate in a public-private dialogue or other networking events such as Business to Business (B2B) workshop (or stakeholder meetings – Public-Private Dialogue) through H2? If yes, when and what event/s?
6.2 Since your collaboration in H2 has your ability to network with public or private sector actors improved, declined, or no change?
If no change, why? Then go to 6.4
6.3 Are there activities that H2 is implementing that are contributing to a more effective business (enabling) environment among buyers and/or suppliers in your area? Y/N If Y, or N, why?
6.4 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in improving the business environment among buyers and/or suppliers in your area?
6.5 Describe any H2 activities that are exceeding or falling short of your expectations in improving the business environment among buyers and/or suppliers in your area?
7 INTERVENTION AREA: RESULTS OF GENDER ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Gender and Youth – Social Inclusion
7.1 Do you believe participation of women and youth in market activities in your area is sufficient? Y/N
7.2 If no, why and what activities should be introduced or added?
8 IMPLEMENTATION & RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations - Continuous improvement
8.1 Overall, what do you feel is working and what is not in H2?
8.2 Are there any recommendations you would make to improve H2 performance in areas of collaboration with your office or any other key partners (buyers and/or suppliers) in the project?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 98
5. Implementing Partners KII QUESTION GUIDE Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide Implementing Partner & Sub-Partners/NGOs Date of interview: / /2018 Location Province: District: Commune: City/Village: Interviewer Name: Notetaker Name: Interviewee Name/Title/Organization: Interview time: Start: End:
Welcome and thank you for taking part in this interview.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF INTERVIEW My name is ……….... and I am conducting a midterm evaluation of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II project on behalf of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). My colleague ………… will assist me by taking notes. Hereafter, we will refer to the project as ‘Harvest 2’.
The purpose of this interview is to determine your experiences and opinions on whether ‘Harvest 2’ is performing well and reaching its overall goal to improve your participation and linkage to horticultural market opportunities.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT The information in this interview will be kept secure and confidential and your name will not be used in our evaluation report.
Our interview is expected to last about 1 hour.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
OK, let’s begin.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 99
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide Implementing Partner & Sub-Partners/NGOs • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants in the same group category and by province (if outside Phnom Penh) 1. GENERAL QUESTIONS Roles, Responsibilities, Management
1.1 Describe briefly your role and responsibilities in the project.
1.2 How long have you been serving in this capacity in the project?
1.3 Are there any issues of staffing management (turnover, performance, other) among H2 partners (including outside H2 such as grantees like AMK, East West Seed) that have an impact on project performance (positive, or negative)?
1.4 If so, specify which partner groups/organizations and at what administrative level (national, provincial, district, sub-district).
2. INTERVENTION AREA: GROWTH OF THE HORTICULTURAL SECTOR Market Growth – there are three measures of growth potential of the horticultural sector under Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II – sales, employment, and investment.
2.1 Do you believe growth potential in the areas of sales, employment, or investment is being achieved to date? Y/N
2.2 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in achieving the anticipated growth objectives of H2 thus far?
2.3 If there have been challenges what has been your strategy to address them?
2.4 Are there any successes or unexpected positive results (e.g., sales targets) in achieving the growth objectives of H2 thus far? Y/N If so, please describe them.
2.5 Are there any unexpected negative results or unintended consequences in addressing the growth objectives of H2 thus far? If so, please describe them, and what measures you have taken to address any negative consequences.
3. INTERVENTION AREA: SYSTEM LEVEL CHANGES IN HORTICULTURE MARKET TRANSACTIONS System Level Changes – there are three key characteristics of market systems transactions – inclusive economic growth, inclusive business strategies, and an inclusive enabling environment. These feature a suite of sentinel indicators that include diversity, innovation, and perceived trust and reliability along with other transactional features among market actors.
3.1 Do you believe there are systemic problems in the horticulture sector? Y/N
3.2 If yes, what are those systemic challenges?
3.3 How can H2 help address or resolve those systemic challenges?
3.4 Are there any improved practices or changes that you feel can be sustained over time?
4. INTERVENTION AREA: CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION Market Participation – Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is implementing several interventions to bolster capacity for market participation. These include: enhancing financial and business skills, access to and use of market, and financial opportunities.
4.1 Do you believe the capacity for market participation among H2 partners is being improved? Y/N
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 100
4.2 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in improving market participation among H2 partners?
4.3 Describe any results (quantitative or qualitative) that are exceeding or falling short of your expectations in terms of improving market participation among H2 partners in the horticultural sector.
4.4 If falling short what has been your strategy to adapt to unmet expectations?
5. INTERVENTION AREA: IMPROVING MARKET LINKAGES Market Linkages - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is implementing several interventions to improve market linkages among actors in the horticulture subsector. These include facilitating: linkages between value chain actors, market incentives for private sector engagement and investment, and coordination among commercial partners in the market chain.
5.1 Do you believe market linkages among H2 partners are being improved? Y/N
5.2 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in improving market linkages among H2 partners?
5.3 Describe any results (quantitative or qualitative) that are exceeding or falling short of your expectations in terms of improving market linkages among H2 partners. .
5.4 If falling short what has been your strategy to adapt to unmet expectations?
6. INTERVENTION AREA: HORTICULTURE SECTOR ENABLING ENVIRONMENT Enabling Environment - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is implementing several interventions to strengthen the horticulture sector enabling environment. These include facilitating: horticulture sector advocacy and coordination platforms, RGC capacity to address horticulture constraints, and encouraging public-private dialogue.
6.1 Are there activities that H2 is implementing that are contributing to a more effective business (enabling) environment? Y/N
6.2 Are there policy-related issues at the field level that the project is or could be addressing?
6.3 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in improving the business environment among H2 partners?
6.4 Describe any policy-related activities that are exceeding or falling short of your expectations in improving the business environment among H2 partners?
6.5 If falling short what has been your strategy to adapt to unmet expectations?
7. INTERVENTION AREA: RESULTS OF GENDER ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 101
Gender Action Plan – Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is implementing several interventions to promote more inclusive participation of women and youth as market actors in the horticultural sector. This also includes increasing awareness among IP staff members as well as Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II beneficiaries of the added value of having a more diverse and equitable labor force that benefits a broader segment of the population. This includes facilitating: greater staff comprehension of increased gender and youth participation in the horticultural sector, M&E progress toward achieving that objective, capacity building activities to promote more inclusive market linkages and participation, more inclusive access to finance, and policy & advocacy activities to promote more inclusive market participation.
7.1 Do you believe participation of gender and youth in H2 activities is sufficient thus far? Y/N
7.2 If no, why and what activities should be introduced/added?
7.3 What have been the constraints/challenges in engaging inclusion of gender and youth in H2 activities thus far?
7.4 Describe any results to date that are exceeding or falling short of your expectations in terms of improving gender and youth participation in H2 activities.
7.5 If falling short what has been your strategy to adapt to unmet expectations?
8 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations - Continuous improvement
8.1 What recommendations do you have to improve H2 performance in achieving the project’s objectives of growth, market participation and linkages, and improved governance of the horticulture sector?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 102
6. USAID KII QUESTION GUIDE Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide USAID Date of interview: / /2018 Location Province: District: Commune: City/Village: Interviewer Name: Notetaker Name: Interviewee Name/Title/Organization: Interview time: Start: End:
Welcome and thank you for taking part in this interview.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF INTERVIEW My name is ……….... and I am conducting a midterm evaluation of the Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II project on behalf of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). My colleague ………… will assist me by taking notes. Hereafter, we will refer to the project as ‘Harvest 2’.
The purpose of this interview is to determine your experiences and opinions on whether ‘Harvest 2’ is performing well and reaching its overall goal to improve your participation and linkage to horticultural market opportunities.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT The information in this interview will be kept secure and confidential and your name will not be used in our evaluation report.
Our interview is expected to last about 1 hour.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
OK, let’s begin.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 103
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Key Informant Interview Guide USAID • Introduction / Mention privacy and confidentiality - answers will be grouped with the answers of other participants in the same group category and by province (if outside Phnom Penh) I. INTERVENTION AREA: GROWTH OF THE HORTICULTURAL SECTOR Market Growth Potential – there are three measures of growth potential of the horticultural sector under Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II – sales, employment, and investment.
1.1 Do you believe growth potential in the areas of sales, employment, or investment is being achieved to date? Y/N
1.2 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in achieving the anticipated growth objectives of H2 thus far?
1.3 If there have been challenges what has been USAID’s strategy to address them?
1.4 Are there any successes or unexpected positive results (e.g., sales targets) in achieving the growth objectives of H2 thus far? Y/N If so, please describe them.
1.5 Are there any unexpected negative results or unintended consequences in addressing the growth objectives of H2 thus far?
1.6 If so, please describe them, and what measures USAID has taken to address any negative consequences.
II. INTERVENTION AREA: SYSTEM LEVEL CHANGES IN HORTICULTURE MARKET TRANSACTIONS System Level Changes – there are three key characteristics of market systems transactions – inclusive economic growth, inclusive business strategies, and an inclusive enabling environment. These feature a suite of sentinel indicators that include diversity, innovation, and perceived trust and reliability along with other transactional features among market actors.
2.1 Do you believe there are systemic problems in the horticulture sector? Y/N
2.2 If yes, what are those systemic challenges?
2.3 How can H2 help address or resolve those systemic challenges?
2.4 Are there any improved practices or changes that you feel can be sustained over time?
III. INTERVENTION AREA: CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION Market Participation –Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is implementing several interventions to bolster capacity for market participation. These include: enhancing financial and business skills, access to and use of market and climate information, and financial opportunities.
3.1 Do you believe the capacity for market participation among H2 partners is being improved? Y/N
3.2 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in improving market participation among H2 partners?
