t farmers o s centre in a (fosca) mid-term r (mtr) rthe fosca mid-term review was prepared by idea...

THE FARMERS ORGANIZATION SUPPORT

CENTRE IN AFRICA (FOSCA)

MID-TERM REVIEW (MTR) REPORT

September 2014

IDEA International Institute

Nairobi Regional Office, Saachi Plaza,

3rd Floor, Suite 7A,

Arwings Kodhek Road.

www.idea-international.org

http://www.idea-international.org/

The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)

Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report

i

Content Abbreviations and Acronyms ii

Map of FOSCA Program Areas iv

FOSCA Program at a Glance vi

Executive Summary viii

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. METHODOLOGY OF THE MID TERM REVIEW 3

III. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF THE MID-TERM REVIEW 5

3.1 RELEVANCE AND PROGRESS AGAINST FOSCA OBJECTIVES 5

3.2 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM DESIGN AND DELIVERY 181

3.3 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM SUCCESS AND EFFECTIVENESS 18

3.4 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM EFFICIENCY AND VALUE FOR MONEY 24

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 27

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of documents for the MTR 34

Appendix 2: Schedule of the MTR Activities 35

Appendix 3: MTR Criteria 36

Appendix 4: MTR Tools 37

Appendix 5: Program Timeline and Responsibilities 45

Appendix 6: FOSCA Theory of Change 51

Appendix 7a: FOSCA Country Dashboard (2011-2013) 52

Appendix 7b: FOSCA’s Achievements Data Scorecard (05-11-2014) 53

Appendix 8: Analysis of sampled projects interventions toward FOSCA's objectives 54

Appendix 9: Summary of projects reporting 85

Appendix 10: FOSCA Expenditure Report (August 2014) 86

Appendix 11: Summary of key enabling factors and constraints of projects 87



ii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADRA: Adventist Development Relief Agency

AGRA: Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa

AFRICRES: African Investment Climate Research

APME.2A: Agency for Promotion of Small and Medium Enterprises: Agriculture and

Crafts

BCFFO: Building the capacity of smallholder farmers and farmer organizations

BGAK: Banana growers association of Kenya

BMGF: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

CRS: Catholic Relief Service

DFAP: Digital Farmer Aggregation Platform

D-MAPS: Development of Market Access & Post Harvest Services

FGD: Focus Group Discussion

FinGRO: Financial Literacy for Grain Farmer Organizations

FO: Farmer Organization

FOSCA: Farmer Organization Support Centre

FOAVAC: Farmer Organizations in Agricultural Value Chains

FOSUP: Farmer Organization Support Program

FUM: Farmers Union of Malawi

IDEA: Institute for Development in Economics and Administration

IF: Innovative Finance

INTAPIMP: Integrated agricultural productivity improvement and marketing project

IPTT: Indicator Performance Tracking Table

IRE: Institute of Rural Economy

ISWMT: Improved soil and water management technologies

ISFM: Integrated soil fertility management

KENAFF: Kenya National Farmers Federation

M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation

MDG: Millennium Development Goal

MKT: Market Access Program

MTR: Mid-Term Review



iii

MIND: Market Innovations for Development

MVIWATA: Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania

NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

PACCEM: Project for Commercialization of Cereals in Mali

PASS: Program for Africa’s Seed Systems

P4P: Purchase for Progress

POs: Producer Organizations

PPP: Policy & Advocacy Program

RDO: Rwanda Development Organization

RWARRI: Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative

SACAU: Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions

SMART- BGT: Smallholder Market Access for Rural Transformation - Barue, Guru and

Tete

SWOT: Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Strengths

SHF: Small-Holder Farmer

SHP: Soil Health Program

SP: Service Providers

TCB: Tissue Culture Banana

TOT: Training of Trainers

Acknowledgment

The FOSCA Mid-Term Review was prepared by IDEA International Institute lead by Mr. Gilles Clotteau (Senior

Results-Based Management Expert and Director of Nairobi Regional Office) and Ms. Rachel Mbaria (M&E

Specialist). The review benefited from interviews and discussions with FOSCA program coordinated by Mr.

Fadel Ndiame with support from Ms. Mary Njoroge, Ms. Pauline Kamau and Mr. Samuel Sey. This assessment

significantly benefited from the input of various representatives from the array of stakeholders including:

other AGRA Program and administrative teams, FOSCA Advisory Group members, Grantees as well as the

various small-holder farmers representatives of Farmer Organizations who participated in the Focus Group

Discussions.



iv

Map of FOSCA MTR project areas



v

List of Sampled Projects:

Organization Name & Country

Reference Number

Project Title

Ghana

1.

Adventist Development and Relief Agency 2012 BBTE 003 Integrated agricultural productivity improvement and marketing project (INTAPIMP) in the northern region.

2.

Concern Universal 2011 MKT 006 Development of Market Access & Post-harvest Services (D-MAPS) for Smallholder Farmers in the BrongAhafo region. Project

Burkina Faso

3.

Agence pour la Promotion de la Petite et moyenne entreprise Agriculture et Artisanat

2012 MKT 006 Mitigating Post-harvest Quantity and Quality Losses and Improving Market Access to improve smallholder farmers’ income in Burkina Faso.

Zambia

4.

Farmer Organisation Support Programme 2012 SHP 002 Improving smallholder agricultural production through improved soil and water management technologies (ISWMT) in Central Zambia.

Malawi

5.

Farmers Union of Malawi 2011 MKT 005 Linking Smallholder Farmers to Structured Markets (Lilongwe, Ntchisi, Kasungu, Dowa, and Mchinji).

Rwanda

6.

Rwanda Development Organization 2011 MKT 014 Capacity building for farmers to reduce on post-harvest losses and improvement on access to the market (Southern and Eastern Provinces).

7.

Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative 2011 MKT 009 Improving productivity and Market access among smallholder farmers in Eastern and Southern Provinces of Rwanda.

Niger

8.

Catholic Relief Services 2012 MKT 009 Strengthening Millet, Sorghum, and Cowpea Value Chains (MISOCO) - Dosso, Tahoua, and Maradi Regions.

Mali

9.

Institute of Rural Economy 2011 SHP 006 Boosting maize-based cropping system productivity in the breadbasket region of Sikasso through widespread adoption of Integrated Soil Fertility management (ISFM).

10.

Union des Professionnels Agricoles pour la Commercialisation des Céréales au Mali Faso Jigi/PACCEM

2011 MKT 018 Strengthening the post-harvest management and marketing capacity of FASO / JIGI (Ségou Region).

Kenya

11.

Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers

2012 FOSCA 001

Revitalizing the banana subsector through strengthening of the banana growers association of Kenya (BGAK) (Muranga, Embu, Kirinyaga and Meru counties).

Mozambique

12.

MICAIA Foundation 2011 MKT 002 Smallholder Market Access for Rural Transformation - Barue, Guru and Tete (SMART- BGT).

13.

SNV - Netherlands Development Organisation

2011 SHP 020 Improving food security and incomes of smallholder farmers through intensification of maize and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) production and marketing in Tete Province of Mozambique.

Tanzania

14.

Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania

2012 FOSCA 002

Enhancing the skills of Farmer Organizations (FOs) under the MVIWATA network for improved market opportunities, increased incomes and improved livelihoods (Tanzania Southern Highlands).

15.

Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions

2013 FOSCA 002

From price takers to price makers: The effectiveness of a Digital Farmer Aggregation Platform (DFAP).

Regional

16.

Africa Investment Climate Research 2013 FOSCA 001

Building Support System (Infrastructure) for Smallholder Farmers in order to Increase Incomes and food Security in Selected Countries in Sub Saharan Africa.



vi

FOSCA Program at a glance

KEY DATES

Launch Date Mid-Term Review Duration

May 2012 May-September 2014 28 Months

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

1. Establish FOSCA to meet the needs of small-holder farmers through farmer organizations, and initiate piloted service delivery by partnering with key entities with ready demand for strong FOs, in particular WFP in P4P and School Feeding Programs, and AGRA markets.

2. Engaging farmer organizations.

3. Engaging Service Providers.

4. Matching farmer organizations with the services they need.

5. Building knowledge for better practice and policy.

PROGRAM GRANTS (at the time of the Mid-Term review)

Grantee Reference Number Project Title

Kenya National Federation of Agricultural

Producers

2012 FOSCA 001 Revitalizing the banana subsector through strengthening of

the banana growers association of Kenya (BGAK)

Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima

Tanzania

2012 FOSCA 002 Enhancing the skills of Farmer Organizations (FOs) under the

MVIWATA network for improved market opportunities,

increased incomes and improved livelihoods

Association of Church-based

Development NGOs in Northern Ghana

2012 FOSCA 003 Farmers’ Cooperative Development Project

Africa Investment Climate Research 2013 FOSCA 001 Building Support System

(Infrastructure) for Smallholder Farmers in order to Increase

Incomes and food Security in Selected Countries in Sub

Saharan Africa

Southern African Confederation of

Agricultural Unions

2013 FOSCA 002 From price takers to price makers: The effectiveness of a

Digital Farmer Aggregation Platform (DFAP)

Adventist Development and Relief Agency 2013 FOSCA 003 Strengthening the Ability of Farmer Organizations in

Zambezia Province, Mozambique to Access Formal Markets

Agric Chains Development Limited 2013 FOSCA 005 Enhancing Financial Literacy for Grain Farmer Organizations

(FinGRO)

Presbyterian Agriculture Services 2013 FOSCA 006 Farmer Organizations (FOs) in Agricultural Value Chains

(FOAVAC)

PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION (At the time of the Mid-Term Review)

Grantee Reference Number

Project Title



vii

MICAIA Foundation 2011 MKT 002 Smallholder Market Access for Rural Transformation - Barue,

Guru and Tete (SMART- BGT)

Farmers Union of Malawi 2011 MKT 005 Linking Smallholder Farmers to Structured Markets

Concern Universal 2011 MKT 006 Development of Market Access & Post Harvest Services for

Smallholder Farmers in BrongAhafo (D-MAPS) Project

Agência de Desenvolvimento Económico

da Provincia de Manica

2011 MKT 008 Building the capacity of smallholder farmers and SMEs to access

valuable markets and finance in Tete Province: Mozambique

Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative 2011 MKT 009 Improving productivity and Market access among smallholder

farmers in Eastern and Southern Provinces of Rwanda

Rwanda Development Organization 2011 MKT 014 Capacity building for farmers to reduce on post-harvest losses

and improvement on access to the market

Union des Professionnels Agricoles pour

la Commercialisation des Céréales au Mali

Faso Jigi/PACCEM

2011 MKT 018 Strengthening the post-harvest management and marketing

capacity of FASO / JIGI

Mission Sahel 2011 SHP 005 Program to develop and extend the network of the input

distribution system in the Sikasso region of Mali: Linking the

Sikasso input demand to the supply system in Mali

Institute of Rural Economy 2011 SHP 006 Boosting maize-based cropping system productivity in the

breadbasket region of Sikasso through widespread adoption of

Integrated Soil Fertility management (ISFM)

SNV - Netherlands Development

Organisation

2011 SHP 020 Improving food security and incomes of smallholder farmers

through intensification of maize and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan)

Farmer Organisation Support Programme 2012 SHP 002 Improving smallholder agricultural production through improved

soil and water management technologies (ISWMT) in Central

Zambia

Adventist Development and Relief Agency 2012 BBTE 003 Integrated agricultural productivity improvement and marketing

project (INTAPIMP) in the northern region

Concern Universal 2012 BBTE 005 Building the capacity of smallholder farmers and farmer

organizations (BCFFO) to engage in agricultural value chains in

Sofala and Manica provinces in Mozambique

Agence pour la Promotion de la Petite et

moyenne entreprise. Agriculture et

Artisanat

2012 MKT 006 Mitigating Post harvest Quantity and Quality Losses and

Improving Market Access to improve smallholders’ farmers

income in Burkina Faso

Ecumenical Association for Sustainable

Agricultural and Rural Development

2012 MKT 012 Market Innovations for Development (MIND)



viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Farmer Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) was established by AGRA in 2010 to

strengthen the capacity of farmer organizations (FOs) so that they can offer income generating and

quality demand driven services to their members, who are mainly smallholder farmers (SHFs), by

linking them to service providers (SPs).

The objective of this FOSCA Mid-Term Review is to assess the progress of the program towards its

objectives as well as draw lessons for the best continuity of the program.

First, by addressing the key issue of developing the capacities of FOs such as weak leadership and

governance, poor business models, lack of market orientation, low representation of women and

youth, limited skills, knowledge and autonomy, as well as low levels of membership, FOSCA’s theory

of change is central to AGRA’s strategy and goals. In fact, since FOs are the connecting point between

all key players of the value creation chain and the SHFs, FOSCA’s results will strengthen the necessary

synergy between the other programs. Furthermore, FOSCA is contributing to the development of

SHFs resilience thus contributing to key Human Development factors toward a food secure future in

Africa (African Human Development Report 2012).

In terms of progress towards its objectives, the table below shows that after a needed period to

establish itself, FOSCA’s has been able to augment its performance in a sustainable manner as

illustrated by the regular increase of FOSCA’s key results indicators.

Summary table of FOSCA’s key results indicators between 2011 and 2014 (as aggregates of country

based measurements)

These results have been obtained through strong collaboration with other AGRA Programs, through

co-financing or technical support (i.e. MAP or SHP), or Departments (i.e. M&E), constructive

partnerships with key stakeholders and grantees (AFRICRES), fruitful interactions with Advisory

Groups and most importantly enthusiastic commitment of FOSCA’s team and management.

This report provides recommendations that should help enhance further FOSCA’s contribution to

AGRA’s goal from which it is important to highlight the following:

1- Since the design and preparation phase of project is key to successful implementation but more

importantly to sustainable results of the undertaken initiatives, it is proposed to phase the grants

in two (phase 1: initial preparation and phase 2: implementation). This initial preparation phase

will 1) enable FOSCA’s team and its partner to put in place the necessary foundation (procedures,

guidelines, legal and financial requirements, etc.) for efficient project implementation; 2) ensure

2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Number of FOs whose capacity performance index (CPI) scoring a CPI of 70% and above 1 0 0 145 272 417

Number of FOs with increased membership 2 0 17 274 371 662

Number of new members registered by FOs (disaggregate by gender) 3 0 4,016 19,423 20,028 43,467

Number of FOs who have set aside some slots for women in their management committees 4 0 1 29 107 137

Number of supported FOs accessing financial services for their members 5 1 115 886 375 1,377

Amount of credit in US$ 6 113,207 2,480,215 5,539,209 2,053,996 10,186,627

Number of supported FOs aggregating their produce to sell collectively 7 3 149 163 580 895

Volume of sales 8 0 67,951 121,723 71,893 261,567

Value of sales in US$ 9 0 15,561,225 29,409,666 15,915,149 60,886,039

No. of FO supported to Development of business plans 10 0 0 180 125 305

Number of service providers (SPs) registered in AGRA SPs database 11 0 105 53 114 272

Number of farmer organizations (FOs) registered in AGRA FOs database 12 9 348 1,806 705 2,868

# of FOs Trained 13 0 1,535 2,929 1,937 6,401

# of farmers trained 14 0 141,463 180,624 114,112 436,199

Number of FOs receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs 15 0 0 92 49 141

#Indicator nameAggregate



ix

that baseline information is thoroughly collected thus improving target setting for key indicators,

3) strengthen the leadership of the grantee, and 4) refine the approaches used (work plan) and

the assumptions to enhance results sustainability. Performed through a participatory

methodology, this process will further develop the capacities of FOs (thus contributing to the

knowledge sharing and transfer), especially in organisational and entrepreneurship skills. Of

course this approach will require additional coaching/mentorship activities from FOSCA’s team.

Furthermore, it would also be an occasion to identify “strong” FOs that could also take part in the

process and work hand-in-hand with FOSCA team, hence enhancing the recognition of highly

performing FOs and the creation of a network of excellence centers.