3.3 Describe any results (quantitative or qualitative) that are exceeding or falling short of your expectations in terms of improving market participation among H2 partners in the horticultural sector.
3.4 If falling short what has been USAID’s strategy to adapt to unmet expectations?
IV. INTERVENTION AREA: IMPROVING MARKET LINKAGES
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 104
Market Linkages - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is implementing several interventions to improve market linkages among actors in the horticulture subsector. These include facilitating: linkages between value chain actors, market incentives for private sector engagement and investment, and coordination among commercial partners in the market chain.
4.1 Do you believe market linkages among H2 partners are being improved? Y/N
4.2 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in improving market linkages among H2 partners?
4.3 Describe any results (quantitative or qualitative) that are exceeding or falling short of your expectations in terms of improving market linkages among H2 partners.
4.3 If falling short what has been USAID’s strategy to adapt to unmet expectations?
V. VI. INTERVENTION AREA: HORTICULTURE SECTOR ENABLING ENVIRONMENT Enabling Environment - Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II is implementing several interventions to strengthen the horticulture sector enabling environment. These include facilitating: horticulture sector advocacy and coordination platforms, RGC capacity to address horticulture constraints, and encouraging public-private dialogue.
5.1 Are there activities that H2 is implementing that are contributing to a more effective business (enabling) environment? Y/N
5.2 Are there policy-related issues at the field level that the project is or could be addressing?
5.3 What have been the positive factors or constraints/challenges in improving the business environment among H2 partners?
5.4 Describe any policy-related activities that are exceeding or falling short of your expectations in improving the business environment among H2 partners?
5.5 If falling short what has been USAID’s strategy to adapt to unmet expectations?
VII. INTERVENTION AREA: RESULTS OF GENDER ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Gender Action Plan – H2 is implementing several interventions to promote more inclusive participation of women and youth as market actors in the horticultural sector. This also includes increasing awareness among IP staff members as well as H2 beneficiaries of the added value of having a more diverse and equitable labor force that benefits a broader segment of the population. This includes facilitating: greater staff comprehension of increased gender and youth participation in the horticultural sector, M&E progress toward achieving that objective, capacity building activities to promote more inclusive market linkages and participation, more inclusive access to finance, and policy & advocacy activities to promote more inclusive market participation.
6.1 Do you believe participation of gender and youth in H2 activities is sufficient thus far? Y/N
6.2 If no, why and what activities do you feel should be introduced/added?
6.3 What have been the constraints/challenges in engaging gender and youth in H2 activities thus far?
6.4 Describe any results to date that are exceeding or falling short of your expectations in terms of improving gender and youth participation in H2 activities.
6.5 If falling short what has been USAID’s strategy to adapt to unmet expectations?
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations - Continuous improvement
7.1 What recommendations do you have to improve H2 performance in achieving the project’s objectives of growth, market participation and linkages, and improved governance of the horticulture sector?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 105
ANNEX V: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDESHEETS
FGD QUESTION GUIDE Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Focus Group Discussion SUPPLIERS
Date of interview: / /2018 Recording Number: Province: District: Commune: City/Village: Interviewer Name: Observations: Notetaker Name: Interview time: Start: End:
Age Group Male Female Education Male Female 15 – 29 No education 30 – 49 Primary (1-6) 50+ Secondary (7-12) Post-secondary (13+) Adult literacy
1. GENERAL QUESTIONS 1.1 When did this group become connected to buyers, input suppliers, micro-finance lenders, or other business services in H2?
1.2 Please describe the specific activities in which H2 has assisted in linking you to buyers, input suppliers, micro-finance lenders, market information, or other agricultural/business services relating to your crop production.
2. INTERVENTION AREA – MARKET GROWTH 2.1 What crop/s do you grow for your buyer/s in H2?
2.2 Since your linkage to a buyer/s in H2, has your production increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 106
Ask estimated annual increase in production before H2 in kg [……………………] and since H2 in kg [……………….…]
If no change, why? Then, go to 2.4.
2.3 Why has your production changed? 2.3.1 Participation in H2 project activities (specify activities)
2.3.2 Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
2.3.3 A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
2.4 Since your linkage to a buyer/s in H2, has the amount or volume of crops you sell to a buyer/s increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
Ask estimated annual increase in amount or volume of crops sold before H2 in kg [……………………] and since H2 in kg […………………..]
If no change, why? Then, go to 2.6.
2.5 Why has the amount or volume of crops that you sell changed? 2.5.1 Participation in H2 project activities (specify activities)
2.5.2 Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
2.5.3 A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
2.6 Since your linkage to a buyer/s in H2, has your area of production (size or amount of land you farm) increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
If no change, why? Then, go to 2.8.
2.7 Why has your area of production changed?
2.7.1 Participation in H2 project activities (specify activities)
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 107
2.7.2 Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
2.7.3 A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
2.8 Do you feel that your relationship with your buyer has improved since participation in H2? Y/N
Relationship = the quality of your interaction with your buyer – is there now more stability, reliability, trust, fairness, transparency in the relationship?)
If Yes, or No, why?
2.9 What could the project do better to assist you to increase (or improve the volume or amount) of your sales and/or improve your relationship to the buyer?
3. INTERVENTION AREA: CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION 3.1 Do you believe training or assistance you have received from H2 has improved your capacity to find new clients and improve your market opportunities? Y/N If Yes, or No, why?
3.2 Can you meet the demand of your H2 buyer? Y/N
If Yes, or No, why?
3.3 If you could find more buyers to sell at the same price of your H2 buyer, would you be able and willing to grow more and increase production?
If Yes, or No, why?
3.4 Do they feel conditions to obtain credit from MFIs are reasonable or fair? Y/N
If Yes, or No, why?
3.5 How can H2 better assist you to improve your capacity to find new clients and improve your market opportunities?
4 IMPLEMENTATION & RECOMMENDATIONS
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 108
4.1 Of all the things we’ve discussed today, what would you say are the most important problems or challenges you face in improving your production and amount or volume of crops you sell to a buyer/s and/or your relationship to your H2 buyer?
4.2 In addition to the activity areas what we have discussed above, are there any other recommendations you wish to make to improve performance in your collaboration with your buyer or other key actors in H2?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 109
FGD QUESTION GUIDE Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Focus Group Discussion NON-TARGET GROUPS
Date of interview: / /2018 Recording Number: Province: District: Commune: City/Village: Interviewer Name: Observations: Notetaker Name: Interview time: Start: End:
Age Group Male Female Education Male Female 15 – 29 Primary 30 – 49 Secondary 50+ Post-secondary Adult literacy
1. GENERAL QUESTIONS 1.1 When did this group receive training through H2?
1.2 Please describe the specific training activities in which H2 has assisted you?
2. INTERVENTION AREA – MARKET GROWTH 2.1 What crop/s do you grow relating to your training in H2?
2.2 Since your training in H2, has your production and sales increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
2.3 Why has your production and sales changed? 2.3.1 Training in H2 project activities (specify activities)
2.3.2 Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 110
2.3.3 A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
2.4 Since your training in H2, has your area of production increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
2.5 Why has your area of production changed?
2.5.1 Training in H2 project activities (specify activities)
2.5.2 Other factors not related to H2 project activities (specify other factors)
2.5.3 A combination of H2 activities and other factors (specify activities and other factors)
2.6 Do you feel that H2 training activities have assisted you with the growth of sales? Y/N
2.7 If no, what could H2 do better to assist you to expand your sales?
3. INTERVENTION AREA: CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION 3.1 3.1 Since your training activities in H2, has your ability to grow and sell your crops increased? Y/N
If no, why?
3.2 If yes, describe how your ability to grow and sell your crops has increased?
3.3 How can H2 better assist you to improve your ability to grow and sell your crops?
4. IMPLEMENTATION & RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Of all the things we’ve discussed today, what would you say are the most important problems or challenges you face in your ability to grow and sell your crops?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 111
ANNEX VI: FOCUSED ASSESSMENT SURVEY
Feed the Future Cambodia CHII Focused Assessment Survey
ID Questionnaire A1.1. Province: (Code) A1.2. District: (Code) A1.3. Commune: (Code) A1.4. Village: (Code) A2. Date of interview: / / 2018 A3.1. Name of interviewee: A3.2. Telephone number of interviewee: A4. Enumerator Code: A5. Supervisor Code: A6. Data entry Code: A7. Date of data entry: / / 2018 A8. Interview Status: 1. 1st visit 2. 2nd visit A9. Interview time: From: To: A10. Type of Sample 1. Partner 2. Non-beneficiary A10.1. If code 1. Beneficiary, what kind of 1. Received training from Harvest II beneficiary? 2. Received training and commercial partnership from Harvest II
Hello. My name is ______. I am from CDRI, an independent research organization. I do not represent the government or any political party. We are conducting a brief survey about horticulture in Cambodia, especially related to livelihood and supply chains. We would like to discuss these issues with you. Your answers will be confidential. They will be put together with the responses from 500 other people we are interviewing, to get an overall picture. It will be impossible to identify you from what you say, so please feel free to tell us what you think; there is no right or wrong answer.
This interview will take about 5-10 minutes. There is no penalty for refusing to participate, and you may stop at any time if you do not wish to continue.
Do you wish to proceed? [Proceed with interview only if answer is positive].