2- With key milestones accomplished like the profiling of Farmer organisations and Service

providers, the establishment of a database of service providers, the adoption of the Capacity

Performance Index (CPI), as well as the FO of the year award (AFOYA) program there is an

opportunity to develop a “quality label” for FOs, for example with set performance standards to

meet to be accepted as a member of a network of excellence centers. This recognition would

enhance FOs credibility notably for financial service providers and promote sustained capacity

development processes within FOs.

3- FOSCA has performed remarkably on its experience sharing and knowledge development

activities and should build on this to position itself as a platform for knowledge sharing and

dissemination to producers and other value chain players. It could take the form of a Community

of Practice (CoP) for all FO members as well as researchers, experts, specialists, etc. involved in

the development of the agricultural sector. This CoP, where documents, success stories, key

agricultural and environment information, technical (i.e. for project design) and financial support

information, etc. could be stored and communicated easily, would ensure the promotion of sound

agricultural innovative and practical practices adapted to FOs and SHFs’ context in Africa and

provide relevant technical and financial information. As a central point of this CoP, FOSCA needs

to strongly lead this initiative and involve stakeholders to ensure a high level of proactivity and

thus sustainable commitment from the community members. Furthermore, the involvement of

“strong” FOs, through the development of an excellence centres network could prove to be very

instrumental in reaching out to the “far-to-reach” and weaker FOs.

4- In terms of internal process such as M&E and communication, FOSCA has been improving on its

implementation monitoring in collaboration with AGRA’s M&E department. For example, the

introduction of the IPPT was very useful as it increased the focus on key result indicators and the

importance of reporting in time. It is however recommended incorporating indicator targets in

the datasheets and dashboards (FOSCA Country Dashboard 2011-2013 and Achievement Data

sheet 2011 - 2014) to enhance progress assessment. Ultimately a dashboard presenting the

progress, per project, toward intermediate and overall targets, using a simple semaphore

warning system, could be useful for quick identification of achievements and difficulties. In

addition, it is suggested to conduct a thorough "beneficiary satisfaction" surveys to collect and

track feedback from SHFs on the extent to which FOs are meeting their demands and to identify

remaining needs.

Finally, with its evolving and increasingly demanding role, the FOSCA team may require additional

capacities. As a matter of cat, the MTR team wishes to acknowledge the continuous improvement

culture that exists within FOSCA team as it also reflects in the clear buy in of SHFs. It should be noted

that the MTR shows that beneficiaries rated the relevance of FOSCA support extremely well as they

consider it addresses genuine and critical needs.



1

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is a dynamic African-led organization that works

through partnerships to help raise agricultural productivity and incomes of millions of smallholder

farmers (SHFs). AGRA works through the Agricultural Value Chain and has the following six key

programs:

Program for Africa’s Seed Systems (PASS);

Soil Health Program (SHP);

Policy and Advocacy Program (PAP);

Market Access Program (MAP);

Innovative Finance (IF); and,

Farmer Organization Support Centre in Africa

(FOSCA).

In 2010, AGRA established the Farmer Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) to strengthen

the capacity of farmer organizations (FOs) so that they can offer income generating and quality

demand driven services to their members, who are mainly smallholder farmers (SHFs), by linking

them to service providers (SPs). FOSCA recognizes that SHFs require to be organized to maximize on

economies of scale in access to goods and services and for AGRA to engage the farmers on this scale

requires partnership with strong, effective farmer organizations (FOs). FOs represent millions of SHFs

in Sub-Saharan Africa and evidence demonstrates their impact in linking them to markets; catalyzing

the adoption of technologies and inputs; encouraging effective soil fertility, land, and natural

resource management; and articulating and aggregating the voice of smallholder producers in policy.

FOSCA has set to achieve the following five broad objectives1:

Objective 1 – Establish FOSCA to meet the needs of smallholder farmers through farmer

organizations, and initiate piloted service delivery by partnering with key entities with ready

demand for strong FOs, in particular WFP in P4P and School Feeding programs, and AGRA

Markets.

Objective 2 – Further engage farmer organizations to improve their ability to respond to the

agriculture-related needs of their members, specifically smallholders.

Objective 3 – Increase and improve the supply of services available to farmer organizations.

1 The objectives are stated as per the MTR Terms of Reference

AGRA goals are to:

Reduce food insecurity by 50 % in at least 20 countries

Double the income of 20 million smallholder families, and

Put at least 30 countries on track toward attaining and sustaining a uniquely African Green Revolution by 2020.



2

Objective 4 – Link FOs with relevant and effective services that upgrade their capabilities

across all dimensions.

Objective 5 –Build a knowledge base to improve service to FOs and inform policy discussions.

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE MID-TERM REVIEW

Following FOSCA’s creation, it was planned that a Mid-Term Review will be conducted halfway

through implementation to assess the progress of the program towards its objectives as well as draw

lessons for the best continuity of the program. However, following consultations with an array of

stakeholders including the FOSCA Advisory Group (AG) it was agreed that the review would largely

focus on FOSCA’s processes, structures and overall systems including grant performance from its

commencement in mid-2011 to date. Reviewing whether FOSCA has put systems and structures in

place, established procedures and developed operating guidelines to achieve its objectives and direct

its activities. It examines the program relevance, design and delivery, effectiveness, efficiency, as well

as identifies opportunities in the New AGRA Strategy and early pointers for program sustainability.

More specifically, the review focused on the following:

Identifying progress of the programme;

Identifying changes in programme implementation environment that may have occurred and

establishing the validity of the assumptions at programme inception;

Identifying bottlenecks in the implementation process and suggest appropriate ways to adopt

actionable measures necessary to ensure successful implementation;

Identify capacity needs of FOSCA and make recommendations to AGRA on the most

appropriate interventions (institutional and human) that would enhance capacity gaps at

programme and grantee levels.

The review engaged program stakeholders including, but not limited to, AGRA Management,

Regional FOs, FOSCA Advisory Group, participants in FOSCA Forums, through interviews and focus

group discussions. This review sampled sixteen (16) projects in ten (10) countries (Burkina Faso,

Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia).

1.3 LAYOUT OF THE REPORT:

Section I outlines the objectives pursued by FOSCA, its establishment and purpose of this review. In

Section II, the report provides a summary of the review methodology in regards to the intended

outcomes of the assessment. Section III examines in detail the program relevance, program design

and delivery, success and effectiveness and FOSCA’s position in AGRA’s new strategy. This section

also reviews the program efficiency and further looks at early pointers for sustainability. Program

results with regard to the objectives of the Program, and factors that contribute to these results are

also highlighted in this third section. Section IV draws some lessons from the Program’s experience

and presents some recommendations with regards to FOSCA’s further support to FOs and SHFs,

some of which may also be of broader potential for best practices.

These four (4) sections are followed by appendices which include the documents and tools used and

studied during this review.



3

2.1 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

The standard analytical framework for this review is the results chain presented below. The results

chain as an analytical framework addresses the assessment of progress of FOSCA at project and

program level from period of commencement to the time of the MTR based on the following criteria:

relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, design and delivery and sustainability (Appendix 1 provides a

summary of each criteria dimension) and forms the foundation of the FOSCA program theory of

change.

Figure 1: Results Chain

2.2. MTR SCHEDULE AND ACTIVITIES

This review is for the program period May 2011 to September 2014. This review was performed in a

participatory manner involving key stakeholders and consisted of the following activities aiming at

analysing the levels of the results chain:

Document review (Refer to Appendix 1: List of documents reviewed),

Design of the MTR tools (Appendix 4: Grantee Questionnaire and Program Team Assessment

Grid),

Pilot testing in Kenya,

Questionnaire administration at large,

Sustainability (5)

Design and delivery (4)

Effectiveness (2)

Relevance (1)

FOSCA

Program

Overall FOSCA

objectives aligned to

AGRA strategy

Outputs

Activities

Inputs

Impact

Outcomes

Needs and intended impact

Efficiency (3)



4

Specific interviews and meetings,

Consolidation of information from document review and questionnaire analysis,

Data analysis,

Draft and final report.

The table in Appendix 2 is a summary of the main activities, timelines and expected deliverables of

the MTR.

2.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE REVIEW:

Although the approach of the review aimed to be as inclusive as possible, it is important to note the

following specific limitations.

Though the review was able to meet with FOs to participate in the review – it covers a

minimum significant representation of FOs in the targeted areas of the specific projects.

The schedule of activities for the review was within a specified timeframe. In this regard, a

challenge was to organize the different missions or interviews at an appropriate time for key

stakeholders to be present. In some cases, the team had to rely on “on-line” communication

tools to gather information. To ensure an optimized discussion process IDEA ensured they

relied on convenient and reliable methods of communication, for example Skype meetings

followed by emails to ensure a more complete understanding of collected information.

In some cases, at grantee level, there was a lack of baseline and / or actual data. This was

occasioned by baseline information as not a requirement especially for the earlier grantees.

Irrefutably, an improvement was noted, as baseline information is now required for all

projects. On the other hand, the lack of actual data was occasioned due to missing data in

reports assessed during the review. Of course this highlights some areas of improvement in

terms of project design, planning and monitoring (especially capacity of the grantees to

report in a comprehensive manner) but it also limits the capacity to ascertain the complete

extent of the organization’s achievements. This report also highlights on how to generate

meaningful reference points, which will enable FOSCA and overall AGRA to interpret the

changes occurring in the different projects being funded.

In regards to sustainability, since long term results are not, by definition, visible, this MTR

has analysed early pointers/proxy such as FOs enrolment levels, as well as the current level

of satisfaction and “buy in” of SHFs which represents their commitment to the project and is

a strong sign of the durability of the implemented changes. Of course, these early

pointers/proxy will need to be confirmed in a future final or impact evaluation.



5

Figure 2: FOSCA’s theory of change

Specifically, this section presents the results of the Mid-term review in terms of i) relevance of the

program and links with AGRA’s new strategy; ii) success & effectiveness; iii) design & delivery; and,

iv) efficiency.

3.1 RELEVANCE AND PROGRESS AGAINST FOSCA’S OBJECTIVES

To assess the relevance of FOSCA program, the review is based on determining the alignment of

program objectives and project models in response towards the achievement of AGRA goals. This

section also assesses the significance of the program theory of change to the realization of program

objectives.

3.1.1 FOSCA’S THEORY OF CHANGE AND ALIGNMENT WITH AGRA’S OBJECTIVES

Over the past decade, the importance of Agriculture for Africa’s growth has been emphasized. In fact,

as it was the case for the Green Revolution that transformed agriculture in many countries in Asia

and Latin America, AGRA has recognised the need to engage in interrelated areas, through its

combination of six (6) programs, in order to catalyse a uniquely African Green Revolution, one that

makes the most of Africa’s natural endowments and human capabilities to sustainably increase the

productivity and profitability of millions of smallholder farmers that populate the continent’s vast

rural areas and boost the sector’s contribution to economic growth and human development.

However, efforts made to increase the access and the quality of inputs, improvements in agricultural

research, improved policy making or access to financial services as well as markets or service

providers all rely on the capacity to reach Small Holder Farmers (SHFs) and their ability to fully

benefit from these enabling factors. By enabling smallholder farmers improve their buying power for

seeds and fertilizers, by increasing the number of SHFs reached by support services, by facilitating

access to financial services, by making the voice of farmers more “audible” in the policy making

process, strong Farmer Organizations (FOs) enable productivity and income gains. Therefore, FOs play

a crucial and central role for the

successful transformation of

smallholder agriculture in Africa.

By addressing key issues such as weak

leadership and governance, poor

business models, lack of market

orientation, low representation of

women and youth, limited skills,

knowledge and autonomy, as well as



6

low levels of membership, FOSCA’s theory of change (see figure 2) is answering one of the key

challenges of AGRA which is to ensure the required synergy between the other programs. The

central or connecting point between all

key players and the SHFs being the Farmer

Organisation, strengthening them means

creating a better enabling environment to

SHFs, as illustrated in figure 3. In fact, the

vision of becoming the backbone of an

African network of excellence centres is

also in line with a sustainable approach of

creating a conducive environment to

investments and growth in agriculture.

FOSCA is also contributing to key factors, identified in the African Human Development Report 2012

(Towards a Food Secure Future) such as developing the resilience of SHFs, through their organization

in FOs and increased capacity, increasing their voice in policy development and identifying, creating,

sharing & applying local knowledge. Furthermore, by increasing enrolment and participation of

women in FOs, it is greatly contributing to unleash the transformative power of women. The same

report cites increase in agricultural yields as key in boosting food, incomes and jobs in Africa; and

important aspects in agricultural yield increment are sustainable use of inputs and expansion of

credit and markets for produce. By strengthening FOs capacity, FOSCA is thus making a great

contribution towards food security in Africa.

In terms of AGRA’s new strategy, FOSCA’s major role in the dissemination of knowledge and

connecting FOs will be emphasized. Building capacity of FOs and at the same time SHFs, in

governance and business awareness is also increasingly critical in a context of investments of

medium scale or large private enterprises to ensure that partnership opportunities yield benefits to

SHFs. In this context, building capacities in grant or project design at FOs and SHFs levels will also

greatly contribute to the linkage of FOSCA to AGRA’s new strategy. Furthermore, the linkage relates

well to the need to develop solid aggregation platforms to facilitate the participation of SHFs in

structured markets. As well as the development of digital platforms such as DFAP contributes to the

same objective.

The review also requested grantees and their

members to assess the relevance of the project

to their needs. As presented in Figure 4, the

overall response is extremely good with a score

of 2.8 out of 3, with specific project scores

ranging between 2.6 and 3. This satisfactory

rating mainly results from the fact that FOSCA

supports projects directly addressing a genuine

agricultural need in the countries represented to

improve the income of rural farmers and food

security. This result is also interesting since it is

illustrating the level of buy-in, and thus

commitment, of supported FOs. It should be

Figure 3: Central role of FOs



7

noted that they consider project objectives to be aligned to their needs, clear and understood as well

as linked to outcomes.

3.1.2 KEY DEVELOPMENTS OF THE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Generally, FOSCA’s objectives have been well worked-out jointly by the various stakeholders,

especially as a result of its set-up within AGRA and through the platforms which provides sufficient

stakeholder participation.

Objective 1: Establish FOSCA to meet the needs of small-holder farmers through farmer

organizations, and initiate piloted service delivery by partnering with key entities with ready

demand for strong FOs, in particular WFP in P4P and School Feeding programs, and AGRA Markets.

FOSCA was set up to work within a partnership framework with other AGRA programs which most

had already been in place over a substantial period of time. As such, there was need to balance

between collaboration with the AGRA programs that required FOSCA interventions and,

conducting activities in relation to awareness creation. Ideally, more time should have been spent

on these activities but the need to begin the delivery platform with other AGRA programs

"overshadowed" the need to create awareness. However, it is important to acknowledge that

given the limited resources for knowledge and communication activities, FOSCA made the most of

it by contributing in events such as the IFAD’s Global Farmers’ Forum2, continuously holding side

events, preparing presentations/media briefings for FOSCA’s work in different countries (South

Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Mali, etc.), contributing in providing stories and best practices for the AGRA

Newsletter and weekly highlights and producing media clips presenting successful work with FOs

(especially the AFOYA3). Furthermore, FOSCA has continuously been engaging with its AG at least

once a year and also on a needs basis which has helped strengthen not only FOSCA’s operations

but also its positioning. These efforts greatly contributed to make FOSCA known and recognised

by AGRA’s internal and external stakeholders. However, since FOSCA wishes to establish itself as

an African Platform for Farmer Organisations Support, it is recognised that these communication

endeavours need to be sustained and further emphasized with a shift from being known and

recognised to more knowledge sharing for FOs and SHFs, again within and outside AGRA’s

environment.