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 112
Questions Response Notes
Section I: Demographic Information
Observe, do 0 = Female 1.1. Sex not ask. 1 = Male
1.2. Age of respondent ……………………
1 = No formal schooling 2 = Incomplete primary school 3 = Complete primary school 4 = Incomplete lower secondary school 5 = Complete lower secondary school 6 = Incomplete upper secondary school 1.3. Level of education * 7 = Complete upper secondary school 8 = Higher than upper secondary school 77 = Other (specify)…………………… 99 = Don’t know
1.4. Have you attended any 0 = No training courses? 1 = Yes
1 = producer/produce seller 2 = input supplier 3 = buyer 4 = collector 1.5. What is your job sector? 5 = transporter 6 = post-Harvest handler 7 = Wholesaler 8 = other ______
Multiple 1 = Vegetable answers 1.6. What did you 2 = Fruit grow/sell/buy? 3 = High value crop
If 0, skip to 1.7. Are you the business 0 = No 2.1. owner? 1 = Yes
a. Full time If 0, skip to 1.8. How many employee? b. Part time 2.1. 1. 2. 3. 4. Most 5. 1.9. What proportion of your None Less Half All employees are youth aged 15- than 29? half
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 113
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. None Less Half Most All 1.10. What proportion of your than employees are women? half
Section II. General Horticulture Value Chain (2.0. Job sector…………….)
2.1. How would you 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. characterize the overall links Very Bad Reaso Good Very good from production-sales- bad nable transport?
2.2. What is the biggest obstacle to improving your ……………… business?
0 = Less 2.3. How much business 1 = Same are you doing now 2 = More compared to one year ago? 99 = N/A
2.4. What do you expect of 0 = Less than today your business one year 1 = Same as today from now, in the future? 2 = More than today 99 – N/A
2.5. How much financial or in- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. kind assistance (loans, None A little Some; Plenty; Constant; materials, etc.) do you get occasi regula complete in your business from onal r government? 2.6. How much financial or in- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. kind assistance (loans, None A little Some; Plenty; Constant; materials, etc.) do you get occasi regula complete from NGOs? onal r 2.7. How much financial or in- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. kind assistance (loans, None A little Some; Plenty; Constant; materials, etc.) do you get occasi regula complete from other suppliers or onal r businesses? 2.8. In general, how would you describe your links to other key actors in the value chain?
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Absent Fairly Avera Good Outstandi a. Input supplier ; very poor ge ng bad
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 114
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. b. Producer/produce Absent Fairly Avera Good Outstandi seller ; very poor ge ng bad 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Absent Fairly Avera Good Outstandi c. Buyer/collector ; very poor ge ng bad 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Absent Fairly Avera Good Outstandi d. Transporter ; very poor ge ng bad 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Absent Fairly Avera Good Outstandi e. Wholesaler ; very poor ge ng bad 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Absent Fairly Avera Good Outstandi f. Employee ; very poor ge ng bad 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. g. Micro Finance Institute Absent Fairly Avera Good Outstandi (MFI) ; very poor ge ng bad 1 = producer/produce seller 2 = input supplier 3 = buyer 2.9. In your opinion, what 4 = collector sector of the value chain 5 = transporter is most reliable and 6 = post-Harvest handler consistent? 7 = Wholesaler 8 = Loan 9 = other ______
1 = producer/produce seller 2 = input supplier 2.10. In your opinion, what 3 = buyer sector within the value 4 = collector chain is least reliable 5 = transporter (creates inefficiencies 6 = post-Harvest handler and slows down your 7 = Wholesaler work)? 8 = Loan 9 = Competitor 10 = other ______
2.11. Do you expect to hire 0 = No new employees in the 1 = Yes next 12 months? 2.12. Do you expect to 0 = No invest in any new 1 = Yes
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 115
equipment or major business purchases in the next 12 months? 2.13. What do you expect 0=decline your sales to do over the 1=stay the same next year compared to 2=increase the past year? 1 2. 3. 4. 5. If 2.14. How frequently do never Rarely weekly daily Multiple/d response you receive market ; ay = 1, skip information about prices, 1/mont 2.15 costs, etc.? h
2.15. What is the source of ……………. your market information?
2.16. In the past month, 0 = No have you taken part in 1 = Yes any group discussions or meetings with representatives of other value chain activities, with the goal of improving coordination?
Section III.A. Sector Specific: Suppliers / Farmers / Suppliers
3a.1. How many regular …………………….. buyers do you currently have?
…………………….. 3a.2. What did you produce?
3a.3. If more than 1 type, ………………… What produce is most successful for you?
1 = Renting 3a.4. What is your 2 = Sharecropping relationship with the land you 3 = Own the land use for produce? 99 = Other: ______
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3a.5. How difficult is it for you Not at A little Some Difficul Very to sell all of your produce? all; I what t; I difficult; I alway often never
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 116
s struggl manage to have e to sell all of a find a my buyer buyer available produce
3a.6. What is the biggest 1 = not enough buyers challenge in selling your 2 = difficult relationship with buyers produce? 3 = quality of my produce isn’t good enough 4 = transporting produce to buyers 5 = cannot get an adequate price 6 = other (specify)…………………………………………… …………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… …………………………….
Section III.B. Sector Specific: Buyers / Wholesalers / Collectors
3. 4. ……………………..
3b.1. How many suppliers do you regularly buy from?
………………… Add categories 3b.2. What produce performs if best on the market for you? appropriat e Add …………………. categories 3b.3. What produce performs if worst on the market for you? appropriat e
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3b.4. How reliable would you Not at A little Some Mostly Completel say the suppliers are? all what y
3b.5. What share of suppliers 1. 2. one 3. Half 4. 5. you buy from are domestic None or two Most All Cambodian suppliers?
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 117
Section III.C. Sector Specific: Women-Owned Business
3. 1 = Management 4. 2 = Finance 5. 3 = Marketing 4 = Manage all tasks in business 3c.1. What is your role in the 5 = Other (specify)…………………………… business?
…………………………. Add 3c.2. What is the primary categories product or business if transaction for the business? appropriat
e
0 = None 3c.3. How many business- 1 = 1 or 2 related decisions did you 2 = several make this week? 3 = I regularly make decisions with colleagues 4 = I make all the decisions
3c.4 Does the business 0 = No benefit from outside financing 1 = Yes or credit? 99 = Don’t know
Section III.D. Sector Specific: Input Suppliers / Retailers 3. 4. …………………….. 5. 6. 3d.1. What product or horticulture input do you sell most?
1. 2. 3. 4. 3d.2. How many Just 1 a Few 5-10 Many differed businesses/individuals do regular regula customers you sell to regularly? custo r mers custo mers
1. I never have what they need 3d.3. How often do you have 2. I sometimes have what they need the products that farmers 3. I usually have what they need want to buy from you? 4. I always have what they need
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 118
ANNEX VII: TRAINING WORKSHOP AGENDA
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Mid-Term Evaluation Field Training Workshop November 2-3, 2018
Cambodia Development Resource Institute Phnom Penh, Cambodia
TRAINING WORKSHOP AGENDA DATE ACTIVITY LOCATION Friday 2.11.18 TEAM ORIENTATION AND FIELD SCHEDULE - Introductions - Project Overview - Harvest 2 - Evaluation Methodology - Team Composition – Roles, Responsibilities CDRI - Field Schedule Phnom Penh 9:30 – 11:00 - Logistics SESSION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION TO FOCUSED ASSESSMENT 11:00 – 12:00 SURVEY (FAS) 12:00 – 14:00 Lunch SESSION 1.1 – REVIEW OF FAS – QUANTITATIVE TEAMS 1-2 SESSION 1.1 – REVIEW OF KII/FGDs – QUALITATIVE TEAMS 14:00 – 17:00 3-5
Saturday 3.11.18 SESSION 1.2 – FAS DATA ENTRY – PRACTICE 9:00 – 12:00 SESSION 1.2 – KII/FGD DATA ENTRY – PRACTICE CDRI Phnom Penh 12:00 – 14:00 Lunch
SESSION 1.3 – FAS DATA ENTRY – PRACTICE 14:00 – 17:00 SESSION 1.3 – KII/FGD DATA ENTRY – PRACTICE - LOGISTICS
FIELD SCHEDULE Sunday 4.11.18 8:00 – 12:00 TEAM TRAVEL TO PURSAT Pursat 12:00 – 14:00 Lunch 14:00 – 17:00 LOGISTICS PLANNING FOR TEST OF FIELD INSTRUMENTS
Monday 5.11.18 TEST OF FIELD INSTRUMENTS
Tuesday 6.11.18 REVISION OF FIELD INSTRUMENTS
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 119
Wednesday 7.11.18 FIELD DATA COLLECTION – FAS, KII, FGD - PURSAT
FIELD DATA COLLECTION HALF DAY – TRAVEL TO Thursday 8.11.18 BATTAMBANG
Friday – Monday Battambang 9.11.18 – 12.11.18 FIELD DATA COLLECTION – FAS, KII, FGD – BATTAMBANG
Tuesday 13.11.18 FIELD DATA COLLECTION HALF DAY – TRAVEL TO SIEM REAP
Wednesday 14.11.18 FIELD DATA COLLECTION – FAS, KII, FGD - SIEM REAP Siem Reap
FIELD DATA COLLECTION HALF DAY – TRAVEL TO Thursday 15.11.18 KAMPONG THOM Kampong Friday - Monday Thom 16.11.18 – 19.11.18 FIELD DATA COLLECTION– FAS, KII, FGD - KAMPONG THOM
FIELD DATA COLLECTION HALF DAY – TRAVEL TO PHNOM Tuesday 20.11.18 PENH Phnom Penh
NATIONAL HOLIDAY 21.11.18 – 23.11.18
Monday-Wednesday 26.11.18 – 28.16.18 DATA COLLECTION – KII – PHNOM PENH Phnom Penh
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 120
INTRODUCTIONS
PROJECT OVERVIEW - FEED THE FUTURE CAMBODIA HARVEST II
Harvest II seeks to accelerate growth of Cambodia’s commercial horticulture sector by achieving three key objectives: • Improving capacities for market participation. Harvest II works with buyers, suppliers, and other market actors in the sector to apply improved technologies and management practices, increase their financial and business capacity, and stimulate the use of market and agronomic information. • Improving market linkages. To help build mutually profitable commercial relationships in the sector, Harvest II first identifies buyers who are interested in expanding their supply of horticultural products. From there, Harvest II helps these buyers connect with suppliers and eventually establish commercial partnerships that can be sustained over time. Harvest II also works to encourage investment that will contribute to expansion of the sector. • Improving governance and enabling environment. Harvest II is helping advance policies and regulations to support growth of the horticulture sector. It is investigating coordination platforms, helping the government to strengthen its policy analysis capacity, and supporting public-private dialogue to advance policies and regulations affecting the horticulture sector.
Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II Zones of Influence
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 121
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The Harvest 2 mid-term evaluation is based on six evaluation questions:
7. To what extent has Feed the Future Cambodia Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II contributed to the growth of the horticulture sector (including fruits, vegetables and nuts) in the FtF ZOI?
8. What are the observable system-level changes in horticulture market transactions that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II has created or facilitated and what are the opportunities there that Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II should focus on to maintain horticulture sector growth?
9. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving horticulture sector actors’ capacity for market participation?
10. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving market linkages?
11. To what extent is Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II improving governance and the horticulture sector enabling environment?
12. Are there any observable results from implementing gender action plans in horticulture value chains in Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II?
Mixed Methods Research – Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collection Instrument Quantitative Focused Assessment Surveys (FAS) – 500 in four provinces Qualitative Key Informant Interviews (KII) – 40 – 46 interviews – 36 in four provinces, 6-8 in Phnom Penh Focus Group Discussions (FGD) – 16
1. EVALUATION TEAM MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 122
FIELD TEAM COMPOSITION – ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES
Quantitative Evaluation Team (QNET)
Survey Team Leader – John McCauley FAS TEAM 1 Supervisor: Sim Sokcheng Enum1-6 Total Total FAS: 264
FAS TEAM 2 Supervisor: Pon Dorina, Khiev Pirom Enum 7-12 Total Total FAS: 264
Qualitative Evaluation Team (QLET)
Team Leader – John Magistro FGD/KII TEAM 1 Moderator/Interviewer: Socheat Keo Notetaker: Sok Chhivsrun
Total Total KII: 12 Total FGD: 8
FGD/KII TEAM 2 Moderator/Interviewer: Sao Somalen Notetaker: Samrom Molideth
Total Total KII: 12 Total FGD: 8
KII TEAM 3 Interviewer/Observer: John Magistro Interviewer/Interpreter: Thydalak Keout Notetaker: Choun Chanthoura Total Total KII: 12
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 123
SESSION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION TO FIELD ASSESSMENT TOOLS
QUANTITATIVE TOOL Focused Assessment Survey (FAS)
QUALITATIVE TOOLS - Key Informant Interview (KII) - Focus Group Discussion (FGD)
Protocol for Data Analysis All FGDs will be digitally recorded with the permission of each participant. For any participants who do not wish to be recorded, the field team will rely on detailed handwritten notes that will be collected by the team members.
Digital recorders will be provided for each team for use in FGDs and one KII team. Each team will be responsible for reviewing audio recordings to cross check their field notes from the data sessions. They will refine their notes and organize the answers into a guide sheet matrix to be developed by the Team Leader.
- Informed Consent The assessment team will obtain informed oral consent from respondents before proceeding with any data collection. An oral consent statement will be used for all data collection tools (FAS, KII, FGD). The consent statement will be presented in Khmer before starting each data collection session. Special attention will be paid to ensure that respondents understand that their answers will be used for evaluation purposes only, protecting their confidentiality and anonymity.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 124
ANNEX VIII: FAS SAMPLING FRAME
The purpose of the FAS was to provide systematic data from both project partners and non-partners, to facilitate comparisons that will help in evaluating the impact of project activities. It is important to keep in mind that the project is still in its early stages, and the nature of the project - which aims to cultivate ties between market sectors rather than providing concrete, material benefits to “beneficiaries”—complicates strategies for measuring success. Finally, the FAS constitutes a complementary source of data; it was thus designed to be rather short (hence, the “Focused” design, targeting specific value chain sectors) and the sample size of 549 is relatively small. For these reasons, caution should be exercised against expectations of numerous statistically significant differences across partner and non-partner groups as an indication of progress. Instead, the data can be used as a learning device, with some hints regarding aspects of the project that seem to be generating change at this early stage.
The number of surveys per province varied based on project activity. In Pursat, the enumeration team collected data from 60 respondents in two districts, Phnum Kravanh and Veal Veaeng. In Battambang, the team worked in several districts—Thma Koul, Banan, Rukhak Kiri, Sangkae, Aek Phnom, and Rattanak Mondul—and conducted 212 surveys. In Siem Reap, the team conducted 68 surveys in three districts, Soutr Nikom, Chi Kraeng, and Prasat Bakong. In Kampon Thom, the team worked in Prasat Ballang, Santuk, Prasat Balangk, Kampoung Svay, Stoung, and Steung Sen, and gathered data from 209 respondents. As noted, the total number of respondents was 549. Among them, 328, or 59.7%, were classified as project partners. Project partners were purposefully sampled from a list, while non-partners were sampled using a snowball sampling method.
The enumeration team intentionally selected respondents from among three principal sectors: suppliers, buyers, and input suppliers. Respondents from each sector answered a series of more general questions related to the value chain and their business, and then a separate subset of questions. Women-owned businesses were also asked a separate subset of questions. There are many more suppliers than buyers and input suppliers, and that distribution is reflected in the sample: 80.7 percent of respondents were suppliers, whereas 15.1 percent were input suppliers and approximately 4.0 percent were buyers/collectors.
Among all respondents, 56.3 percent were female. The average age of respondents was 42, with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 75 (standard deviation: 11.5). Over 90 percent have less than a full upper secondary school education. Regarding produce type, vegetables represent the most common business across all market sectors: 59.2 percent of respondents reported working in the vegetable industry, followed by 29.3 percent who work in the high value crops industry and 11.5 percent who work in the fruits industry. Almost half of the respondents (44.5 percent) report that most or all of the employees in their business are aged 15-29. A summary of the descriptive and educational composition of the FAS sample is presented in tabular and graphic format in below.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 125
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Sample. Statistic Description Output Observations 549 Partners 328 (59.7%) Non-partners 221 (40.3%)
Percent Suppliers 80.7% Percent Input Suppliers 15.2% Percent Buyers 4.0%
Percent working in vegetable industry 59.2% Percent working in high value crops 29.3% Percent working in fruits industry 11.5% Percent Female 56.3% Average Age 42.0 years Percent completing upper secondary school 8.9%
Figure 1. Educational Attainment of Survey Respondents (%) 35 31.51 30
25
20 18.58
15 13.3 10.02 10.02 10 6.19 6.38 5 2.55
0 None Incomplete Complete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Complete Higher than Primary Primary Lower Lower Upper SS Upper SS Secondary Secondary Secondary
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 126
ANNEX IX: MEETING AND FIELD DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE
Meeting Schedule – KII FGD FAS Data Collection
MEETINGS – PHNOM PENH 10.29.18 USAID/Cambodia In Brief Meeting 10.30.18 Cambodia HARVEST II Project Orientation 10.30.18 EMC Overview of the Finance Side of Harvest II 10.31.18 iDE Project Activities Related to Harvest II 11.01.18 CDRI FAS & KII/FGD Training/and Revisions of FAS, KII/ FGD Questions 11.02.18 CDRI Revisions and Translation of Questions for FAS, KII/FGDs 11.03.18 CDRI Revisions and Translation of Questions for FAS, KII/FGDs (Cont.) 11.04.18 Travel to Pursat Province for Test of Field Instruments 11.05.18 Test of FAS, KII/FGD Field Instruments 11.06.18 Revisions, Printing of Field Instruments 11.20.18 Start and Completion of FAS, KII/FGD Data Collection 11.30.18 USAID/Cambodia Exit Brief Presentation
KII/FGD DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE Date KII FGD Name of Firm/Group/Title Respondents Crop/s District Commune Village/Town Non- Target Target M F PURSAT 11.7.18 1 Orange Grower Association 1 Orange Kravanh Somroang Roveang 11.7.18 1 Orange Grower Association 5 Orange Kravanh Somroang Roveang 11.7.18 1 Orange Grower Association 5 Orange Kravanh Somroang Roveang BATTAMBANG 11.5.18 1 Vegetable Suppliers 4 2 Vegetables Rukhak Kiri Prek Chek Prek Ta Ven
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 127