FOSCA undertook some initial activities to interact with FOs, SPs and other stakeholders before its

launch in May 2012. By this time it already had engaged with a network of FOs and other

stakeholders who were already aware of FOSCA and who represented SHFs during the launch,

including WFP P4P AGRA Markets and Soil Health projects. This interaction with different

stakeholders and actors in the agricultural space substantially facilitated common understanding

of the program objectives.

FOSCA’s strategy and value proposition documents defines value chain opportunities for SHFs and

how FOs can be the spring board upon which farmers receive value and voice from the value chain

by aggregating volumes that are necessary for economies of scale thus increasing prices,

profitability and overall viability of the farmers. FOSCA recognizes the different types and layers of

2 The Farmers’ Forum, born in 2005, is an on-going, bottom-up process of consultation and dialogue among small farmers’ and

rural producers’ organizations (FOs), IFAD, and governments, focused on rural development and poverty reduction. 3 African Farmer Organization of the Year Award (AFOYA) is a yearly event organised in partnership with the AGRA and SACAU.



8

FOs and has put in place a pragmatic working relationship with different partners (including

organizations with ready markets for FOs) to reach all the levels. The fact that FOSCA has been

successful in supporting strong FOs (for example by using methods such as the profiling tool)

should lead to further effort in reaching, supporting and developing weaker FOs.

Objective 2: Engaging farmer organizations.

FOSCA has conducted several profiling activities in different countries and the results of the

profiling work enabled FOSCA develop customized capacity building interventions implemented in

targeted countries and in different value chain (e.g. the yam value chain in Ghana and Nigeria).

FOSCA strategy emphasizes the need for FOSCA to work with other stakeholders such FAO CO-OP

Africa; regional FOs to grow its agenda and achieve its goal. In this context a number of

engagements have been made with key stakeholders and potential partners especially in the

AGRA P1 countries. FOSCA has taken time to learn from other stakeholders especially during the

initial stages. In this regard, the Lead Coordinator has made learning trips to Tanzania with CO-OP

Africa, Mali with Faso Jigi and BMGF convening in Tanzania. Key stakeholders include: BMGF,

World Food Program P4P; Network of Farmer Organizations in Tanzania (MVIWATA), NGO’s and

potential service providers, Research institutions i.e. IITA (YIIFSWA). This activity was gradually

integrated in the portfolio of the program officers. The partnership with key stakeholders is

therefore included in the country investment plan.

In regards to this objective, it is worth highlighting the fact that 662 FOs have increased their

membership (by more than 25%), 2,868 FOs are now registered in AGRA’s database and that

436,199 SHFs have benefited from capacity building interventions (Appendix 7a and 7b). Even

though partial, the indicator presenting the level of satisfaction of SHFs (Appendix 7a) is high 93 %

and in line with the observations obtained during the country missions.

To improve on profiling of FOs and SPs, FOSCA and Africa Growth Institute built on the Agriterra’s

tool to customise a self-assessment for FOs and SPs.

Objective 3: Engaging Service Providers.

FOSCA is responsible for identifying, training, negotiating contracts with, and coordinating a wide

set of country-based national and sub-national service providers working in each of the capacity

areas (especially technical and institutional/managerial). To do so, FOSCA works within AGRA’s

policy that requires competitive identification (through advertisement) of partners. Thus, FOSCA

has an array of “Concept Notes” from SPs in a number of countries. FOSCA has developed a

database of SPs and the process of identifying and tracking data on service providers will need to

be fast-tracked to ensure that info in the database is up to date and relevant for FOSCA’s use. It

includes information on the services they offer but it could go further and present information on

SPs performance.. In combination of with the code of standards developed by FOSCA, it would

help FOs in the selection of the most appropriate SP to engage with to build their capacity. FOSCA

has already contracted CADECO to undertake a profiling of SPs and FOs in four (4) countries. It

should also be noted that AFRICRES, a partner of FOSCA, has developed a profiling Report for FOs

and SPs and has established an independent database (www.afoya.org) for FOs and SPs. According

to FOSCA’s country dashboard 2011-2013 (Appendix 7a and 7b), a total of 272 SPs have been

http://www.afoya.org/



9

assessed and added into AGRA’s database while 141 FOs are receiving services from FOSCA

supported SPs.

FOSCA seeks to accredit service providers and oversee an FO-feedback rating system to assist with

service provider selection. Even though SPs are present in good numbers, the quality of services

provided to FOs still needs some improvements and FOSCA is positioned to take a role in building

the capacity of service providers. The functionality of the rating system of Service Providers is

efficient, providing the relevant information required.

Objective 4: Matching farmer organizations with the services they need.

To create mechanisms to link FOs with relevant and effective services aimed at upgrading their

capabilities, facilitate access to funding for such services, and monitor their provision, objective

four is centered on the design of a sustainable mechanism to fund these demand-driven services.

FOSCA in linking SPs to FOs is in line with AGRA programming approach, that is, mainly grant

making and capacity building, knowledge generation, management and convening.

FOSCA through weighing the costs and benefits of potential mechanisms selects the most

appropriate model or combination of models that will maximize the impact of available resources

while ensuring responsiveness to FO demand. Hence, approval at program (Unit) level, AGRA level

(grants committee) and at AGRA board level (Grants Review committee) is based on the potential

of the proposals’ value for money in meeting the needs of SHFs and other targeted beneficiaries.

In terms of results, the FOSCA’s Achievements Scorecard (appendix 7b) shows that 141 FOs are

receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs.

Objective 5: Building knowledge for better practice and policy.

As mentioned before, FOSCA has organized or participated in a number of knowledge sharing

endeavours, which are captured in AGRA reports or documents such as: (i) all our Forums Reports

– IFAD FAFO FOSCA Side Event Feb 2012, FOSCA Launch Report (Accra), FOSCA 2012 FOs Forum

Report (South Africa), FOSCA AGRF side event Report (Arusha), AGRA (Markets/FOSCA) Country

Forums, (ii) documentaries, (iii) newsletters, (iv) media interviews and clips, (v) papers presented

in international forums, or (vi) FOSCA Thematic papers. Since the program commencement, this

objective has yielded high results and contributed greatly to increase its visibility but also to

establish a learning platform for FOs to share successes, lessons, best practices and challenges.

There has been positive feedback from FOs on the impact of knowledge dissemination platforms,

such as farmer forums. For instance, panelist discussions from financial institutions (banks such as

Equity Bank of Kenya and Popular Bank of Rwanda) at the forum held in Johannesburg in 2012,

resulted in an increase of access to loans by FOs4. Presentations and documentaries such as by

Becho Wolisso Cooperative (Ethiopia) have served as lessons to FOs to look deeper into farmers

needs including health issues, employment etc. These comments highlight that inviting SPs to

forums has proved to be very beneficial.

As seen AFOYA is one of the products of the knowledge function which is a unique program to

recognize, reward and celebrate the FOs who are meeting the service delivery standards and also

enabling other FOs to learn from the knowledge and innovations of the winners. The benefits are

4 Reference AFOYA report



10

numerous, as illustrated Faso Jigi, one of the award winners (Income diversity) who reported

increased contract for seed multiplication, increased access to credit by members and increased

volumes to supply to P4P as a result from the interaction with various banks after the Forum. This

demonstrates the uniqueness of FOSCA to recognise, reward and celebrate FOs meeting the

service delivery standards. AFOYA can therefore be seen as a “quality label” that can help FOs

reach out to SPs in order to provide services to their member. AFOYA represents also a strong

communication vehicle for FOSCA to convey specific messages to FOs and SHFs, as well as SPs.

It should be noted that these activities were performed despite a limited budget devoted to

objective 5. However, its contribution to the development of the capacities of FOs is undeniable

and essential.

Finally, knowledge transfer is also highlighted by the results in terms of capacity building activities.

By 2013 FOSCA has been able to reach 158,316 SHFs5 (Kenya, Tanzania, Mali, Rwanda, Ghana,

Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi and Burkina Faso) who benefited from least one intervention (e.g.

farmers forum, trainings etc.) since 2011 while the number of FOs supported by capacity building

activities is 3,817. Current total number by November 2014 is 186,193 SHFs as shown in the

Achievement Datasheet of the FOSCA external M&E consultant. With Ghana, Rwanda, Malawi and

Mozambique achieving a combined total of 165,457 SHFs.

5 Country Dashboard 2011-2013



11

3.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAM DESIGN AND DELIVERY

This section is a review of the capability of the program processes, procedures and structures in

place in delivery of program activities and targets on schedule as well as support to program grant-

making. The section also includes identifying any changes in delivery mechanisms and their effects,

complementarities and challenges toward delivery of the program. Essential to assessing the

program design and delivery, the MTR also assessed the experiences and competencies of FOSCA

staff to ensure the program executes its mandate effectively. In this case the MTR examined the

differences in experiences within FOSCA and consistent components of the program from geographic

and organizational variations. Furthermore, the MTR examines the opportunities and challenges

AGRA’s new strategic6 priority present to FOSCA and suggests adjustments in the design and

implementation of FOSCA to ensure alignment.

3.2.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT

Positioned as a cross-cutting program, FOSCA is guided by a strategy document7 which highlights the

major thrust of its investments in the context of AGRA overall plan. This has facilitated in presaging

and fostering program implementation including coverage along the five program objectives. The

program strategy document has been a key achievement and over the past years has much to

commend to both program process and substance. The implementation strategy that is in three main

components has been successfully executed, with the following highlights observed by the MTR:

FOSCA activities are conducted in the context of AGRA's grant-making and capacity building

processes and procedures. This has enabled FOSCA to make grants along the lines of FOSCA’s

objectives. This approach is justified, as most farmer organisations targeted had limited requisite

capacity (management systems, governance, technical capacity, etc.) to directly qualify for AGRA

grants.

Generally, project proposal preparation and approval take a substantial great deal of time, mainly

because of the proposals having to meet the expected standards outlined in the Grants

Submission Guideline. With emphasis being on the sufficiency of proposals with strategies that

demonstrate the ability to respond to problem areas identified and to be addressed through a

well-defined project model, clarity in number of FOs and SHFs to be reached, collaborations and

partnerships. At times, the potential grantee has limited capacity to develop good proposals

which means technical assistance from AGRA programme staff was necessary. This was especially

notable with the smaller FOs. Through considerable collaborative effort within the program and

with other programs, FOSCA has been able to address the challenge of limited capacity of

developing good proposals, as a result of a well-defined proposal guidelines, internal program

capacity and combine program efforts/collaborations.

6 Meetings Africa’s Food & Nutrition in the 21

st Century. AGRA’s Evolving Strategy

7 FOSCA strategy and implementation plans, working document for discussion



12

FOSCA31%

MKT37%

SHP16%

Gender 2%

BMGF/RF5%

BBTE9%

Figure 4: Level of Co-funding as per the sample projects

3.2.2 ANALYSIS OF FOSCA’S PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS

Program collaboration and

partnership includes co-

funding arrangements,

financial and institutional

support to key farmer

organizations operating in

agricultural commodity value

chains, prototype

development in innovative

ventures and financing and

evaluation/impact assessment. Co-funding arrangements with other AGRA programs has been

satisfactory as a result of clear coordination roles based on the outlook of FO’s within AGRA’s

Investment Plans.

As illustrated in Figure 4, the mission found the co-funding of sampled projects was predominately

with Market Access Program (37%) and Soil Health Program (16%) while the remaining projects of

31% are fully funded by FOSCA.

The MTR highlights the following on co-funding:

Market Access Program (MAP) is already investing in a number of programs involving organizing

farmers in commodity value chains. The collaboration of FOSCA investment with markets projects

has been sufficient. This has led to deepened alignment to country’s development agenda. For all

the project proposals presented to AGRA Grants Committee (GC) and thereafter the AGRA Board,

proposals are ensured that they are aligned to Country Development Strategy such as Vision 2030 in

Kenya, Vision 2020 in Rwanda, PRSP in Mozambique, Medium Term Agriculture Sector Invested Plan

(METASIP in Ghana) etc. Moreover, they must be aligned to the Country’s Agricultural Development

Strategy. Review of project models of co-funded projects with MAPs, is conducted by a team of POs

from both programs.

Soil Health Program (SHP) being one of the large programs in AGRA, the funding available as

compared to FOSCA is much larger. When it comes to coverage within co-funded projects, funding

available for FOSCA has not been enough in-terms of the geographical coverage and target reach.

Where the opportunity to co-fund has been done, coverage has been a main challenge. Ideally, soil

health program focus on research, extension and ISFM technology thus, concentrates on technical

component of the program. The issue of organising farmers in groups becomes handy. As most of the

SHP projects are dealing with farmer organisations, much collaboration is needed within the SHP and

FOSCA program. However, the issue of limited funds within FOSCA to enable a wider reach inevitably

is a challenge. Ideally FOSCA could be allocated more funds in order to address the coverage and

target reach. Alternatively FOSCA could reduce the number of co-funded grants in order to optimise

the use of the existing funds.



13

On extension activities for knowledge transfer and technology adoption, FOSCA and SHP program

team are adopting to move “Beyond the Demos”. This has been observed to already yielded results.

For example, FOSUP has strengthened capacity of FOs and enabled access to credit, IER has enabled

access to inputs, SNV Mozambique has mobilized formation of about 60 FOs from 2011 to 2013 and

doubled to 121 by September 2014.

Bearing in mind the large number of FOs the program targets, it is a challenge to detect whether

farmers have done better with co-funding, as compared to FOs that receive support predominately

from FOSCA (given that SHP begun in 2008 and FOSCA around 2010). This may be an important area

to examine during the evaluation.

Program for Africa Seed Systems (PASS) offers several opportunities to link farmer organizations to

input/output markets of improved seeds, through a decentralized network of agro-dealers and

partnerships with emerging seed producing companies. FOSCA has been instrumental in

collaborations with PASS for this purpose, and should participate with PASS team in supporting new

areas related to soil health, and value addition through crop processing and marketing8.

Collaboration with PASS program has also yielded results. For example, support to FOs on multiply

seeds for the agro-dealers as well as partners with PASS supported agro-dealers to supply seeds to

farmers on credit and in close location, reducing transport cost.

In the Policy work, the approved policy hubs/nodes involve FOs in national policy dialogues. The

Policy Action Areas: Farm input policies; Markets and trade policies; Land and property right policies.

These have created an enabling environment for SHFs to engage. In case of Policy and FOSCA

program partnership some of the FOSCA supported FOs are members of the country/regional policy

nodes that advocate for SHFs issues.

The Breadbasket Approach introduced approximately six years ago, offers new perspectives and

opportunities to build a decentralized network of smallholder support facilities and mechanisms,

aimed at improving their productivity, and linking them to new commodity value chains. In this

context of place-based programming, FOSCA has heavily invested in the BB areas. The MTR sees

FOSCA positioned as a program contributing to the facilitation of localized partnerships with a

potential of bringing into greater alignment the work and investments of interested development

partners. The approach of an overarching focus on partnerships with grantees of an apex/umbrella

composition of regional or national outfit, such as PGAF, FUM, KENFAP, Faso Jigi, MVIWATA and

FOSUP are some practicable attempts to enable FOSCA expand beyond initial work with AGRA and

BMGF/RF grantees as well as accelerate collaboration with development partners and broad

spectrum of FOs. In this view, it is evident that FOSCA is aligned with the breadbasket approach

sufficiently.

A demonstration of successful expansion of FOSCA collaboration highlighted by the MTR includes:

The support to AFRICRES, which is providing smallholder farmers’ capacity building support

system, by implementing a comprehensive capacity development initiative for FOs in eight (8)

countries in Eastern, Southern and Western Africa (includes PI and P2 countries of AGRA projects)

targeting an average of 10 Apex FOs in each of the countries. Though the countries targeted were

scaled down from the initial 12 to 8 during the Board approval process. This approach has led to

88

Malawi AGRA-PASS MTR, June 2010, p.g. 6



14

more efficient and effective partnerships that are strategic in achieving the outlined program

investment plan.