11.5.18 1 Vegetable Buyer 1 Vegetables Rukhak Kiri Prek Chek Prek Ta Ven Rotanak 11.8.18 1 Mango Suppliers 6 1 Mango Mondul Treng Kilo 38 Chheu 11.8.18 1 Mango Buyer 2 Mango, Chili Banan Teal Bay Damram Fruit, Damnak 11.9.18 1 PDAFF, Director 1 Vegetables Battambang Wat Kor Loung Prek 11.9.18 1 Vegetable Buyer 1 Vegetables Ak Phnom Loung Ro Hal Snoul Prek 11.9.18 1 Vegetable Suppliers 6 1 Vegetables Ak Phnom Loung Ro Hal Snoul Orange, Mango, Preak 11.10.18 1 Amret MFI 1 Vegetables Battambang Svay Por Mohatep 11.10.18 1 Agro-input supply dealer 1 Battambang Ou Char Ou Char 11.10.18 1 Vegetable Suppliers 3 Vegetables Thma Koul Ou Ta Ki Tras 11.10.18 1 Vegetable Suppliers 1 4 Vegetables Thma Koul Ou Ta Ki Popeal Khael Mango, Pineapple, 11.10.18 1 Misota - Processor - Grantee 1 Melon, Ginger Battambang Ou Char Prey Konsek Praek 11.11.18 1 Watermelon Suppliers 5 Watermelon Aek Phnum Norint Prek Trob Steng Sangkae Agriculture Mango, Anlong Ta 11.11.18 1 Association 1 Vegetables Banan Chir Teal Mey Gourds, Ou Pong 11.11.18 1 Vegetable Buyer 1 Cucumbers Banan Ta Kream Moan Praek Ro Hal 11.11.18 1 Vegetable Suppliers 2 2 Vegetables Aek Phnum Loung Soung 11.12.18 1 Fruit Exporter 1 Longan Battambang Voat Kor Khsach Pouy 11.12.18 1 Vegetable Buyer 1 Cucumber Thma Koul Ou Ta Ki Tras Dept of Commerce - Dep Dir, 11.12.18 1 Consultant 1 1 Vegetables Battambang Ratanak Rumchek Preak 11.12.18 1 Idemitsu Saison Microfinance Plc 1 Battambang Svay Por Mohatep Praek 11.12.18 1 Buyer Watermelon 1 Watermelon Aek Phnum Norint Sdei
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 128
Preak 11.12.18 1 H2 Staff - Provincial Faciltiator 1 Battambang Svay Por Mohatep H2 Staff - Senior Provincial Preak 11.13.18 1 Faciltiator 1 Battambang Svay Por Mohatep H2 Staff - Dir/Market Linkage Preak 11.13.18 1 Coordinator 1 Battambang Svay Por Mohatep SIEM REAP Vegetables, 11.13.18 1 Vegetable, Fruit Buyer 1 Fruits Siem Reap Slorkram Bantey Chas Bek 11.14.18 1 Vegetable Suppliers 4 Vegetables Soutnikum Chansor Kampleung Prasat 11.14.18 1 Vegetable Suppliers 8 Vegetables Bakong Kantreang Ta Trav H2 Staff - Dir/Market Linkage 11.14.18 1 Coordinator Siem Reap Slorkram Group 2 11.14.18 1 H2 Staff - Provincial Faciltator Siem Reap Slorkram Group 2 Pongror 11.15.18 1 Cashew Producer 3 Cashew Chi Kreng Ler La Ork Pongror 11.15.18 1 Cashew Buyer 1 Cashew Chi Kreng Ler La Ork Boeung Don 11.15.18 1 PDAFF, Deputy Director 1 Vegetables Siem Reap Slorkram Pa East West Seed Co - Knowledge 11.16.18 1 Transfer Manager 1 Vegetables Siem Reap Slorkram Group 2 KAMPONG THOM Fruits, Kampong 11.17.18 1 PDAFF, Dep Dir, Human Resources 2 Vegetables Steung Sen Thom Ti 6 Kampong Trapeang Trapeang 11.17.18 1 Vegetable Buyer 1 1 Vegetables Svay Russey Pralit Prasat Toul 11.17.18 1 Cashew Association 1 Cashew Bakong Kreirl Mreak Prasat Toul 11.18.18 1 Cashew Producer 3 3 Cashew Bakong Kreirl Mreak Prast Trapang 11.18.18 1 Cashew Processor and Buyer 1 Cashew Sambo Cheiy Arak
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 129
Kampong Kampong Kampong 11.18.18 1 Vegetable Buyer 1 Vegetables Thom Rotes Thom Bantey 11.18.18 1 Vegetable Buyer 1 Vegetables Santuk Brasat Yumareach Cashew, Domrei Kampong 11.19.18 1 H2 Staff - Provincial Faciltator 1 Vegetables Steung Sen Chon Kla Thom Domrei Kampong 11.19.18 1 H2 Staff - Provincial Faciltator 1 Steung Sen Chon Kla Thom Prasat 11.19.18 1 Cashew Producer 4 1 Cashew Sambour Sambour Ou Krouke Bantey 11.19.18 1 Vegetable Suppliers 3 1 Vegetables Santuk Prasat Yumareach Prasat 11.19.18 1 Cashew Producer 2 6 Cashew Sambo Chrey Ta Tiev PHNOM PENH 11.21.18 1 H2 IP - WRP 1 11.26.18 1 H2 IP - EMC 1 11.26.18 1 H2 IP - iDE 1 2 11.26.18 1 Grantee - Bayon Heritage 1 11.26.18 1 Grantee - Angkor Green 1 11.27.18 1 H2 IP - Abt Associates 2 11.27.18 1 H2 IP - Abt Associates 2 11.27.18 1 Grantee - AMK 1 11.28.18 1 USAID 1 11.28.18 1 USAID 2 11.28.18 1 MAFF - Dir of Agro-Industry 1
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 130
FAS DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE PURSAT – November 7-8, 2018 Non- District Commune Village Beneficiary Beneficiary Input Input Buyer/Collector Producer Buyer/Collector Producer Supplier Supplier Phnum 1 15 2 2 2 Kravanh Samraong Roveang Phnum 1 Kravanh Samraong Ongkrong Phnum 1 1 Kravanh Phteah Rung Phteah Rung Phnom Bat 5 4 7 Kravanh Phteah Rung Rumdoul Phnom 1 4 Kravanh Phteah Rung Chongruk Phnom 1 1 Kravanh Phteah Rung Kaoh Svay Phnom 2 2 Kravanh Phteah Rung Ta Sah Phnom Thlok 1 Kravanh Phteah Rung Dangkor Phnom 1 1 Kravanh Phteah Rung Kandal Veal Stueng 5 Veaeng Pramaoy Thmei
BATTAMBANG – November 9 – 13, 2018 Non- District Commune Village Beneficiary Beneficiary Input Input Buyer/Collector Producer Buyer/Collector Producer Supplier Supplier Thma Koul Ou Ta Ki Tras 1 18 3 1 6 Thma Koul Ou Ta Ki Popeal Khae 2 Thma Koul Ta Meun Ta Sei 4 3 1 5
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 131
Thma Koul Ta Meun Kork Trab 1 1 Thma Koul Ta Meun Sam Roang 3 Thma Koul Ta Poung Thmar Koul 4 Thma Koul Ta Poung Kaksekam 1 2 Bay Bay 3 Banan Damram Damram Bay 1 Banan Damram Bay Trakieb Bay Toul 2 Banan Damram Chranieng Sambuor 6 1 8 Banan Snoeng Meas Banan Snoeng Steung Lech 1 Bay 1 1 Banan Chheu Teal Damram Ang Lork 1 Banan Chheu Teal Kaong Banan Chheu Teal Thkouv 1 Anglong Ta 1 Banan Chheu Teal Mey Kanteu 1 Banan Mouy Voat Kanteu Kanteu 1 Banan Mouy Sor Sar Pok Chaeng 2 Banan Meanchey Doung Ou Pong 1 Banan Ta Kream Morn Rukhak Kiri Prek Chik Prek Ta Ven 1 28 4 11 Rukhak Kiri Prek Chik Thnam 1 Rukhak Kiri Prek Chik Prek Chik 1 Rukhak Kiri Prek Chik Siem 1 Voat Ta 1 15 Sangkae Meum Ou Sralau
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 132
Aek Phnom Prek Loung Rohal Soung 1 2 2 1 Aek Phnom Prek Loung Sdei Leur 4 1 Aek Phnom Prek Loung Bak Amrek 4 2 Aek Phnom Prek Loung Doun In 1 Aek Phnom Prek Norint Sdei 1 1 Aek Phnom Prek Norint Prek Trab 1 6 Aek Phnom Prek Norint Ansang Sak 2 3 Reach Doun 1 2 1 Aek Phnom Prek Norint Keo Prek Ta 3 Aek Phnom Prek Norint Chraeng Aek Phnom Peam Aek Prek Chdao 1 Aek Phnom Peam Aek Ka Rahal 1 Samraong Samraong 1 Aek Phnom Knong Snao Rattanak 2 1 Mondul Traeng Chi Sang Rattanak 1 Mondul Traeng Svay Sar Rattanak 1 Mondul Traeng Bou Run Rattanak 6 4 1 2 Mondul Traeng Km 38 Rattanak 1 Mondul Sdao Banang
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 133
SIEM REAP – November 14 – 15, 2018 Non- District Commune Village Beneficiary Beneficiary Input Input Buyer/Collector Producer Buyer/Collector Producer Supplier Supplier Soutr Baek 1 4 9 1 Nikom Chan Sar Kamphleung Soutr 1 5 1 1 2 Nikom Chan Sar Kouk Chen Soutr 3 1 1 Nikom Chan Sar Doun Diev Soutr 1 Nikom Dam Daek Kouk Morn Soutr 2 Nikom Dam Daek Dam Dek Chi Kraeng Pongro Leu Prey Chhkar 6 1 2 Chi Kraeng Pongro Leu La ork 1 9 4 Prasat 1 1 9 1 Bakong Kantreang Souphi
KAMPONG THOM – November 16 – 20, 2018 Non- District Commune Village Beneficiary Beneficiary Input Input Buyer/Collector Producer Buyer/Collector Producer Supplier Supplier Prasat 1 50 5 Ballang Toul Kreul Mreak Ka Prasat 1 4 1 Ballang Toul Kreul Mreak Kha Banteay 1 6 1 1 24 Santuk Prasat Yumreach Tboung 3 Santuk Krapeu Chong Da Tboung 3 1 1 Santuk Krapeu Panha Chy
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 134
Tboung 2 1 Santuk Krapeu Pou Khav Tang Sang 2 Santuk Krasang Khleang Tang Sangkom 1 Santuk Krasang Thmei Santuk Ka Koh Cheay Sbai 7 1 1 7 Tboung 1 Santuk Ka Koh Krapeu Prasat 5 Balangk Sala Visai Sala Visai Prasat 1 Balangk Tuol Kreul Thnal Kampong 1 Svay Chey Ta Thiev Stoung Popok Popok 9 13 5 Stoung Popok Sam Bour 2 4 Kampong Trapeang Ou 5 2 7 Svay Ruessei Rumdeng Kampong Trapeang 2 1 4 Svay Ruessei Snao Kampong Trapeang Trapeang 2 2 Svay Ruessei Ruessei Kampong Trapeang 1 4 Svay Ruessei Thnal Baek Kampong Trapeang 1 Svay Ruessei Serei Vongs Kampong Trapeang Trapeang 1 Svay Ruessei Prolit Kampong 1 Svay San Kor Chey Kampong 2 Svay San Kor Krasang Ka Kampong Sampov 1 Svay San Kor Meas
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 135
Kampong 1 Svay San Kor San Kor Ka Kampong 2 Svay San Kor San Kor Kha Kampong 2 Svay San Kor Sari Kampong 2 Steung Sen Krabaov Steung Sen
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 136
ANNEX X: FAS DATA FIGURES AND TABLES
FINDINGS FOR EQ1: GROWTH OF THE HORTICULTURE SECTOR
Table 1: Correlation between Partner Status and Plans to Hire in the Next 12 Months Non- Partner Partner Total No Plans to Hire N 185 143 328 % 56.4 64.71 59.74
Yes, Plan to Hire N 143 78 221 % 43.6 35.29 40.26
Total N 328 221 549 % 100 100 100 P = 0.052
Table 2. Plans to Hire in Next 12 Months, by Province Kompong Battambang Thom Pursat Siem Reap Total No Plans to Hire n 118 131 33 46 328 % 55.66 62.68 55 67.65 59.74
Yes, Plans to Hire n 94 78 27 22 221 % 44.34 37.32 45 32.35 40.26
Total n 212 209 60 68 549 % 100 100 100 100 100 Pr = 0.208
Table 3: Plans to Invest among Female Partners and Non-Partners Partner Non-Partner Total No Plans to Invest n 74 56 130 % 47.74 36.36 42.07
Yes, Plan to Invest n 81 98 179 % 52.26 63.64 57.93
Total n 155 154 309 % 100 100 100 P = .043
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 137
Table 4: Plans to Invest among Male Partners and Non-Partners Partner Non-Partner Total No Plans to Invest n 53 25 78
% 30.64 37.31 32.5
Yes, Plan to Invest n 120 42 162 % 69.36 62.69 67.5
Total n 173 67 240 % 100 100 100 P = .332
Figure 1: Percentage of Respondents Expressing Retrospective and Prospective Attitudes Regarding Business Improvement, by Partner Status
70 57.9 60 52 48.4 50 44.2
40 Partners 30 Non-Partners 20
10
0 "Business is better now than one year ago." "I expect business to be better in one year than it is now."
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 138
Table 5: Expectations Regarding Business One Year from Now, by Province Kampong Battambang Pursat Siem Reap Total Thom Worse n 37 33 2 9 81 % 17.45 15.79 3.33 13.24 14.75
Same n 67 65 9 22 163 % 31.6 31.1 15 32.35 29.69
Better n 108 111 49 37 305 % 50.94 53.11 81.67 54.41 55.56
Total n 212 209 60 68 549 % 100 100 100 100 100 P = 0.003
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 139
FINDINGS FOR EQ3: CAPACITY FOR MARKET PARTICIPATION
Figure 2. The Likelihood of Women-owned Businesses Benefitting from Outside Financing or Credit, by Partner Status (%).
80
70
60 56.34
50 40 40
30
20
10
0 Partner Non-Partner
Those results are further confirmed in the correlation matrix shown below.
Table 6. Correlation between Partner Status and Women-owned Business Benefiting from Outside Financing or Credit. Partner Non-Partner Total No n 24 31 55 % 60 43.66 49.55
Yes n 16 40 56 % 40 56.34 50.45
Total n 40 71 111 % 100 100 100 Pr = 0.098
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 140
Table 7. Correlation between Partner Status and Level of Reported Assistance from NGOs. Partner Non-Partner Total None n 21 162 183 % 6.4 73.3 33.33
A Little n 86 18 104 % 26.22 8.14 18.94
Some/Occasionally n 149 29 178 % 45.43 13.12 32.42
Plenty/Regular n 65 10 75 % 19.82 4.52 13.66
Constant/Complete n 7 2 9 % 2.13 0.9 1.64
Total n 328 221 549 % 100 100 100 Pr = 0.000
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 141
FINDINGS FOR EQ4: IMPROVED MARKET LINKAGES
Table 8: Producers’ Evaluation of Links to Buyers, by Partner Status Partner Non-Partner Total Absent n 2 0 2 % 0.8 0 0.54
Poor n 20 16 36 % 8.03 13.22 9.73
Average n 88 51 139 % 35.34 42.15 37.57
Good n 120 47 167 % 48.19 38.84 45.14
Outstanding n 19 7 26 % 7.63 5.79 7.03
Total n 249 121 370 % 100 100 100 P = 0.184
Table 9: Producers’ Evaluation of Links to Input Suppliers, by Partner Status Partner Non-Partner Total Absent n 0 1 1 % 0 0.79 0.27
Poor n 4 7 11 % 1.65 5.56 2.98
Average n 110 59 169 % 45.27 46.83 45.8
Good n 110 52 162 % 45.27 41.27 43.9
Outstanding n 19 7 26 % 7.82 5.56 7.05
Total n 243 126 369 % 100 100 100 P = 0.129
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 142
Table 10: Input Supplier’s Evaluation of Links to Buyers and Suppliers, by Partner Status Non- Partner Partner Total Very Poor n 1 0 1 % 2.08 0 1.2
Fairly Poor n 4 3 7 % 8.33 8.57 8.43
Average n 24 16 40 % 50 45.71 48.19
Good n 19 16 35 % 39.58 45.71 42.17
Total n 48 35 83 % 100 100 100 P = .804 Note: 0 responses of "outstanding”
Table 11: Input Supplier Availability of Agricultural Products, by Partner Status Partners Non-Partners Total Sometimes n 20 13 33 % 27.78 24.53 26.4
Usually n 40 25 65 % 55.56 47.17 52
Always n 12 15 27 % 16.67 28.3 21.6
Total n 72 53 125 % 100 100 100 P = .294
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 143
Figure 3: Percentage of Respondents Participating in a Discussion or Meeting with Other Value Chain Actors in the Past Month, by Partner Status 80
70
60 50.91 50
40
30 22.62 20
10
0 Partner Non-Partner
Table 12: Correlation between Partner Status and Participation in a Discussion or Meeting with Other Value Chain Actors in the Past Month Partner Non-Partner Total No participation in value chain dialogue n 161 171 332 % 49.09 77.38 60.47
Yes, participated in value chain dialogue n 167 50 217 % 50.91 22.62 39.53
Total n 328 221 549 % 100 100 100 P = 0.000
Table 13: Correlation between Partner Status and Participation in a Discussion or Meeting with Other Value Chain Actors in the Past Month Among Women Partner Non-Partner Total No Participation N 74 115 189 % 47.74 74.68 61.17
Yes, Participated N 81 39 120 % 52.26 25.32 38.83
N 155 154 309 % 100 100 100 P = 0.000
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 144
Table 14: Correlation between Partner Status and Participation in a Discussion or Meeting with Other Value Chain Actors in the Past Month Among Men Partner Non-Partner Total No Participation N 87 56 143 % 50.29 83.58 59.58
Yes, Participated N 86 11 97 % 49.71 16.42 40.42
Total N 173 67 240 % 100 100 100 P = 0.000
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 145
FINDINGS FOR EQ5: IMPROVED GOVERNANCE AND THE ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
Table 15: Correlation between Partner Status and Producers’ Difficulty Selling Their Crops Partner Non-Partner Total Not at all; I always have a buyer n 178 105 283 % 65.68 61.4 64.03
A little n 47 33 80 % 17.34 19.3 18.1
Somewhat n 35 28 63 % 12.92 16.37 14.25
Difficult; I often struggle to find a buyer n 11 4 15 % 4.06 2.34 3.39
Very difficult; I never manage to sell all my crops. n 0 1 1 % 0 0.58 0.23
Total n 271 171 442 % 100 100 100 P = 0.420
Table 16: Correlation between Partner Status and Level of Reported Assistance from Government. Partner Non-Partner Total None n 262 187 449 % 79.88 84.62 81.79
A Little n 24 8 32 % 7.32 3.62 5.83
Some n 31 23 54 % 9.45 10.41 9.84
Plenty n 8 2 10 % 2.44 0.9 1.82
Constant/Complete n 3 1 4 % 0.91 0.45 0.73
Total n 328 221 549 % 100 100 100 Pr = 0.225
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 146
FINDINGS FOR EQ6: GENDER AND YOUTH
Table 17 Correlation between Partner Status and Share of Women Employees in the Business Partner Non-Partner Total None n 40 34 74 % 20.2 25.76 22.42
Less than Half n 22 22 44 % 11.11 16.67 13.33
About Half n 25 21 46 % 12.63 15.91 13.94
Most n 57 34 91 % 28.79 25.76 27.58
All n 54 21 75 % 27.27 15.91 22.73
Total n 198 132 330 % 100 100 100 P = 0.081
Table 18: Correlation between Partner Status and the Presence of Younger Employees at the Business Partner Non-Partner Total None n 43 29 72 % 21.72 21.97 21.82
Less than Half n 41 22 63 % 20.71 16.67 19.09
About Half n 33 15 48 % 16.67 11.36 14.55
Most n 35 26 61 % 17.68 19.7 18.48
All n 46 40 86 % 23.23 30.3 26.06
Total n 198 132 330 % 100 100 100 P = 0.419
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 147
Table 20: Correlation between Partner Status and Women-owned Business Benefiting from Outside Financing or Credit Partner Non-Partner Total No n 24 31 55 % 60 43.66 49.55
Yes N 16 40 56 % 40 56.34 50.45
Total n 40 71 111 % 100 100 100 P = 0.098
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 148
ANNEX XI: COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIP RELATIONSHIP
STAGES IN THE FORMATION AND MATURATION OF A COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIP
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 149
ANNEX XII: HARVEST II MARKET SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 150
ANNEX XIII: HARVEST II PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DATA DISAGGREGATED BY SEX AND BY YOUTH
Findings on indicator #2 (enterprises, organizations, etc., that have applied improved organization-level technologies or management practices) from EQ3 on market participation, disaggregated by sex and by youth.