In addition, FOSCA has been leveraging on initial activities by other programs in its work,

especially P4P, to strengthen the capacity of FOs in management systems, governance and

accountability, and aggregation of produce and input requirements. Some of these FOs have

negotiated and signed MOUs with P4P and other buyers including government and millers who

purchase from them against specified quality and quantities such as, MICAIA Foundation.

3.2.3 PROGRAM STRUCTURE

From the initial proposed program organizational structure to comprise of FOSCA Lead, Program

coordinator, Coordinator focused on knowledge development and M&E and Executive Assistant, the

MTR observes the current FOSCA program organizational structure (Figure 5 below) to have

accommodated the intended structure but with some alteration.

Figure 5: FOSCA program structure

Legend:

: Internal relationship

: External relationship Adopted from the AGRA Data Quality Review (2014)

9

According to the initial proposed program structure, the current program structure comprises of

FOSCA Lead Coordinator, two (2) Program Officers, one M&E and Knowledge Management officer

and one (1) Program Assistant.

In regards, to two roles, outlined in the initial program structure, i.e. coordination of partners to

develop ‘curriculum’ to deliver trainings to SPs including best practice ‘curriculum’ and the

overseeing of FOSCA data base systems. The first role was imbedded in the AFRICRES project, a

deliberate decision to decentralize and compose with the limited human resources within FOSCA.

The database of FOs and SPs is in place accessible through www.afoya.org and serves a wide range of

stakeholders. Furthermore, given that the existing SPs that can be funded without the need for

9 Data Quality Review was conducted by IDEA International in 4 countries, sampling over 20 projects supported by

AGRA programs. The review was aimed at improving AGRAs on-going data collection and reporting efforts along with

promoting future data gathering approaches and methodologies that ensured data quality.

Lead Coordinator

Grantees

Farmer Organizations

Service Providers

Program Officers (2) and

Consultant (1)

M&E and Knowledge

Management Officer (1)

Program Assistant (1)

AGRA M&E Unit

AGRA Board

MKT, PASS, SHP,

Policy and IF

FOSCA Advisory Committee

President

http://www.afoya.org/



15

training, emphasis should be in the use of the developed Code of Standards which SPs should meet

in order for FOSCA to use them and/or include them in the SPs database.

As illustrated in the organizational structure of FOSCA above, the MTR highlights the following:

Coordination with grantees, the first contact is the program officers including co-funded projects),

Program Directors/Leads, Grants Units, AGRA M&E Unit depending on the area/issue of reporting.

The consultants (such as consultant based in Accra) provide specific technical support primarily on

program delivery for Francophone Africa and Yam Improvement for Income and Food Security in

West Africa (YIIFSWA). The Grants Unit is responsible for initiating payment disbursement to the

grantee for the subsequent period, after different documents are approved by the relevant staff.

For example financial reports are only approved by the Grants Unit, narrative reports and IPTTs

are approved by the PO but IPTT has also to be reviewed and given a nod by the M&E officer

before PO approves. In parallel, the program progress reports (Narrative and IPTT) are also shared

with the POs of co-funded programs for inputs. The responsible PO compiles a response for the

project to prepare the final reports. The final narrative is submitted to the grants unit while the

final IPTT is submitted to the M&E officer for inclusion in the FOSCA scorecard and Dashboard

Reports.

The Advisory Group (AG) has been instrumental in providing strategic direction on strengthening

linkage of top and lower level FOs. This review held interviews face-to-face and virtually

depending on the most suitable medium on dimensions of program design and delivery. The

Advisory Group is composed of members from international agricultural institutions as well as

Apex FOs (Ghana and Tanzania). Members highlighted the need to engage more often, as this has

reduced over time, and especially enhance engagements at the lower level (i.e. with FOs). A

thorough review on the role of the AG to assess its composition and how this affects consultations

with FOSCA will enhance the AG work in FOSCA.

Given that the internal capacity of grantees was rated 2 out of 3 in the grantee questionnaire and

accompanying feedbacks (high staff turn-over, limited support to human resources in terms of

remuneration and skills development as well as limited field officers) compelled the program

team to conduct significant hand-holding especially at the initial stages of some projects to

prepare and the less experienced grantees to receive and manage grants

3.2.3 REPORTING FRAMEWORK

The MTR observes reporting guidelines that are similar across all 16 sampled projects assessed that

creates synergy between programs. In fact, all grantees are well aware on the reporting tools i.e.

narrative, financial and IPTT, as well as clear on the reporting timelines. Project monitoring is done by

the POs (at least twice every year) and this has been running well since each PO is in charge of their

calendars. Although the reporting framework is clear, and the letter of grant agreement includes

specific dates for reporting, the actual reporting cut-off dates are not similar across projects. This

occurrence is nonetheless revised accordingly with the relevant grantee. Most of the reports or the

sampled projects were observed to be well-detailed and provided substantial information. However,

some of the narrative reports received by the MTR were not up to date. This poses a challenge during

reviewing and synthesis of information. This is also demonstrated on Figure 3.3 below.



16

31%

88%

50%

69%

13%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Technical/NarrativeReports

IPTT Financial Reports

Timely Not Timely

Figure 6 is an extract of a summary of Appendix 9 of status of projects reports of the sampled

projects of this review. The MTR reviewed the sampled project reporting documents and notes that

project reporting has been a major challenge, with timeliness and accuracy topping the chart. In this

case, this MTR refers a timely report, as reports received by the FOSCA team that contains up to date

information. As observed, the reports that are predominately not timely are narrative reports yet

these are mandatory and contain both qualitative and quantitative information regarding project

performance. Furthermore, late reporting impairs FOSCA’s ability to: (i) respond in time to

issues/challenges; (ii) have a holistic and realistic view of the program progress; and, (iii) analyse and

present up to date results.

Figure 6: Level of reporting of narrative, IPTT and Financial Reports

Another challenge highlighted during

interviews with the project team is

difficulties in relating reports to the

proposal Results and Monitoring

Framework (RMF), KPI tables and IPTT.

However, there has been notable

improvement in the alignment of RMFs,

KPIs and IPTTs that has emerged from

the technical assistance and trainings

provided by AGRA.

Technical reports are reviewed by

program teams while financial reports by the grants unit, this poses a challenge in timely feedback

and approval of project reports, thus the variance in the reporting timeliness of the technical and

financial reports as observed in figure 3. Given the need for more verification of the

technical/narrative reports, a higher percentage of 69% was noted as not being timely. On the other

hand, financial reports are 50% of timely and 50% untimely. This was observed by the MTR team as

mainly due to the administrative capacity and variation of fund absorption by the projects. Though

ideally, all reports are to be submitted to AGRA at the same time, this was mostly not the case.

Nonetheless, there has been a great improvement completion and timely reporting of IPTT due to

the trainings conducted by the program team jointly with the M&E unit. However, further

conversations are underway to streamline the reporting, by ensuring that the program officers are

the final point of all approved reports.

The same challenge is observed on data quality. The Data Quality Review10 noted indicators are

defined at the project proposal stage with support from specific program staff. However, some

indicators were not being adequately monitored because of lack of measurability, incorrect

formulation of indicators (output rather than outcome), lack of or absence of indicator definitions

which affects understanding of the type of meta data required, and some indicators would measure

similar results, with minimal distinction. One reason for this challenge is time period of project

design, for instance, since FOSCA staff were not in place in 2011, projects that were designed in

2011, the dimensions of FOSCA program were not well articulated in the project design including the

10

AGRA Data Quality Review (DQR) for Performance Indicators (2014)



17

indicators. Efforts to retrofit the projects with FOSCA indicators have greatly improved the reporting

of FOSCA indicators based on FOSCA objectives. Notably, this challenges varies from project to

project, this issue is further discussed in this review report in section 3.3 on Program Effectiveness.

3.2.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM

The revision of indicators as from 2012 through the facilitation of the AGRA M&E Directorate in

collaboration with the program teams, evidently improved the data quality of indicators at both

project and program level. This deliberate effort to reviewing indicators provided the programs with

an opportunity to enhance achievement of results. Where appropriate KPIs were formulated in

regards to the objectives of the projects.

Evidently grantees are committed to achieving results to ensure adequate response to results. To

achieve this, some grantees have stepped up their M&E system by adopting M&E systems that

respond to the agreed indicators attributed from the various trainings and tools introduced by

AGRA.

Result frameworks for all project interventions have been developed, along with monitoring plans

that included assessments to measure achievements. The MTR feedback from interviews with AGRA

program staff captures the concern of some narrative and IPTT reports being processed-based rather

than result-focused; this was highly dependent on the formulation and definition of specific

indicators. Following the trainings undertaken by AGRA especially on the IPTT, there has been a great

improvement. However, the capturing of result-oriented information/reporting are still affected by

project staff turnover, M&E systems and data quality at the FO level. For these reasons, the MTR

believes that more skills are necessary especially to assist with data management and result-

oriented-reporting at all levels to focus and maintain the adoption of “SMART”11 targets and

“CREAM+” indicators. Data management is a key function that needs to be better internalised within

the program. In this view, capacity enhancement in the form of an additional staff (rather than a

external consult) to adequately organize, supervise and coordinate data management of the program

is pertinent. This program enhancement of the internal capacity will require a review of FOSCA

functions and roles so as to relate the capacity strengthening to staff job descriptions and identified

gaps such as data management.

11

SMART indicators are explicit targets that are Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic and Time-bound this

overlaps with the concept of CREAM+ indicators which are Clear, Relevant, Economic, Assignable, Monitorable and +

(the indicator brings additional significant value for the comprehension of the situation.



18

3.3 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM SUCCESS AND EFFECTIVENESS

Effectiveness implies assessing the achievement of performance indicators targets as determined in

FOSCA M&E plan to reflect any difference in achievement rate over time. The review is based on data

from progress reports as per, overall project targets and annual work plans for which regular

monitoring is conducted. For activities that are not monitored on a regular basis, an estimation of

effectiveness is obtained by information from interviews with relevant stakeholders.

3.3.1 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTIVENESS AT PROGRAM LEVEL

This review provides an inward scan and rationale to achieving what was pitched and determines

whether the current (remaining) program investment will provide the desired results. The following

are findings from the analysis of pertinent reports as well as discussions with relevant AGRA staff.

Results chains for the program and all active interventions have been developed, along with a

comprehensive monitoring plan that includes assessments to measure changes up the levels

of the results chains as they are expected to occur for each intervention. A system of tracking

results is in place.

AGRA’s Evolving Strategy is audibly strong on shifting from focusing on outputs to outcomes12.

There are challenges of linking such changes to AGRA grant making and to the growing

number of public/private partnerships. Thus FOSCA, as other AGRA programs, is strengthening

its tracking of high level results notably through enhanced collaboration between the M&E

unit and the program team. It will also require strengthening at grantee level as they are more

inclined toward output monitoring.

This will also call for enhanced collaboration in streamlining FOSCA activities with reference to

the baseline study (conducted by the M&E unit) on the State of Agricultural Development in

16 Sub-Saharan African countries (AGRA’s Evolving Strategy: Meeting Africa’s Food & Nutrition

Needs in the 21st Century) which brings together macro-level socioeconomic data with micro-

level (country specific) agricultural data and information.

Most small FOs supported by grantees still have weak record keeping systems such as

membership registration records and contributions. This creates a challenge on establishing

the capacity of the FOs (for example

mechanism to adequately track membership

contribution on a timely basis). Though this is

due to limited resources, most FOs have

largely benefited from capacity building

initiatives that have improved the managerial

aspects of the farmer groups such as

Associação Samora Machel in Guro Region

Mozambique.

FOSCA is benefiting from the high level of confidence existing at project level which translates

in constructive relations with the program team. This enables the program to propose

12

“To successfully gauge the effectiveness of AGRA’s investments and success in catalysing transformational change in African

agriculture, we must begin measuring progress in terms of outcomes, such as, change in malnourished people and underweight

children, trends in food prices and reduction in the number of people living in poverty”. Meeting Africa’s Food & Nutrition Needs in

the 21st Century. AGRA’s Evolving Strategy



19

improvements to the M&E system with high level of buy in and low resistance from FOs.

Equally, the MTR recognizes the efforts made by FOSCA in developing program datasheet and

dashboard (excel format) to capture progress of program achievements. However, there is

need to incorporate targets in the FOSCA datasheets and dashboards, to facilitate the

rationalisation of progress while comparing targets to the actual results.

3.3.1.1 Summary of Progress on FOSCA indicators as per the five subprogram levels.

1. FOs delivering improved service to members

Indicator Cumulative

Target

Year 1

2011

Year 2

2012

Year 3

2013

Year 4

2014

Number of FOs whose capacity performance index (CPI) for supporting

SHFs has improved

102 0 0 145 272

Percentage of SHFs who are satisfied with the services offered by their FO 70 0 0 93

The baseline of the indicator on number of FOs whose CPI for supporting SHFs has improved, was

derived from 2013 results with the rolling out of the CPI in 2013. Nonetheless an achievement of

142.15% has been reached. However, information was only available from Ghana and Kenya only.

In 2014, the increase is even more remarkable as it reaches an aggregated total of 417 (appendix

7b)

In 2013, a vast majority (93%) of SHFs declared their satisfaction with the services offered by their

FO. However, this level of satisfaction would be strengthened with the use of a comprehensive

satisfaction survey tool. It should also be noted that information was only received from Ghana

and SSA, a more comprehensive satisfaction should be undertaken to determine the realistic level

of satisfaction in comparison to the target of 70%.

2. Enhance capacity of FOs to access credit for SHF

Indicator Cumul.

Target

Year 1

2011

Year 2

2012

Year 3

2013

Year 4

2014

Number of supported FOs accessing financial services for their members 1 115 886 375

Amount of credit in US$ 113,207 2,480,215 5,539,209 2,053,996

At this level the performance has been steadily increasing. We can see an increase of close to the

double between 2013 and 2012 in the amount of credit and the number of supported FOs accessing

financial services for their members has been multiplied by almost 8 over the same period.

3. Improve the capacity of FOs to access markets for their members

Indicator Cumul

Target

Year 1

2011

Year 2

2012

Year 3

2013

Year 4

2014

Number of supported FOs aggregating their produce to sell collectively 3 149 163 580

Volume of sales 0 67,951 121,723 71,893

Value of sales in US$ 0 15,561,225 29,409,666 15,915,149

Number of FOs who have established new markets for their members 44 110 172 N/A

Number of FO supported to development of business plans 0 0 180 125

Even though projects that started in 2011 were using SPs, this disposition in engaging service

providers really started to materialise in Year 2 and 3.

There is evidence of project scaling up good models in 2013 and 2014 such as RWARRI (Rwanda)

that is using ICT platform or the establishment of warranty funds as a security for members to

../../../../../../../../../../../../../../../Rachel/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Excel/Copy%20of%20FOSCA%20-%202013%20Indicators%20and%20Actuals%20updated%20Q3%202013%20(version%201).xlsb#RANGE!_ftn1

../../../../../../../../../../../../../../../Rachel/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Excel/Copy%20of%20FOSCA%20-%202013%20Indicators%20and%20Actuals%20updated%20Q3%202013%20(version%201).xlsb#RANGE!_ftn1



20

borrow from banks as well as models under DFAP and YIIFSWA. However, this indicator was not

reported yet in the FOSCA Country Dashboard 2011-2013 (Appendix 7).

Interestingly, the progress on scaling up business models is low. This is an area FOSCA should

enhance emphasis in the remaining program period. This will entail a seamless linkage between

investment partnerships and identified successful project models. One such area will involve

scaling up on best practices - identifying opportunities through a holistic approach, involving

several actors at different points in both the financing and product value chain. For example

AGRA’s ‘breadbasket strategy’ allows AGRA to focus a large portion of resources in just a few

promising locations. By undertaking this approach FOSCA will be able to achieve rapid progress in

these areas and in so doing, demonstrate the positive potential of new technologies and

approaches. Steps to achieve this are underway as FOSCA is supporting several projects that falls

within the breadbasket program with focus on Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania and Ghana.

4. Improve managerial and institutional capacity of FOs

Indicator Cumul

target

Year 1

2011

Year 2

2012

Year 3

2013

Year 4

2014

Number of FOs supported by capacity building support (specify type

of support)

0 37,627 106,263

Number of SHFs supported through capacity building interventions 0 16,066 30,930

Number of farmers trained as per FOSCA’s Achievements Scorecard

(appendix 7b)

141,463 180,624 114,112

Although there are no specific targets there has been good progress since 2011. This is attributed

to the various capacity building activities conducted for FOs.

The review elevates the resourceful addition to the achievements, the specific capacity building

initiatives undertaken by FOs. This way, other programs and partners can follow-up on project

specific capacity building initiatives. In addition, project team interviewees raised the need to

improve effectiveness of capacity building initiatives especially trainings by developing a global

ToT module (with some flexibility to allow for country differences) that FOs can adopt accordingly.

This will enhance consistency and quality of training content. Furthermore, a global module will

combine efforts and resources which will subsequently speak to efficiency.

5. Membership of FOs increases

Indicator Cumul

Target

Year 1

2011

Year 2

2012

Year 3

2013

Year 4

2014

Number of FOs with increased membership 0 17 274 371

Number of FOs whose women membership has increased 0 0 7,075

Number of FOs who have set aside some slots for women in their

management committees

0 1 29 107

Number of new members registered by FOs 0 4,016 19,423 20,028

A database for FOs and SPs established 1 3 12

Number of service providers (SPs) registered in AGRA SPs database 0 105 53 114

Number of farmer organizations (FOs) registered in AGRA FOs database 9 348 1,806 705

Number of FOs receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs 0 0 92 49

Number of FOs trained (specify training) 0 1,535 2,929 1,937

Total number of knowledge products/items in the FOSCA knowledge base 0 0 4

Number of enquiries made to FOSCA by FOs and other stakeholders on

relevant issues

0 0 0

Number of people who have accessed FOSCA knowledge base 0 0 0



21

Number of media engagements by FOSCA staff and grantees 0 2 79

Number of FOs members who have participated in knowledge sharing and

learning forums

2 18 103

Number of best practices documented and shared 0 1 1

The indicator targets are lacking. Assessment of progress for this subprogram is thus ambiguous.

Furthermore, some of the indicators seem duplicated in subprogram 4, such as, Number of FOs

trained (specify training). The SP and FO database plays an important aspect in determining the

progress of this subprogram.

Evidence gathered during meetings and analysis of documents show that values presented in the

FOSCA Country Dashboard 2011-2013 (Appendix 7a) for some of these indicators are also under

evaluated but since then updated in the FOSCA’s Achievements Scorecard (appendix 7b). This is

particularly evident for the increase in membership level as well as the number of FO members who

participated in knowledge sharing and learning forums (The Banana Conference in October 2013 had

over 200 people; The AFOYA Conference had over 100 people; The AFOYA Gala had over 250 people;

The Farmers Forum in 2012 had over 80 participants, IFAD side event had about 30; etc.).

3.3.3.2 Gender and Youth Dimensions

FOSCA’s objective 4 prioritizes services for gender inclusive FOs, which also entails projects adopting

a 30% women membership’s composition in FOs. FOSCAs program dimensions on gender findings are

as follows:

The review of FOSCA’s indicators in early 2014 saw a refinement of gender related indicators of

the program e.g. Number of new members registered by FOs (disaggregate by gender).

Though projects are reporting on progress of FO membership which is already disaggregate,

problem areas that may impend sufficient information is the inadequacy of project datasheet

records of memberships and especially data on administrative positions held by women within

the FOs.

In addition, there seems to be incoherent data of FOs based on gender disaggregation at

program level. This may be due to the large number of FOs as well as reports are received at

different times, making updating of the data difficult. For example indicator the indicator,

“New member registered by FOs (disaggregated by gender)”, in the dashboard the indicator is

not disaggregated even though its statement mentions the disaggregation of the data.

Overall the progress in increasing women membership in FOs has been satisfactory. The MTR

discussed with FOs on how they adopted the 30% gender composition, FOs that have

undertaken adequate gender sensitive capacity assessment of their groups/organizations,

significantly had better defined goals targeting gender issues and enabled them identify and

address gender gaps within the context of their specific project models. For instance, MISOCO

project in Niger introduced a new approach for resource mobilization at the local level

(through the Savings and Internal Lending Community (SILC) approach) for the development of

income-generating activities for women in rural areas to increases their financial capital.

Equally, despite being the more educated and more dynamic segment of rural societies, youth tend

to benefit less from current farming activities. The program engagement on youth is observed as:



22

There is no specific strategy, performance indicators especially at program level. Noticeably, youth

tend to be subsumed together with gender and somewhat overlooked during monitoring. As

much as it is evident that project interventions also target youth, the MTR observes that the

youth are not vastly active, within the farmer organization as members, but are somewhat

participative in aspects of value addition as highlighted by BGAK and AFRICRES projects.

3.3.2 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTIVENESS AT PROJECT LEVEL

Effectiveness at project level has a great impact on the achievement of FOSCA’s targets. The analysis

of progress of project specific indicator results is presented in Appendix 8. As one can see, close to

half of the indicators showed a level of target achievement of over 90 %. This is a very promising

result. There is some variance between projects, for example the 2 projects in Rwanda, as well as

AFRICRES or FOSUP in Zambia present remarkable results compared to others. It is also important to

notice that some indicators are not informed while others present level of achievements extremely

high (Farmers Union of Malawi with 209.5 % of achievement for number of SHF trained). Many

reasons can explain such discrepancies such as an implementation of activities faster than planned,

underestimation of the target, change in the method of calculation, etc. Of course, this stresses the

difficulty in designing and planning projects in the most realistic manner.

Target setting was also noted as area that required more strengthening. As noted in the analysis

below, some of the projects lacked targets for specific indicators. A major reason was the

introduction of indicators midway implementation of the project, which then resulted to challenges

of determining the targets.

Overall effectiveness assessed by grantees was scored 2.1 out of 3 in the responses (appendix 4). The

responses are based on indicative questions on effectiveness (appendix 4). In this regard, an

estimation of effectiveness is obtained through the responses of the 16 sampled projects. The

analysis is further supported with findings from FOs, SHFs and SPs to compare the extensity of the

responses of each project.

Given the ratings above, the following is a summary of the findings on responses from the

FOs/grantees:

The program backstops internal capacity that is satisfactorily sufficient. The various capacity

building programs for the project staff provided a platform for additional skills, setting up



23

and equipping the FOs. The program support has also enabled project teams with better

approach to analyse the situation of FOs, putting into consideration the different aspects as

well as identifying gaps and developing action plans to improve the FO’s capacity to

perform basic functions.

The formulation of realistic objectives was satisfactory, as the project objectives are

consistent with the needs and expectations of beneficiaries. However, there is some

variance between FOs in their project management capacity, particularly in project design

and planning.

Unforeseen events that would have affected target achievement especially in terms of FO

activities was minimised by the project design and experiences gained. Potential risks have

been largely negated by the projects commitments to addressing the unforeseen events

along the risk and mitigation plans in the project proposal. For example the case for BGAK,

as a precautionary measure against damage by drought, the project ensured that Tissue

Culture Banana (TCB) seedlings are availed to farmers during rainy seasons.

3.3.2.1 Analysis on Project Commencement:

Delay in project commencement is a major factor

in project effectiveness and success. Figure 6

below illustrates the level of delay in project

commencement. Ideally, starting period of the

project is determined by the letter of agreement,

while considering the graph above, it is important

to note that projects commenced on receiving the

funds. Judging from the assessment of timeliness

of project commencement, this is satisfactory as

majority of the project begun within the first

month of signing the letter of agreement.

The MTR observed the following:

Notably, the main contributing factors to delay is the logistical process of signing the project

agreement, delay in administrative setup of the project team due to recruitment of relevant staff,

especially project manager.

Another aspect of delay is on start-up grantees having challenges in opening a bank account .g.

Mali and Mozambique (other countries mentioned by the Finance unit are Ethiopia, Burkina,

Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria) can take up-to a month. As a requirement for grantees to open

a separate bank account, some of the projects in this countries start-up period may be longer. This

has been addressed by communicating the requirements to the grantee early, however this has

been hampered by the nature of the institution e.g. some grantees are NGOs, and others are

learning institutions which have specific legal/formal procedures of opening bank accounts.



24

3.4 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM EFFICIENCY AND VALUE FOR MONEY

To measure efficiency and value for money of the program, the review addresses the program

financing, the primary drivers that shape the budget and dynamics of cost flows in the budget.

3.4.1 Program Financing

FOSCA expenditure report as at 31 August 2014 - Estimated (appendix 10) illustrates FOSCA’s

program financing. Funding allocation to sub-grants was envisaged to be constrained on an overall

target budget of ~$8M required for FOSCA to fulfill its coordinating, knowledge-building and

disseminating role. Table 1 below illustrates the program financiers at the time of the review of the

total current fund is USD14.5Million from which BMGF 67.1%, RF 2.9%, IITA 9.7%, Sweden (UF 2010)

2.9%, Sweden (UF 2011) 2.6% and Sweden (UF 2012) 14.9%. As indicated in AGRA FOSCA proposal

2010, FOSCA activities imply a greater cost base than that of typical grant-making organizations; the

program anticipated distributing roughly half of its budget (~$4M) to sub-grants13.

Table 1: Total programme cost by financier

Financier

USD

Millions %

BMGF 9,693,938.00 67.0%

RF 424,654.00 2.9%

IITA 1,400,000.00 9.7%

SWEDEN (UF 2010) 415,481.00 2.9%

SWEDEN (UF 2011) 375,000.00 2.6%

SWEDEN (UF 2012) 2,150,341.00 14.9%

Total 14,459,414.00 100 %

There are two major costs that drive the FOSCA budget, sub-grants which primarily fund the

provision of services to farmer organizations and personnel and fringe benefits costs for FOSCA’s

fulltime staff, plus payment to AGRA for 1/3 of the time of one staff member to cover its support in

M&E and managing the sub-grants. Of total budget the review reports allocation of 46.7% on grants

and 26.3% on personnel. These two areas were intended to represent over 80% of the total FOSCA

budget, but represented 73.1% instead. The remaining areas: consulting and contracted services is

allocated 6.6%, utilized by FOSCA to remain a lean hub; and travel 4.4%, which will primarily be

required for outreach to farmer organizations and interactions with services providers, and indirect

costs 11.6%, which in this case includes any supplies and equipment needed by FOSCA. In addition

the budget also allocated 4.2% for other direct costs.

The program agreement that outlines the program delivery is primarily with AGRA and not directly

with the programs. Donors extend funds according to programs and countries. In this regard, FOSCA

was developed with a fair degree of participation from all stakeholders, as reflected for example in

agreements reached on indicators used to monitor the progress in implementing the farmer

organization support program, to coordinate activities along the lines of the program goals. In

addition to aligning FOSCA program activities along the lines of partnership agreement. Some donors

may target specific needs along the value chain such as access to finance. This may be limiting 13

AGRA FOSCA Proposal, 2010. P.g. 37



25

especially because the SHF needs cut across the entire value chain, creating program delivery

challenges to FOSCA which is cross-cutting.

3.4.2 Primary drivers that shape the budget

The MTR presents the primary drivers that shape the budget in regards to the investment plan.

Programs present budget grants administered in the month of November for the Board to

review and approve the budget for the next year in the month of December. There is a huge

opportunity in regards to improving this process to ensure program budgets are anchored

on the investment plan for grants and based on funds available. Notably during the MTR

year, the situation has been that the budget approved by the Board was as per an expected

estimation vis-à-vis available funds.

From interviews with AGRA staff, funding source of specific activities was not always clear,

given that AGRA projects/programs are funded by different donors, thus during

implementation some activities are charged to the incorrect donor. However, the same year

of this MTR AGRA is undertaking a review of the tools used to capture costs. This will

enhance adequate allocation of costing as per the relevant donor, such that, relevant

reports have minimal adjustments.

There is need for clarity on resource mobilization strategy for the program. This needs to be

institutionalised. Nonetheless, there is a resource mobilisation unit responsible for resource

mobilization, however, from discussion with the financial staff, it was suggested that

programs should have their specific resource mobilization strategy that would answer

identified gaps in resources and work together with the resource mobilization team, thus

complement the overall resource mobilization strategy.

FOSCA has various donors for which each has specific reporting formats that programs have

to comply. This is a challenge, so far this has been adequately managed with coordination

by finance department and the required formats have been adopted.

In addition, integrating grants system with accounting system (Navision) which has an

award management system is underway. The Navision system will enable AGRA track any

award from donor such that they are not exceeded as well as track grantee awards. Finance

department at AGRA is in the process of discussing solutions with the service provider and

grants unit to enable programs improve financial reporting, this is alongside with the

review of the workflow process to identify areas that can be reorganised to be more

efficient and less time consuming. This is intended to be achieved by end of the year 2014,

and this will include a comparison of GIFTs to Navision system in regards to determine

adequacy of their capacity i.e. reduce reconciliation and data entry. The superior system

will be adopted, and will be accessible to both grants unit and finance department at point

of input. Furthermore, currently the finance department is working with the grants team to

shorten processes that do not require policy change such as the disbursement process -

which is intended to be reduced from 30 days to 5 days, this greatly impact the program

efficiency.

Issues of delay also are a result of weak financial reporting as this takes some time before

the financial report gaps are addressed - this is 30 % of the reporting while the technical

reporting takes the other load. Financial reports are reviewed by the Grants Unit while



26

technical reports (narrative and IPTT) are reviewed by relevant POs, to endorse compliance.

Normally there is some back-and-forth experienced primarily during review of the technical

report – disbursement is based on approval of both narrative and financial reports.

3.4.3 Dynamics of cost flows in the budget

In regards to expenditure an overall status of expenditure at the time of the review is at 17.4%.

Table 2 below, indicates budget for grants committed is -6.6% meaning that there has been an over

expenditure of the budget. In addition, 3 of the Budget funds are above 95% of absorption

(expenditure).

Table 2: FOSCA Expenditure/Budget ratio per source of Funds and per budget line (see appendix

10)

Source of funds % Budget

Expense

BMGF 95.2 %

RF 96.9 %

IITA 41.1 %

SWEDEN (UF 2010) 100 %

SWEDEN (UF 2011) 104.3 %

SWEDEN (UF 2012) 42.7 %

Factors that determine the cash flow in the

budgets includes:

Generally disbursements are on course – disbursements of funds to projects are done quarterly

for each specific project which is dependent on adequate reporting to facilitate better quality

control. This then addresses risk mitigation of funds - risk will be at least by a quarter. The grant

committee and the project teams are both involved with the review of proposals from the initial

stages, given the number of proposals received, it will be important to ensure adequate

coordination and at the same time manage grantee expectations in regards to actual time of

receiving funds. This is mainly in the communication of the approval process to the grantee to

help them understand the process involved.

Coordination needs to be enhanced. Finance needs to be able to access information easily from

the different programs in order to respond to project issues. A good lesson to learn in this regard

is the adoption of a centralised database system by soil health program.

It is recommended for future consideration to have at least a 2 month window in the project plan

to put in place relevant management systems required by AGRA before starting the actual project.

Financial reporting templates are well formulated, however it was noted that not all projects

adhered to the required financial reporting templates. This is because grantees have their own in

addition to AGRA’s financial reporting template. This sometimes becomes a challenge to the

grantee, where grantees revert to reporting using their own financial formats. In this case, FOSCA

internally transpose the financial report to the AGRA format to avoid the back-and-forth and any

delays (e.g. Faso Jigi PACCEM). This however, creates additional work for the program staff.