Women-owned firms constitute: • 29.3 percent (60) of all firms applying improved management practices; • 43.3 percent (13) of buyer firms within CPs applying improved management practices; • 28.0 percent (45) of trained input supplier firms applying improved management practices; • 14.3 percent (2) of other market actor firms (MFIs, input supply companies, collectors) applying improved management practices.
Youth-owned firms constitute: • 9.3 percent (19) of all firms applying improved management practices; • 10.0 percent (3) of buyer firms within CPs applying improved management practices; • 9.3 percent (15) of trained input supplier firms applying improved management practices; • 7.1 percent (1) of other market actor firms (MFIs, input supply companies, collectors) applying improved management practices.
Findings on indicator #4 (number of firms or civil society organizations (CSO) operating profitably) from EQ4 on market linkages, disaggregated by sex and by youth.
Women-owned firms or CSOs constitute: • 37.3 percent (103) of all firms or CSOs now operating more profitably; • 35.7 percent (45) of buyer firms or CSOs now operating more profitably; • 38.7 percent (58) of input retailer firms or CSOs now operating more profitably.
Youth-owned firms or CSOs constitute: • 12.0 percent (18) of all firms or CSOs now operating more profitably; • 12.5 percent (3) of buyer firms or CSOs now operating more profitably; • 11.9 percent (15) of input retailer firms or CSOs now operating more profitably.
Findings on indicator #11 (percentage of CP members who achieve at least 80 percent of their growth plan targets) from EQ4 on market linkages, disaggregated by sex and by youth.
Female CP members constitute: • 76.9 percent (10) of all CP female members having achieved 80 percent of their growth plan targets.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 151
Youth CP members constitute: • 17.6 percent (3) of all CP youth members having achieved 80 percent of their growth plan targets.
Findings on indicator #12 (percentage of individuals that have adopted new technologies, climate-smart agricultural, market information and/ or management practices) from EQ3 on market participation, disaggregated by sex and by youth.
Women constitute: • 49.6 percent (1,011) of all individuals (women and men) adopting new technology and/or management practices; • 43.3 percent (13) of all buyers adopting new technology and/or management practices; • 28.0 percent (45) of all input retailers and agricultural cooperative members adopting new technology and/or management practices; • 4.3 percent (2) of all other market actor firms (MFIs, input supply companies, collectors) adopting new technology and/or management practices; • 52.8 percent (951) of all suppliers (partners and non-partners) adopting new technology and/or management practices.
Youth constitute: • 10.4 percent (212) of all individuals adopting new technology and/or management practices; • 10.0 percent (3) of all buyers adopting new technology and/or management practices; • 9.3 percent (15) of all input retailers and agricultural cooperative members adopting new technology and/or management practices; • 23.9 percent (11) of all other market actor firms (MFIs, input supply companies, collectors) adopting new technology and/or management practices; • 10.2 percent (183) of all suppliers (partners and non-partners) adopting new technology and/or management practices.
Findings on indicator #13 (percentage of commercial partnerships maintained and/or expanded over time) from EQ4 on market linkages, disaggregated by sex and by youth.
Women constitute: • 43.3 percent (11) of all commercial partnerships (women and men) maintained and/or expanded over time.
Youth constitute: • 14.3 percent (3) of all commercial partnerships maintained and/or expanded over time.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 152
ANNEX XIV: INTERVENTION PRIORITIES OF HARVEST II PARTNERS
INTERVENTION PRIORITIES OF HARVEST II PARTNERS MARKET Buyers ACTORS - Need more precise information on how to do grading, sorting, packaging and how to reduce spoilage during transport; need for cold chain transport and storage; currently non-existent; - Organize more PPP networking events bringing market actors together; - Absence of watermelon processing for juice; also increase export market to neighboring countries; - Conducts surveys of consumer preference for specific horticulture crops – e.g., watermelon seed varieties Suppliers Input Suppliers Microfinance Institutions - Share list names of HII suppliers to facilitate more direct promotion with farmers; - Hold more focused B2B workshop events – focus on suppliers; - Conduct more focused dialogue workshops –in-depth full day events, allowing for more sustained interaction and network building among actors from previous PPD events; - HII - provide an electronic data base of potential clients with phone and email contact information; - Devote more resources on investment and financial sector development; GOVERNMENT - Organize more PPP events involving more market actors (MFIs, processors, input suppliers, etc.) - Greater focus on organizing fruit tree grower associations or cooperatives - Contract Farming – promote and strengthen more farm contract arrangements; - Organize more suppliers in cooperatives or associations to facilitate buyer-grower partnerships and formal contract arrangements; - Promote storage collecting centers for packaging, cold storage, and post-harvest processing; set up storage centers for each crop and organize suppliers for each center; - Closer collaboration, interaction of HII and PDAFF staff at district and commune levels, they work too separately; PDAFF does not know which target areas HII is supporting at lower administrative levels; - Facilitation – transfer more facilitation to PDAFF staff and less direct technical assistance from HII staff;
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 153
- Organize field visits or study trips for district/commune level officials, suppliers, and buyers to other countries as learning trips (best practices in neighboring countries, like VN, Thailand) - DOC – HII should link suppliers to more main buyers to stimulate competition and choice among buyers and suppliers; reliance on only a few main buyers will depress producer prices and create an end buyer monopoly; - DOC – more focus by HII on the vegetable subsector to support AIMS objectives;
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 154
ANNEX XV: CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI) DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
Conflict of Interest Certification
Task Order AID-OAA-I-15-00028/72044218F00003 Mid-term Performance Evaluation of USAID/Cambodia’s Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II under PPL Monitoring and Evaluation (EVAL-ME) IDIQ.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 Definitions – “Organizational Conflict of Interest” means that because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the person’s objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage.”
I hereby certify that I have read and become familiar with FAR 3.104 entitled “Procurement Integrity.” I understand and will completely observe the provisions of this regulation.
Statement Of Conflict Of Interest To the best of my knowledge, neither I, nor any member of my family, have any direct financial or employment interest in any of the firms being evaluated, which conflicts substantially, or appears to conflict substantially, with my duties as a member of the Mitchell Group Evaluation Team.
In the event that I later become aware of such conflict of interest, I agree to disqualify myself and report this fact to the Contracting Officer and to abide by the instruction that he/she may give me in this matter. I understand that having a Conflict of Interest may prohibit me from participation in future procurements initiated using information generated during this evaluation.
Printed Name: John Magistro
Signature:
Date: 12.6.18
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 155
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 156
Conflict of Interest Certification
Task Order AID-OAA-I-15-00028/72044218F00003 Mid-term Performance Evaluation of USAID/Cambodia’s Feed the Future Cambodia Harvest II under PPL Monitoring and Evaluation (EVAL-ME) IDIQ.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 Definitions – “Organizational Conflict of Interest” means that because of other activities or relationships with other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the person’s objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired, or otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage.”
I hereby certify that I have read and become familiar with FAR 3.104 entitled “Procurement Integrity.” I understand and will completely observe the provisions of this regulation.
Statement Of Conflict Of Interest To the best of my knowledge, neither I, nor any member of my family, have any direct financial or employment interest in any of the firms being evaluated, which conflicts substantially, or appears to conflict substantially, with my duties as a member of the Mitchell Group Evaluation Team.
In the event that I later become aware of such conflict of interest, I agree to disqualify myself and report this fact to the Contracting Officer and to abide by the instruction that he/she may give me in this matter. I understand that having a Conflict of Interest may prohibit me from participation in future procurements initiated using information generated during this evaluation.
Printed Name: John F. McCauley
Signature:
Date: 11 December 2018 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 157
ANNEX XVI: EVALUATION QUESTION 1 FIGURES & TABLES
Table 21: Sum of Value of Incremental Sales at Farm Level by Province and Sex107
Province Female Male Total Battambang $ 1,273,604 $ 1,385,564 $ 2,659,168 Kampong Thom $ 279,290 $ 1,397,084 $ 1,676,374 Pursat $ 452,450 $ 261,606 $ 714,056 Siem Reap $ 20,723 $ 1,018,819 $ 1,039,542 Total $ 2,026,066 $ 4,063,074 $ 6,089,140
Table 22: Number of Jobs Created by Province and Sex108 Province Number Number of Number of Number of Total New Number Number of Suppliers New Jobs New Jobs Jobs of Jobs of Jobs Suppliers Outside of Created at Created at Created at Created Created within CP Farms Firms Farms and for for Men CPs Generated Firms Women Jobs Battambang 217 0 88 8 96 32 64 Kampong 103 338 81 3 84 28 56 Thom Pursat 18 0 0 6 6 2 4 Siem Reap 40 63 2 2 4 1 3 Total 378 401 171 19 190 63 127
107 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 11, 2019. 108 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 11, 2019. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 158
Table 23: Value of New Private Sector Investment by Sex109
Type of Private Sector Type of Business Women Men Joint Total
Buyers Within CPs Processor, $ 145,300 $ 285,380 $ 430,680 Wholesaler, and - Agricultural Cooperative Private Sectors Input Supply $ 1,804,366 $ 1,804,366 Outside of CPs Companies - -
Total $ 145,300 $ 285,380 $ 1,804,366 $ 2,235,046
Table 24: Value of New Private Sector Investment by Province110 Province Value Battambang $ 720,556 Kampong Thom $ 570,543 Pursat $ 152,954 Siem Reap $ 695,293 Phnom Penh $ 95,700 TOTAL $ 2,235,046
KII/FGD SALES DATA, INVESTMENT DATA
In a similar vein, a vegetable buyer in Battambang Province who purchases cucumbers, bottle and sponge gourds, eggplants, and tomatoes has seen a decline in purchases from 3 tons to 1 ton per day over the past year due to oversupply of vegetables in her market area, many of which are imported nearby from Thailand.