Budget Line % Budget

Expense

Grants Committed -6.6%

Personnel 70.2%

Travel 49.0%

Consultants 82.5%

Other Direct Costs 31.6%

Indirect Costs 61.8%



27

The five objectives through which FOSCA plans to support farmer organizations have been

designed to prioritize scalability and sustainability. As a “lean hub,” FOSCA will leverage the

knowledge, expertise and capacity of existing organizations and service providers to meet the

needs of farmer organizations. Purposely limiting its own size ensures that scalability through

partnerships is central to FOSCA’s approach from the outset, working both on the demand side,

with farmer organizations, and the supply side, equipping service providers.

1.1 Program Relevance as per FOSCA program Objectives

1.1.1 FOSCA has been implemented in 2010, after the launch of AGRA’S other main programs.

Therefore, its first objective was initially concerned with its establishment as a formal

programme within AGRA and then evolved to clarify its role. Of course, when analysing

different documents created other this period, one can observe some level of

inconsistency in objective formulation. For instance objective one in the proposal is stated

as “Establishing the FOSCA hub”14 while in the FOSCA’s M&E Strategy it is indicated as

“Establishment of FOSCA by AGRA to meet the needs of smallholder farmers through

farmer organizations, and initiate piloted service delivery by partnering with key entities

with ready demand for strong FOs, in particular WFP in P4P and School Feeding programs,

and AGRA Markets”. Furthermore, the same objective one is stated as “Increase capacity

of FOs to assist smallholders to add value to and market produce” in the Theory of Change

within the M&E Strategy document. In this case the inconsistency of objective inscriptions

may cause some level of misrepresentation especially when examining progress. As

discussed this relative inconsistency in objective formulation is due to the normal

evolution of the program but it will be important to have consistent and updated program

objectives (that reflect this evolution) across board especially in the working documents

that facilitate reporting (such as, country dashboard, revised M&E strategy etc.). All the

same, the program team is clear on the expected deliverables and definition of each

objective.

1.1.2 Progress has been made in the establishment of the database of service providers

following the profiling of Farmer organisations and Service providers. Data is updated

continually as new FOs are profiled. This is an ongoing process as new projects that will

need to be profiled are added to the database. The adoption of the Capacity Performance

Index (CPI) tool will be a pertinent instrument to improve the capacity to assess the needs

of FOs and link them to the SPs able to adequately address group specific capacity gaps.

14

AGRA FOSCA Proposal, 2010. P.g. 18



28

1.1.3 CPI is a diagnostic tool. It is used to identify capacity gaps. Once FOs/SPs have decided on

and implemented a targeted capacity building initiative, it can also be used to assess if the

gaps have been answered and thus if FOs/SPs are improving the services they are offering

to the SHFs.

1.1.4 Substantive progress has been made in the achievement of the program objective on

matching FOs with services they need. An underlying factor to the progress is the program

strategy which is in line with AGRA programming approach, mainly through grant making,

knowledge generation and management and convening, with higher progress on capacity

building.

1.1.5 Clear progress has been made against the program objective of building knowledge for

better practice and policy. The code of practice has been established through the

AFRICRES project. It should be used to identify the best SPs for capacity building activities

1.1.6 Evaluation of the "customer satisfaction" surveys to collect and track feedback from SHFs

on the degree to which FOs are meeting their needs is one of the performance indicators

tracked by some of the FOSCA partners. This is assessed through farmer forums,

documentaries, radio programs where farmers discuss on support received by the FOs. It is

important to note that FOSCA partners do not necessarily use evaluations to measure

satisfaction of farmers. As mentioned earlier, it would be advisable to conduct a more

thorough satisfaction survey using internationally recognised methods, in order to

corroborate the information currently collected.

1.2 Program Delivery and Design

1.2.1 FOSCA staff undertakes a great deal of hand holding to prepare smaller and less

experienced grantees to receive and manage grants. The solution to this initial capacity

challenge as suggested during interviews with other program staff within AGRA is to

propose a two (2) phases grants (or an initial preparation grant) that entails a smaller

amounts of money for the initial design of the project with the grantee. This initial

preparation phase will allow for more thorough design of the grant. It would thus consist

of a pilot phase to refine assumptions and approaches to be implemented, as well as to

gather baseline information. This would also be the occasion to strengthen the

governance and project management skills and abilities of grantees, thus further

contributing to the objectives of FOSCA and AGRA’s goals. This process will however,

require more time in implementation of projects. Furthermore, it may require additional

capacities (in project design and appraisal skills as well as staff) for the FOSCA team to

allow for support and coaching of the Grantee teams.

1.2.2 For a larger outreach to SHFs, FOSCA may also consider supporting stronger FOs to be

coaches for the newer, upcoming FOs. This can be achieved through capacity building in

coaching skills to have FOs with larger capacities train smaller/weaker FOs; an aspect that

will further contribute to the sustainability of FOSCA objectives. For example, the case of

KENFFAP implementing a project to strengthen the capacity of BGAK.

1.2.3 Given the comparative advantages that AGRA’s strategic interventions present, FOSCA can

further enhance its strategic niche within the AGRA spectrum in supporting farmers who

face competitive challenges including continuing to invest in breadbasket areas that AGRA



29

targets which will be more than the four (P1) countries. This is based on the achievements

FOSCA has made in the BB areas such as Ghana, 2012 BBTE 003 – INTAPIMP project results

are positive. For instance, level of achievement at the time of the MTR (calculated as

percentage cumulative actual value divided by cumulative target) on “Quality of inputs

accessed by farmers/FBOs: Seed (maize, rice, soy-bean) in tonnes” is at 96.4%. This result

indicates the success of this approach and can thus be scaled up to additional countries.

1.2.4 The partnerships with AGRA programs have been substantively grounded. Notably

achievement on partnerships of FOSCA with private sector has been positive. Moving

forward especially in the context of AGRA's new strategy, could therefore, be a priority

area for FOSCA. AGRA is also well placed to act as an honest broker to bring many public

and private sector stakeholders together in order to spark new initiatives and

partnerships, as well as improve coordination among diverse groups. This positions FOSCA

in fledging agri-businesses. For instance, an area that is generating a lot of interest is the

Digital Farmer Aggregation Platforms implemented by SACAU which are driven by private

investors thus the need to scale up these initiatives that provide FOs with innovative

solutions through partnerships with the private actors/sector.

1.2.5 The narrative (technical) reports scrutinized were noted providing flexibility in terms of

outline and content, in line with the program narrative report format. This enables

grantees to have the freedom to format the reports as per the information they intended

to produce. Consequently, the varied formats and content creates difficulties in reviewing

and analysing information due to the variations. It is recommended that FOSCA will need

to strengthen the narrative reports with data and stories, as well as refine the narrative

using feedback in collaboration with the Grants unit.

1.2.6 The updating of FOSCA performance indicators in April 2014 notably enabled the program

to introduce common indicators on efficiency and effectiveness in the projects to improve

the appreciation of performance. By introducing this measure at the project level,

grantees are effectively able to assess their working procedures and reflect on how to

improve service delivery to their beneficiaries. AGRA provides M&E support to all AGRA

grants including FOSCA initiatives, as well as leveraging its existing processes in these

areas.

1.2.7 To strengthen joint programming, it will be important to have robust resource mobilization

planning that clarifies each programs contribution. It also entails review of the program

break down structure to decompose the whole program by clarifying specific outcomes,

outputs as well as responsibilities to elaborate more on the activity levels. Progress has

been made on this aspect as the program continuously reviews its Value proposition as

well as to ensure the program is addressing the intended objectives through program

meetings, field visits, forums and management level discussions.

1.2.8 Establishment of FO of the year award (AFOYA) program is an initiative where FOs meeting

set performance standards for service delivery to their members are recognized. This has

been observed as a niche for FOSCA to enable FOs share practices that will raise the

standards of services to members. In order to help FOs reach out better to SPs, a quality

label linked to the AFOYA award could be developed. This recognition of the quality of the

FOs would enhance their credibility notably for financial service providers.



30

1.2.9 With the evolving role of FOSCA, the importance of strong knowledge management will

increase. FOSCA team may require additional capacities, maybe via additional staff or a

revision of the role of the team members (especially the M&E and Knowledge

Management Officer), in this area of expertise to ensure that knowledge gathering and

transfer are strengthened. Also consider aligning FOSCA’s Knowledge management

function to AGRA’s knowledge Management Unit. In fact, it is probably advisable to have

two different professionals to take on these two demanding roles. Especially when

considering the increased importance of supporting FOs with the perspective of creating a

network of excellence centers. This may also require the development of a comprehensive

communication strategy that will make the most efficient usage of the different media

used in order to convey strategic messages to FOs and their members and thus contribute

to building their capacities in the most effective manner.

1.3 Effectiveness and Success

1.3.1 It is recommended incorporating relevant indicator targets in the datasheets and

dashboards (FOSCA Country Dashboard 2011-2013 and Achievement Data sheet 2011 -

2014), to facilitate the rationalisation of progress while comparing targets to the actual

results. Ultimately a dashboard presenting the progress, per project, toward intermediate

and overall targets, using a simple semaphore warning system, could be useful for quick

identification of achievements and difficulties.

1.3.2 FOSCA should work more closely with the resource mobilization unit, as well as country

officers in each of the countries targeted in the Breadbasket strategy as well as donors

such as USAID, World Bank to provide input to the breadbasket strategy based on

tightening innovative models, which can be further linked to adequate investment plan

along the breadbasket strategy.

1.3.3 FOSCA’s collaboration with the Gender Unit is a deliberate approach to strengthen the

gender dimension in program design and implementation. Strengthening of gender

related KPIs especially at project level will require the relevant indicators to be formulated

clearly to ensure adequate disaggregation of data collected.

1.3.4 Projects manage to put in place relatively adequate staffing to provide regular training to

FO leadership (via the field officers), but not to support the whole process from group

development and strengthening up to legalisation and performance. Emphasis on a

prioritization and mapping plan for the projects will substantially address internal capacity

issues.

1.3.5 Notably, the main contributing factors to delay are the logistical process of signing the

project agreement and delay in administrative setup of the project. It is recommended, to

ensure the expected agreement administrative requirements are communicated to

grantees well in advance.

1.4 Efficiency and Value for Money

1.4.1 There is need to have clarity on resource mobilization strategy for the program. This

needs to be institutionalised. Nonetheless, there is a resource mobilisation unit

responsible for resource mobilization. However, it is felt that programs should have their

specific resource mobilization strategy that outlines the program specific identified gaps



31

in resources. This information should then be discussed together with the resource

mobilization unit, and thus complement the overall resource mobilization strategy.

1.4.2 Capacity building at project level should consider looking at the reporting gaps of specific

projects – i.e. their capacity to report on a timely basis. FOSCA has been very supportive in

roll-out of the grants unit support supervision – mentorship of grantees. In addition,

training on relevant management and administrative procedures to manage program

resources at inception for every project before roll out has been effective, but continuous

mentorship/support to the grantee is required.

1.4.3 Lack of a central point of information for finance to access information from different

AGRA programs was highlighted as a challenge. A good lesson to learn in this regard is the

adoption of a database system such as the system implemented by soil health program to

enable a centralized information base.

1.4.4 It is recommended for future consideration to have at least a 2 month window for project

set up. This will enable the project put in place relevant management systems required by

AGRA before sending the funds as this will avoid delays of project commencement. In

regards, to no-cost extensions, out of the 16 projects sampled only two indicated the

need for a no cost extension. This is a good indication that most projects were on course.

It is recommended that ensuring that projects have the adequate project structures (bank

accounts, project team, etc.) and project procedures in regards to requirements for

disbursements are communicated and in place at the initial stage, then delays will be

minimal.

1.4.5 The integration of FOSCA's investments in the context of the integrated AGRA country

programs has been categorical for FOSCA to situate the organizational development

activities within other productivity and income enhancing interventions by other program

and units. The review endorses integrations and collaborations of FOSCA with other AGRA

programs. There is a need to increase the program capacity in terms of review of grantee

report, monitoring and timely management of the communication with existing and new

grantees. As the grant portfolio becomes larger and more diversified, there is an even

greater need to engage with grantees and to provide them with ongoing support and

feedback, to enable them to make the adjustments needed in the implementation of their

programs. With this in mind, FOSCA will need to better clarify its unique attributes and

value proposition within the AGRA investment framework.

1.5 Early pointers for Sustainability

1.5.1 FOSCA’s ability to sustain its achievements will depend on how the program will continue

to leverage on resources internally and externally. FOSCA will need to anchor its

leveraging on AGRA’s comparative advantage and notable partnership success, including

most recently joining with the AU Commission. FOSCA will need to intensify the efforts to

build the capacity and competitiveness of farmers. Farmers have made it clear they want

to learn about new technologies to increase their productivity and about markets to

improve their incomes, capitalise on the use of new information and communication

technologies and better reorganise themselves to enhance their participation in input and

output markets. For instance the DFAP and KENFAPP projects enabled SHFs to create and



32

capture more value in the agricultural value chain. Furthermore, the close ties to

smallholder farmers across the continent and the intimate understanding of African

agriculture makes the program a valuable partner, one that can strengthen and leverage

efforts to improve the lives and livelihoods of all Africans.

1.5.2 One of the major threats towards sustaining the FOSCA initiatives was cited to be poor

leadership skills and power struggles within the FOs. This threat/challenge highlighted by

6 out of the 16 projects assessed included feedback such as: “FO poor governance” (2011

MKT 018 - Mali), “mistrust among farmers because of incompetency and transparency

from its local leadership” (2011 MKT 002 - Mozambique), “internal power struggles and

other governance problems within FO” (2011 MKT 006 - Ghana), “leadership wrangles

among FOs that may derail the sustainability of the results achieved” (2012 FOSCA 001 -

Kenya), “leaders with low skills” (2011 MKT 014 - Rwanda), and “misunderstanding by

farmers on the issue of prices risk of probable disinterest if contracts to improve prices

are not found” (2012 MKT 006 - Burkina Faso). This is an area of concern as many of the

FOs consisted of farmer groups that are formed within specific needs of a community and

depend on adequate leadership to transform the agriculture sector especially at the local

level. Various leadership trainings have been widely conducted by most grantees but an

additional effort would be to have sensitization training to the members, not in the

leadership helm, to help them appreciate the importance of leadership and also to work

more closely with the more popular and trusted leaders within the FO in project delivery

to increase chances of sustaining activities after the project; as farmers will listen and

follow the leader they trust. Furthermore, there is need to ensure that the strong

foundation that constitutes legal registration of FOs as well as written procedural

documents such as guidelines, procedures, meetings minutes and attendance sheets are

strongly implemented and understood by all registered members. This can be done

through additional sensitization campaign or through a strong “monitoring” push, a bit

like the effort that was displayed to implement the IPPT (via a thorough and continuous

request for all the indicators pertaining to this aspect). The continuous monitoring of CPI

indicator could also be used as a mean to sensitize FOs on the importance of these strong

foundations.

1.5.3 In terms, of sustainability, the team is also strongly advocating that FOSCA undergoes a

systematic “satisfaction survey” that will first help assess the level of buy in of the

member-farmers but will also serve as an awareness tool (with questions pertaining to

the benefits of being a registered member). Especially, if the results are then

communicated to all members of FOs with a strong focus on the key advantages of being

a registered member.

1.5.4 Another challenge being faced is difficulty for farmers to adjust to changing climatic

conditions. Farmers need to have awareness forums on the changing weather patterns so

as to adjust their farming calendars appropriately and reduce risk of losing crop. Losing

crop can cause farmers to be discouraged and start looking into other means of

generating income to a point of nullifying efforts made by FOSCA initiatives.

1.5.5 Position FOSCA as a platform to provide financial and technical information to producers

and other value chain players. It could take the form of a Community of Practice (CoP) for



33

all FO members as well as researchers, experts, specialists, etc. involved in the

development of the agricultural sector. This CoP would ensure the promotion of sound

agricultural innovative and practical practices adapted to FOs and SHFs’ context in Africa.

In fact this CoP would greatly enhance the knowledge sharing and transfer role of FOSCA

and further strengthen its contribution to AGRA’s goals. A community of Practice is

formed by a group of people engaged in a process of collective learning in a shared

domain and who interact regularly. It is built around the following four (4) pillars:

The domain: A community of practice is not just a network of connections between people. It has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest. Membership therefore implies a commitment to the domain, and therefore a shared competence that distinguishes members from other people.

The practice: A community of practice is not just a community of interest. Members of a community of practice are practitioners. They develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems—in short a shared practice. This takes time and sustained interaction.

The community: In pursuing their interest in their domain, members engage in joint activities and discussions, help each other, and share information. A website in itself is not a community of practice. Having the same job or the same title does not make for a community of practice unless members interact and learn together. Therefore, the level of interaction is an essential component of a community of practice.

The organisation: In order to ensure its sustainability, a structure needs to be put in place so that members of the community share a common mechanism and platform to enable them to participate efficiently in the development of their shared domain of expertise.

In terms of its “organisation”, a strong structure is essential to ensure efficient

management and sustainability of the CoP. There is need for example to gather and

disseminate stories and cases studies, to organize knowledge sharing or learning activities

and provide discussions forum to practitioners. There is also a need to take into account

existing constraints such as distances between the member, access to communication

channels such as internet, etc. As a central point of this CoP, FOSCA needs to strongly lead

this initiative and involve stakeholders to ensure a high level of proactivity and thus

sustainable commitment from the community members. Furthermore, the involvement of

“strong” FOs, through the development of an excellence centres network could prove to

be very instrumental in reaching out to the “far-to-reach” and weaker FOs. Therefore, the

structure implemented by FOSCA will need to build up on its already remarkable efforts of

ongoing experience sharing and knowledge development activities and provide a platform

where documents, success stories, key agricultural and environment information,

technical (i.e. for project design) and financial support information, etc. could be stored

and communicated easily.



34

Appendix 1: List of documents for review

Documents

AGRA Strategy;

FOSCA Program documents (i.e. Proposal, and Implementation Strategy);

FOSCA Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy;

FOSCA Annual progress reports;

Project documents (i.e. proposals, Grants Memos and grants agreements; and

Projects progress reports (i.e. narrative reports, and IPTT)

Any other Reports: Forum/Workshop Reports

FOSCA country dashboard 2011-2013

Achievement datasheet 2011-2014



35

Appendix 2: Schedule of the review activities, timelines and deliverables

Activity Timeline

1. Submission of final inception report 19th

May 2014

2. Meeting with FOSCA programme team 23rd

May 2014

3. Review of MTR Tools Week of 26th

May

4. Pre-test of tools and interview guides (Kenya Project) Week of 2nd

June

5. Finalization of MTR Tools Week of 2nd

June

6. Training of field assistance Week of 2nd

June

7. Country field visits – site visits and FGDs (Regional FOs,

Beneficiaries, FGDs)

Week of 9th –

30th

June

8. Meeting with FOSCA Advisory Group, FOSCA team, AGRA

program coordinators

Week of 9th June

9. Results Analysis Week of 30th

June – 25th

July

10. Submission of draft report

11. Submission of final report



36

Appendix 3: MTR Criteria

15

FOSCA’s theory of change is based on the prediction that effective and efficient farmer organizations lead to increased incomes

and improved livelihoods of individual small holder farmers.

MTR Criteria Review Operational Procedure

1. Relevance: The analysis of the relevance of FOSCA program focused on assessing how the program’s objectives are

aligned to the AGRA strategy. The review asked questions to be answered through interviews and focus

group discussions with project implementation staff and beneficiaries. Each listed question was outline in a

subset of questions discussed with key respondents. Furthermore, a document analysis verified the

alignment between the different strategy documents of AGRA and FOSCA objectives.

2. Effectiveness Effectiveness implies assessing the achievement of targets of performance indicators as determined in

FOSCA M&E plan so as to reflect any difference in achievement rate over time. It refers to evaluating

whether FOSCA has achieved its objectives. This review will be based on administrative data (activities,

outputs and specific objectives). Ideally, the review was based on activities that have annual work plans and

for which regular monitoring was conducted. For activities that are not monitored on a regular basis, an

estimation of effectiveness will be obtained by interviewing stakeholders on their perception of

effectiveness of the program.

3. Efficiency Efficiency means assessing whether obtained results would have been achieved using fewer resources

(comparison between results achieved and real direct and indirect costs with targets over a specific time).

Here again administrative data, both technical and financial, was used. Under this mid-term review

efficiency measured outputs in relation to inputs. The review will determine whether FOSCA make use of

the most effective resources possible to achieve expected results (outputs).

The MTR assessed FOSCA’s theory of change15

by determining the extent of program “Value for money”.

4. Design and

Delivery

The methodology used to analyse program management is based on SWOT analysis (Strength, Weaknesses,

Opportunities and Threats). This was conducted in a participative manner. The SWOT analysis will involve

the following actors:

• For the FOSCA program (Management body of FOSCA, and Directors of other programs in AGRA)

• For each project under FOSCA (Coordinators for each project, top management of implementing

entities (grantee if applicable), focal points for M&E in each grantee.

In addition to the SWOT analysis, administrative data was assessed to verify if there are any duplication with

other AGRA programs and whether any change to the FOSCA implementation strategy could have been

made during the past three years.

The review also assessed the extent of the program’s implementation on AGRA’s New Strategy by

addressing the following questions?

• What opportunities and challenges does AGRA’s new strategic priority present to FOSCA?

• Does the new strategy suggest adjustments in the design and implementation of FOSCA to ensure

alignment?

5. Sustainability: The viability of FOSCA projects at the end of its funding is an important criterion to assess during this mid-

term review. Review of program sustainability aims at measuring if benefits of the interventions are

susceptible to continue after its end. Assess early pointers of the projects sustainability – create condition

for sustainable. E.g. FO membership, are the FOs having regular meetings etc. – membership is evolving

overtime. This analysis will be based on information obtained from interviews and focus groups discussions.

The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report

37

Appendix 4: MTR Tools 4.1 Assessment Grid

MTR Assessment Grid

Responds Program:

Date of Review:

Questions Answer Codes: * Yes - completely * Partly * No - not at all * N/A

Please justify your rating

1. Relevance

1.1 Objective 1: Establish FOSCA to meet the needs of smallholder farmers through farmer organizations, and initiate piloted service delivery by partnering with key entities with ready demand for strong FOs, in particular WFP in P4P and School Feeding programs, and AGRA Markets.

1.1.1 Was the FOSCA initial outreach activities adequate for the launch of the program in raising awareness of FOSCA while at the same time developing further FOSCA's understanding of the needs of FOs, the challenges of SPs and the work and interests of development partners?

1.1.2 In the rollout of FOSCA, was the pilot approach sufficient (i.e. initial priority countries, grantees, projects etc.)?

1.1.3 Is FOSCA's Advisory Board as a strategic advisory structure, championing FOSCA and working in the interests of FOSCA's primary clients, farmer organizations and other key actors in the network of support to FOs sufficiently responsive in their role?

1.1.4 Has FOSCAs program design leveraged work by other development partners in order to scale successfully?

1.1.5 Has FOSCA developed a business plan that defines opportunities and trade-offs for investment in different types of FOs and for the different range of services?

If yes, determine the effectiveness of the business plan.

1.2 Objective 2: Further engage Farmer Organizations to improve their ability to respond to the agriculture-related needs of their members, specifically smallholders.

1.2.1 In the mapping of FOs, has the needs assessment by Partner/Grantees fully identified the key technical and institutional/managerial capacity needs through an in-depth and collaborative needs assessment?

1.2.2 Has FOSCA rated and compared FOs from data collected from grantees/partners?

1.2.3 Has FOSCA developed a centralised, accessible source of data of FOs in sub-Saharan Africa from knowledge accumulated by FOSCA and leveraged from other partners?

If yes, determine how data has influenced FOSCA program, and its role in supporting FOs to improves their ability to respond to the agriculture-related needs of their members, specifically smallholders?

1.2.4 Is a "profiling-type" assessment of the FO institutional/managerial capacities always used in the identification of the organizational constraints?

If no, determine how this might have affected FOSCA program, and its role in the FOs needs assessment?

1.3 Objective 3: Increase and improve the supply of services available to farmer organizations.

1.3.1 Has FOSCA implemented a process of identifying and tracking data of service providers?

1.3.2 Has FOSCA put in place FO - feedback rating system to assist with service providers’ selection?

1.3.3 Has FOSCA built a database of potential service providers accessible to other stakeholders?

If yes, what important aspects have been tracked (i.e. geographical scope of the organizations etc.)?

1.3.4 Does FOSCA's have specific approaches to linking SPs with other potential partners to increase the supply of services available to farmer organization?


38

If yes, list the major approaches FOSCA has used to link to SPs to potential partners?

1.3.5 Is the functionality of the rating system of Service Providers efficient?

1.3.6 Which has been the most effective approach(s) of training SPs such as: peer group, participatory needs assessment, formal institutions etc. and why?

1.4 Objective 4: Link FOs with relevant and effective services that upgrade their capabilities across all dimensions.

1.4.1 Has the service credit as a potential model for funding/delivery to FOs ensured that services are sufficiently meeting the demands of the primary beneficiaries?

1.4.2 Are grantees adequately capable of undertaking matching of scale and access of service provision by SPs with FO type/needs at the outset to create a conducive environment for the FOs to make full or partial contribution to the cost of services?

If No, why and how has this affected the FOSCA program?

1.5 Objective 5: Build a knowledge base to improve service to FOs and inform policy discussions.

1.5.1 Has FOSCA generated codes of practices for AGRA and BMGF grantees and other development partners interested in working with farmer organizations?

1.5.2 Is there a central and accessible point to all stakeholders of all compiled evidence of identified and measured impact of FOs on the livelihoods of their members?

1.5.3 Have FOSCA partners been able to execute adequate evaluation on "customer satisfaction" surveys to collect and track feedback by smallholder farmers on the degree to which FOs are meeting their needs?

If yes, how were the evaluations undertaken by FOSCA partners and is the data adequate?

2. Program design and delivery

2.1 Is AGRA's program recruitment process enabling the program deliver its activities on target and schedule?

2.2 Is the effort (i.e. time taken and number of staff involved) on grant identification process enabling FOSCA deliver its program activities on target and schedule?

2.3 Is the partnership/collaboration with other AGRA programs structure enabling FOSCA deliver its program outcomes on target and schedule?

2.4 Is the donor agreement in place for the FOSCA program enabling FOSCA deliver its program outcomes on target and schedule?

2.5 Are there any delays experienced on completion of FOSCA projects?

On average, how would you rate the delays in %?

2.6 Are the FOSCA projects targets achievable?

On average, what would be the % of target completion of FOSCA projects?

2.7 Are there delays in FOSCA funds disbursements to grantees?

If yes, on average (in days/weeks), what is the delay in funds disbursement? And what are the main reasons for the delays?

2.8 Are there any delays experienced with reporting by projects?

If yes, on average (days/weeks), what is the delay in reporting by projects? And what are the main reasons for the delays?

2.9 How does the delay in reporting by grantees affect progress towards FOSCA program KPIs?

2.1 Are the available resources (human) sufficient to enable the FOSCA program in achieving its set targets?

List the additional human resources needed to ensure efficient FOSCA program delivery

2.4 Have there been changes in the delivery mechanisms of FOSCA program since its inception?

If yes how have they affected the program?

3. Effectiveness

3.1 Are AGRA programs closely connected and complementarity achieved?

3.2 Has duplication been avoided between FOSCA program initiatives and other AGRA programs?


39

3.3 Are there any proposals to increase internal program capacity of FOSCA?

3.4 Are the underlying assumptions in the logic model of intervention for FOSCA program still valid?

If No, determine how this will affect FOSCA program and its role in the AGRA strategy?

3.5 Are the capacities of FOSCA staff in working with grantees in different countries and with different types of grantees (especially market access and soil health) adequate enough? (This will examine the differences in experiences with FOSCA and consistent components of the FOSCA program from geographic and organizational variations).

4. AGRA New Strategy

4.1 Is the hosting of FOSCA within AGRA well understood by relevant stakeholders? (i.e. other AGRA management and program staff, FOSCA advisory committee and partners e.g. BMGF)

4.2 Are there any disadvantages/cons of FOSCA being hosted within AGRA?

List the disadvantages/cons if any and how it has affected FOSCA program implementation?

4.3 Are there opportunities that AGRA’s New Strategic priorities present to FOSCA program intervention?

4.4 In regards to FOSCA's Theory of Change in initiating partnerships with other organizations that have experience in policy and advocacy to train FOs, engage governments and relevant departments on marketing policies and taxation issues, are the FOSCA initiatives aligned to AGRA's Strategy to achieve this?

4.5 Does the new AGRA strategy suggest adjustments in the design and implementation of FOSCA to ensure alignment?

5. Value for Money

5.1 Are there more effective ways for FOSCA to invest, through co-funding with other programs, directly with FOs or through SPs? Which are they?

5.2 Will FOSCA’s operating processes require any change in light of the revised AGRA strategy? What are they?

5.3 Will FOSCA's operating processes require any change in light of strengthening the performance monitoring systems? What are they?

5.4 Is FOSCA's logic of the results chain in regards to management organization, implementation approaches and technical design ensure that inputs are being used to achieve envisaged outputs as efficiently as possible?

6. Program Success

6.1 Is FOSCA M&E strategy in regards to the quality of data from the indicators (i.e. definition of indicators, data collection, data storage and data usage) satisfactory to track progress?

If No, determine which areas will require further strengthening?

6.2 Are the FOSCA activities and key milestones clearly specified, and plausibly linked to outcomes?

If No, determine which outcomes will require further review?

6.3 Are the reporting tools by grantees on progress of project activities, outputs and outcomes well understood and presented to enable FOSCA track progress of each project?

6.4 Are the data generated by grantees on FOs comprehensive and coherent to ease tracking of database of FOs supported by FOSCA?

6.5 Is the management of field monitoring activities by FOSCA staff satisfactory? Is there need for further support and in which specific areas?

6.6 In regards to the risk and mitigation plan in the FOSCA M&E strategy are there emerging risks since program inception that will/may affect the achievement of the program?

6.7 To what extent would you say that the following conception of FOSCA is well understood by the stakeholders (partners, grantees and other AGRA programs)? “FOSCA will be an Africa-based and led hub that links farmer organizations with service providers that provide demand-driven services”.

6.8 FOSCA has in place an exit strategy that is well understood by all stakeholders to ensure sustainability of all project interventions?



40

4.2 Grantee Questionnaire

FOSCA MID TERM REVIEW (MTR)

Introduction

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is a dynamic African-led organization that works through partnerships to help raise agricultural

productivity and incomes of millions of smallholder farmers (SHFs). With support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), AGRA in

2010 established the Farmer Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) to increase smallholder incomes and livelihoods through effective FOs

capable of delivering on the needs of their members. IDEA International Institute was contracted undertake a Mid-Term Review (MTR) of FOSCA

program. The objective of the MTR is to assess the extent the FOSCA program objectives are aligned to the overall AGRA strategy and whether they

are being achieved as planned.

Instructions

1. This questionnaire includes two (2) kinds of questions:

(1) Scoring questions, whereby you are asked to evaluate on an ordinal scale of 0 (worst rate) – 3 (best rate),

(2) Questions to provide explanations or further explanation on the rating given,

2. The underlying methodological approach used in this questionnaire is (1) evidence-based (2) executive oriented and, (3) emphasising formative assessment (i.e. focusing on recommendations for improvement).

3. Please ensure the questionnaire is fully completed.

4. This questionnaire is advised to be filled with consultation of other relevant institutions, departments, officers.

5. Yours responses to this questionnaire will be kept confidential by the MTR team and only provided to AGRA globally.

IDENTIFICATION:

Grantee/Organization: Grant Number:

Last name First name

Title Email

Additional names of participants that participated in the completion of this questionnaire (if any)

1. Last name First name

Title Email

2. Last name First name

Title Email



41

I - RELEVANCE OF THE PROJECT (Assessing alignment of project objectives to AGRA strategy) Score

(0-3)

1. Is AGRA supported project addressing a genuine agricultural need in your country to improve the income of rural farmers

and food security?