Overall, both high value crop and vegetable suppliers frequently noted price decline or instability and production difficulties due to pest and disease infestations resulting from extreme flooding and erratic climate patterns as principal factors in diminishing sales and/or production.
Among non-supplier market actors (with one exception below), numerous instances of significant increases in sales were attributed to Harvest II partnership: • Cashew suppliers in Kampong Thom Province have increased their harvest of cashew nuts from 2-3 kg/day to 10-15 kg/day; prior to Harvest II partnership, they sold an average of 20 tons/year (10 tons of fresh nuts, 10 tons of processed nuts); now they have nearly tripled their sales to 55 tons/year (35 tons of fresh nuts, 20 tons of processed nuts)111;
109 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 11, 2019. 110 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 11, 2019. 111 This ‘success story’ is the result of buyer linkages established with the tourist market in Siem Reap and the AEON supermarket in Phnom Penh and is therefore somewhat unique and not necessarily representative of most high value fruit and cashew suppliers participating in Harvest II. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 159
• A farmer association buyer of mangos in Battambang Province has increased sales by 3-4 tons/day since initiating a commercial partnership (CP) facilitated by Harvest II; • A buyer in Battambang Province has increased vegetable purchases from 1 ton to 10 tons daily since partnership in Harvest II; • A large commercial mango buyer in Battambang Province has more than doubled sales from 60 - 70 tons to 150 tons/day under Harvest II; • A fruit and vegetable buyer in Siem Reap Province who sells primarily to the hotel and restaurant tourist market has increased sales by 70 percent since partnership with Harvest II; some, but not all of that increase, is attributed to new buyers facilitated by the project; • A key input supplier and Harvest II grantee estimates an increase in agro-input market sales of 30 percent since linkage to project suppliers; a smaller agro-input retailer estimates their sales increase at five to ten percent under Harvest II; • An MFI loan officer initiated three new loans to Harvest II mango, orange, and vegetable suppliers totaling $68,000 since participation in a Business to Business (B2B) workshop facilitated by Harvest II, leading to increased sales.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 160
ANNEX XVII: EVALUATION QUESTION 3 FIGURES & TABLES
Table 25: Number and Percent of Individuals Adopting New Innovative Technology, Climate-Smart Agricultural, Market Information and/or Management Practices, Disaggregated by Types of Partners and by Sex. Number of Project Number and Percent of Individuals Adopting Technology and Partners Management Practices # of # of # of # of # of # of Women Men Youth Non- Type of Project Partner Total Women Youth % # Youth
Buyers 30 13 3 100.0% 30 13 17 3 27
Input retailers and agricultural 234 66 22 68.8% 161 45 116 15 146 cooperatives Other market actors (MFIs, input supply 50 2 12 92.0% 46 2 44 11 35 companies, collectors) Suppliers (partners and 2,969 1,661 350 60.7% 1,801 951 850 183 1618 non-partners)
Total 3,283 1,742 387 62.1% 2,038 1,011 1,027 212 1,826
Table 26: Number and Percent of Individuals Adopting New Innovative Technology, Climate-Smart Agricultural, Market Information and/or Management Practices, Disaggregated by Province and by Sex. Total Participants Number and Percent of Firms Now Operating More Profitably # of # of # of # of # of # of Women Men Youth Non- Province Total Women Youth % # Youth
Battambang 1,472 616 169 73.0% 1075 448 627 124 951
Kampong Thom 438 160 53 58.2% 255 92 163 14 241
Pursat 586 400 59 40.6% 238 187 51 43 195
Siem Reap 781 566 98 59.4% 464 283 181 31 433
Phnom Penh 6 1 0 100.0% 6 1 5 0 6
Total 3,283 1,743 379 62.1% 2,038 1,011 1,027 212 1,826
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 161
Table 27: Number of Buyers/Agricultural Cooperatives and Producers Accessing Agricultural Credit by Sex112 Number of Buyers and Suppliers Accessing Agricultural Credit Type of Partner # of Total Women # of Men # of Youth Project Buyers and Agricultural Cooperatives 8113 2 6 1
Project Suppliers 56114 22 34 6 Total 64 24 40 7
Table 28: Number of Buyers/Agricultural Cooperatives and Producers Accessing Agricultural Credit by Province and by Sex115 Number of Buyers and Suppliers Accessing Agricultural Credit Province # of Total Women # of Men # of Youth Battambang 34 11 23 3 Kampong Thom 1 1 0 0 Pursat 1 0 1 0 Siem Reap 28 12 16 4 Total 64 24 40 7
112 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 17, 2019. 113 All buyer/AC loans accessed through Harvest II partner MFIs. 114 All supplier agro-input credit accessed through their buyers within six commercial partnerships facilitated by Harvest II. 115 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 17, 2019. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 162
ANNEX XVIII: EVALUATION QUESTION 4 FIGURES & TABLES
Table 5: Number and Percent of Firms or CSOs Now Operating More Profitably by Sex116 Number of Private Sector Number and Percent of Firms Now Operating More Actors Profitably # of # of # of # of # of # of Non- Type of Private Sector Total Women Youth % # Women Men Youth Youth
Project Buyers 30 13 3 80% 24 13 11 3 21
Trained Input Retailers 234 66 22 54% 126 45 81 15 111
TOTAL 264 79 25 150 58 92 18 132
Table 20: Percentage of CP Members Achieving at Least 80 Percent of Growth Plan Targets by Sex117
# of Total Women # of Men # of Youth # of Buyers Achieving 80% of Growth 20 10 10 3 Plan Targets Total Buyers 30 13 13 17 Percentage 66.7% 76.9% 76.9% 17.6%
Table 21: Percentage of CPs Maintained and/or Expanded Over Time by Sex118
# of Total Women # of Men # of Youth # of CPs Maintained and/or Expanded 21 11 10 3 Over Time Total Buyers 30 13 17 3 Percentage 70.0% 84.6% 58.8% 100.0%
116 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 11, 2019. 117 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 17, 2019. 118 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 17, 2019.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 163
Table 22: Number and Percent of Firms or CSOs Now Operating More Profitably by Province and Sex119
Number of Private Number and Percent of Firms Now Operating More Sector Actors Profitably # of # of # of # of # of # of Non- Province Total Women Youth % # Women Men Youth Youth
Battambang 135 36 13 47% 63 23 40 6 57
Kampong Thom 41 14 1 54% 22 11 11 1 21
Pursat 39 8 4 59% 23 7 16 4 19
Siem Reap 47 21 7 87% 41 17 24 7 34
Phnom Penh 2 0 0 50% 1 0 1 0 1
Total 264 79 25 150 58 92 18 132
SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES NOT CITED IN REPORT
Table 23: Percentage of CP Members Achieving at Least 80 Percent of Growth Plan Targets by Province and Sex120
Buyers Achieving 80% of Growth Plan Targets # of Province Total Number Women # of Men # of Youth % Battambang 15 11 5 6 2 73.3% Kampong Thom 6 4 3 1 0 67.7% Pursat 3 2 1 1 0 67.7% Siem Reap 6 3 1 2 1 50.0% Total 30 20 10 10 3 67.7%
119 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 11, 2019. 120 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 17, 2019.
Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 164
Table 34: Percentage of CPs Maintained and/or Expanded Over Time by Province and by Sex 121 Commercial Partnerships Maintained and/or Expanded Over Time
Province Total Number #. of Women # of Men # of Youth % Battambang 15 10 5 5 2 66.7% Kampong Thom 6 5 4 1 0 83.3% Pursat 3 2 1 1 0 66.7% Siem Reap 6 4 1 3 1 66.7% Total 30 21 11 10 3 70.0%
121 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 17, 2019. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 165
ANNEX XIX: EVALUATION QUESTION 5 FIGURES & TABLES
Table 35: Number of Participants Attending PPD Workshops by Province and by Sex122
Province Total # of Women % of Women # of Men % of Men Battambang 43 7 16.3% 36 83.7% Kampong Thom 55 7 12.7% 48 87.3% Pursat 35 5 14.3% 30 85.7% Siem Reap 37 11 29.7% 26 70.3% Phnom Penh 137 33 24.1% 104 75.9% Total 307 63 20.5% 244 79.5%
Table 36: Number of Participants Attending B2B Workshops by Province and by Sex123
Province Total # of Women % of Women # of Men % of Men Siem Reap 15 6 40.0% 9 60.0% Kampong Thom 23 4 17.4% 19 82.6% Total 38 10 26.3% 28 73.7%
122 Source: Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 27, 2019. 123 Source: Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 27, 2019. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 166
ANNEX XX: EVALUATION QUESTION 6 FIGURES & TABLES
Table 37: Number of Harvest II Jobs Created by Province, Sex and Youth 124 Total New Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Province Created at Created for Created for Created for Created for Created for Farms and Female Women Men Youth Male Youth Firms Youth Battambang 96 32 64 40 27 13 Kampong Thom 84 28 56 23 20 3 Pursat 6 2 4 4 1 3 Siem Reap 4 1 3 2 1 1 Total 190 63 127 69 49 20
124 Source: Modified from Harvest II FY18 Annual Report. Personal communication, Kallyan Ith, Harvest II M&E Director, Abt Associates. January 28, 2019. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Cambodia Harvest II – Final Report 167
U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523