(0= Not at all 1=very little 2=reasonably 3=absolutely)

2. How well is AGRA providing an effective response to the agricultural needs of the Farmer Organizations (FOs)?

(0=Not at all 1= moderately effectively 2=satisfactory effectively 3=very effectively)

3. Is the AGRA-funded project sufficiently linking FOs to Service Providers (SPs)? (0=Not at all 1= moderately sufficient 2=satisfactory sufficiently 3=very sufficiently)

4. Is the AGRA-funded project objectives clearly understood by the project team? (0=Not at all 1=slightly understood 2=moderately understood 3=fully understood)

5. Are the project activities clearly specified and reasonably linked to outcomes? (0=Not at all 1=very little 2=reasonably 3=absolutely)

6. Additional explanations to expound your ratings on relevance of the project above

7. Suggestions to make AGRA FOSCA interventions more relevant

II - EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT (Achievement of targets) Score

(0-3)

1. To what extent has the internal capacity of the grantee improved through the AGRA funded project to provide the needed support systems that will enhance the role of FOs in improving incomes of rural farmers and food security?

Please select score : 0= Not at all, 1=very little , 2=moderately, 3=highly

Please justify your rating above:

2. Are the internal resources (financial and human) for the project sufficient to ensure the targeted project groups are reached?

Please select score 0=Poorly sufficient, 1= moderately sufficient, 2=satisfactory sufficient, 3=very sufficient


3. To what extent have the overall output (deliverables) targets being achieved?

Please select score 0=0-25%, 1=26- 50%, 2= 51-75%, 3=76-100%


4. To what extent has the project reached FOs as per the expected target?



5. To what extent are services by FOs supported by the grant (effects of outputs on outcomes) meeting the SHFs needs?



6. To what extent is the target setting realistic as set in the project proposal?

Please select score 0=Poor, 1=moderately satisfactory, 2=Satisfactory, 3=More than satisfactory


7. To what extent are unforeseen events affecting target achievement?

Please select score : 0= to very high extent, 1=to a significant extent, 2=hardly, 3= Not at all


8. To what extent are mitigation measures contributing to target achievement?

Please select score : 0= Not at all, 1=hardly , 2= moderately, 3=highly


9. To what extent are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) linked to the IPTT?

Please select score : 0=0-25%, 1=26- 50%, 2= 51-75%, 3=76-100%


10. To what extent was the project delayed to commence?

Please select score : 0=less than 1 month, 1=2 to 3 months 2= 4 to 5 months, 3=over 6 months


III - EFFICIENCY OF PROJECT (Comparison between results achieved and real direct and indirect costs with targets over time) Score

0-3

1. To what extent is the total budget adequate for the planned project activities? Please select score 0=0-25%, 1=26- 50%, 2= 51-75%, 3=76-100%


2. To what extent are disbursed funds executed as planned?




42


3. What is the absorption rate of the funds received up to date (i.e. comparison between total funds received against the expenditure up to date)?



4. To what extent does the project experience delay in disbursement of tranches? Please select score 0=76-100%, 1= 51-75%, 2= 26- 50% , 3=0-25%


5. Rate the disbursement process/procedures of AGRA?

Please select score: 0=Below satisfactory, 1= moderately satisfactory, 2=satisfactory, 3=very satisfactory

6. What are the effects of disbursement delays to the project results?

1.

2.

3.

7. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Budget

Please select score 0=very high, 1=high, 2= moderate, 3=low

8. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Duration


9. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Output quality


10. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Outcome quality


Please justify your ratings above:

11. Given your knowledge and implementation of similar projects, what is your rating of AGRAs grant/project management

procedures and processes?

Please select score: 0=Below satisfactory, 1= moderately satisfactory, 2=satisfactory, 3=very satisfactory


12. Given your knowledge and implementation of similar projects, is the AGRA funded project having the most cost effective

way to achieve the planned results?

Please select score: 0=Poorly effective, 1= moderately effective, 2=satisfactory effective, 3=very effective


13. What is your rating on the effectiveness of AGRA staff on technical assistance/support?

Please select score: 0=Poorly effective, 1= moderately effective, 2=satisfactory effective, 3=very effective


14. How responsive is AGRA in project budget reviews (reallocation of budgets)?

Please select score: 0=Poorly responsive, 1= moderately responsive, 2=satisfactory responsive, 3=very responsive


15. How responsive is AGRA in addressing financial reporting?

Please select score: 0=Poorly responsive, 1= moderately responsive, 2=satisfactory responsive, 3=very responsive


IV - SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROJECT RESULTS

(Where possible please indicate the numbers)

1. List 3 enabling factors that have an impact on sustainability of the project results (once AGRA funds comes to an end)

1.

2.

3.

2. List 3 internal constraints/risks that have an impact on sustainability of the project results?

1.

2.

3.

3. List up-to 3 external constraints/risks that have an impact on sustainability of the project results?

1.



43

2.

3.

4. What has been put in place in the project to ensure sustainability of results achieved? Do you have any other suggestion to improve

sustainability of the project?

Thank you for your contribution

End

*********************************************************************

4.3 Overall Analysis of Grantee Questionnaire

V – KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (Assess the extent of generating, disseminating and using knowledge to improve

performance)

Score

0-3

1. Has your project participated in any AGRA/FOSCA knowledge sharing platforms? Please select score 0=Not at all, 1=once, 2=twice 3=severally

Give an illustration of any:

2. Has knowledge from the AGRA/FOSCA platform (lessons learnt, innovations, and success stories, etc.) been used in the project?

Please select score 0=Not at all, 1=very little, 2=reasonably, 3=absolutely

Give an illustration of any:

3. Is the project benefiting from knowledge generated by other AGRA supported grantees/projects? Please select score 0=Not at all, 1=very little, 2=reasonably, 3=absolutely

Please specify:

4. To what extent is knowledge generated by the project communicated to FOs and SHFs? Please select score 0=Not at all, 1=very little, 2=reasonably, 3=absolutely

Please specify:



44

Relevance Average

per question

1. Is AGRA supported project addressing a genuine agricultural need in your country to improve the income of rural farmers and food security

3.0

2. How well is AGRA providing an effective response to the agricultural needs of the Farmer Organizations (FOs)? 2.3

3. Is the AGRA-funded project sufficiently linking FOs to Service Providers (SPs)? 2.7

4. Is the AGRA-funded project objectives clearly understood by the project team? 3.0

5. Are the project activities clearly specified and reasonably linked to outcomes? 2.9

Total 2.8

Effectiveness Average

per question

1. To what extent has the internal capacity of the grantee improved through the AGRA funded project to provide the needed support systems that will enhance the role of FOs in improving incomes of rural farmers and food security?

2.5

2. Are the internal resources (financial and human) for the project sufficient to ensure the targeted project groups are reached?

2.0

3. To what extent have the overall output (deliverables) targets being achieved? 2.4

4. To what extent has the project reached FOs as per the expected target? 2.6

5. To what extent are services by FOs supported by the grant (effects of outputs on outcomes) meeting the SHFs needs? 2.4

6. To what extent is the target setting realistic as set in the project proposal? 2.2

7. To what extent are unforeseen events affecting target achievement? 1.5

8. To what extent are mitigation measures contributing to target achievement? 2.1

9. To what extent are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) linked to the IPTT? 2.6

10. To what extent was the project delayed to commence? 1.8

Total 2.2

Efficiency Average

per question

1. To what extent is the total budget adequate for the planned project activities? 2.7

2. To what extent are disbursed funds executed as planned? 2.6

3. What is the absorption rate of the funds received up to date (i.e. comparison between total funds received against the expenditure up to date)?

2.6

4. To what extent does the project experience delay in disbursement of tranches? 1.6

5. Rate the disbursement process/procedures of AGRA? 2.5

6. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Budget 1.8

7. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Duration 2.0

8. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Output quality 1.4

9. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Outcome quality 1.4

10. Given your knowledge and implementation of similar projects, what is your rating of AGRAs grant/project management procedures and processes?

2.7

11. Given your knowledge and implementation of similar projects, is the AGRA funded project having the most cost effective way to achieve the planned results?

2.4

12. What is your rating on the effectiveness of AGRA staff on technical assistance/support? 2.7

13. How responsive is AGRA in project budget reviews (reallocation of budgets)? 2.3

14. How responsive is AGRA in addressing financial reporting? 2.7

Total 2.1

Knowledge management Average

per question

Has your project participated in any AGRA/FOSCA knowledge sharing platforms? 2.5

Has knowledge from the AGRA/FOSCA platform (lessons learnt, innovations, and success stories, etc.) been used in the project?

2.3

Is the project benefiting from knowledge generated by other AGRA supported grantees/projects? 2.3

To what extent is knowledge generated by the project communicated to FOs and SHFs? 2.5

Total 2.4


45

Appendix 5: Program timeline and Responsibilities

Appendix B: Timeline and Responsibilities16

The following table presents a sample set of implementation steps and organizational responsibilities to be monitored as FOSCA operationalizes it strategy.

Activities Ordered implementation steps to track Responsibility Outputs Outcomes Outcome Indicators

Objective 1. Plan and launch FOSCA to meet the needs of smallholder farmers through farmer organizations

1.1 Set up and operationalize FOSCA

TOR for project task team developed

Team assembled and tasked

Positions in FOSCA advertised

Recruitment panel commissioned

Recruitment conducted

AGRA & Partners

A project Task Team formed at AGRA

FOSCA Advisory Board formed and convened

FOSCA lead and main staff contracted

Service provider contracted to support AGRA in establishing FOSCA

FOSCA established and key staff in position

Initiative fully defined in form and content, including the relevant operational and functional processes within AGRA

TOR for support SP developed

SP identified and hired

FOSCA

Joint plan of action developed FOSCA & SP

1.2 Develop FOSCA strategy, business plan and M&E matrix

Implementation strategy for objective(2-5) development process commissioned and accomplished

Results based monitoring matrix development process initiated and accomplished

TOR for mid-term review developed

FOSCA & SP Implementation strategy and business plan for objectives 2-5 developed and approved

A time-bound results-based monitoring matrix to track implementation of activities developed and approved

Fully operational FOSCA in place

FOSCA operations reflect needs of farmer organizations

Responsibilities efficiently shared between FOSCA and partners

Review at 18-months confirms successful launch, operationalize-action, and positioning for scaling up

Review team identified, notified and commissioned

AGRA & Partners

1.3 Implement the strategy and business plan

Partners identified

Negotiations proceed

Contractual agreements drawn

AGRA, FOSCA, SP Potential partners engaged to support implementation of the strategy

Advisory Board meetings held regularly

Extensive participatory consultations conducted with stakeholders on FOSCA objectives, e.g. FOs, service providers, donors organizations,

Selection & commissioning criteria developed and approved

Criteria used to identify and bring on board FO leaders

FOSCA & SP

Sensitization strategy unveiled

Strategy used to reach out for the stakeholders

FOSCA

16 Farmer Organization Support Centre in Africa, Project proposal, 2010


46

etc.

1.1 Test initial service delivery model with P4P and AGRA Markets

Agreements reached with WFP P4P and other immediate partners

Institutional involvement of AGRA Markets in FOSCA strategy development

Identification of target FOs to receive services linked to P4P and AGRA Markets

FOSCA, P4P, AGRA mgmt. FOSCA, P4P, AGRA Markets FOSCA, P4P, AGRA Markets

5-7 target FOs receiving FOSCA resources will source 8-10 tons of cereals to P4P in Mali and Tanzania

FOSCA will facilitate service delivery for 3 FOs working with AGRA markets grantees

FOSCA will identify initial strength and constraints to model

Strong partnerships with key partners

FOs served sourcing to P4P

Tons procured by P4P from improved FOs

Smallholder income improvement in FOs

Strengthened capacities of target FOs

Objective 2. Engage farmer organizations to improve their ability to respond to the needs of smallholder

2.1 Build FO awareness of FOSCA

Communication/outreach materials designed and produced

Stakeholders identified and contacts made

Strategy for effective FO outreach developed to ensure equity

FO sensitization workshops planned and notifications issued

FOSCA

FOSCA communication/outreach materials for FOs developed

Stakeholder meetings held based on FOSCA’s implementation plan

FOSCA organized FO sensitization workshops conducted for various FO levels

Above outreach conducted in Kenya and Malawi

FOSCA known and perceived as a leading resource for technical, managerial, and institutional services to FOs to meet needs of smallholder members

Number of enquiries made to FOSCA by FOs on the available products and services

Outreach conducted at various levels FOSCA & National FOs

2.2 Map and register potential beneficiary FOs

Indicative Data on FOs at each level assembled

Decision on FO number at each level made

Various FOs contacted for engagement

Appropriate FO mapping proceeded

FOSCA Partnership on FO data mapping established and operationalized

Existing farmers' organizations in target geography mapped (incorporating existing maps)

Process in place for ongoing maintenance and updating of database

Consolidated database of regional, national, sub-national & local FOs in use

Geographies, beneficiaries, and membership represented farmer organizations mapped

Database usage statistics

2.3 Select FOs eligible and interested to partner with FOSCA

FO selection criteria finalized and adopted

Multi-level based categories documented

Decision on proportion per category made

FOSCA & SP

Selection criteria established

Initial selection completed, targeting BMGF and AGRA grantees at first

All interested FOs (among those selected) engaged as “participants” (=interested + eligible FOs)

Set of farmer organizations representing diversity of size/level/geography and gender actively engaged with FOSCA

Participating FOs represent 3 million farmers, by year 4

Selection commenced and proceeded FOSCA, SP & National level FOs

2.4 Need assessment tool finalized and FOSCA & SP Need assessment tools Needs assessments At least 2/3 of the


47

Identify individual needs of participating FOs based on consultative and participatory needs assessments

adopted developed

Qualified partners and/or SPs to support needs assessments identified and engaged

Process in place whereby FOSCA and FO understanding of individual FO needs is updated on ongoing basis

complete for 100% of participating FOs

Comprehensive FOs needs are translated into actual demands to FOSCA

identified FOs demands are captured for action within 2 years after launch

Partnerships on need redressing concretized

FOSCA & Partners

Mechanism for progressive need identification and updating developed and adopted

FOSCA & SP

Needs identified and updated progressively

FOSCA

Objective 3. Increase and improve the supply of services available to farmer organizations

3.1 Build SP awareness of FOSCA

Communication/outreach materials designed and produced

SPs and contacts made

Strategy for effective SP outreach developed to ensure equity

SPs sensitization workshops planned and notifications issued

FOSCA FOSCA communication/outreach plan to service providers developed

FOSCA known and perceived as an that strengthens service providers, and facilitates service provision to FOs

Number of expressions of interest by SPs in target countries

Outreach conducted at various levels FOSCA & National FOs

3.2 Create database of potential service providers, including FOs

Indicative Data on SPs at each level assembled

Decision on SP number at each level made

Various SPs contacted for engagement

Appropriate SP/FO mapping proceeded

FOSCA

Potential providers mapped, by (a) areas of expertise (b) geographic focus (c) location

Functions of intranet/extranet defined

Process in place for database maintenance

A comprehensive, interactive online SP database created and in use

Increasing trajectory of database usage

Functional SP/FO data management system activated

FOSCA & SP

3.3 Rate service providers and identify shortlist of preferred SPs

Criteria for SP rating finalized and adopted FOSCA & SP Rating criteria developed

Initial evaluation completed

SPs rated and short list created according to the set criteria

Rosters of highly rated service providers in various categories capable and willing to serve FOs

Lists of SPs in order of preferences for various levels of services

Pre-testing of the criteria conducted for functional assurance

Criteria used for SP selection process

SP data stored in an easily retrievable form

FOSCA

3.4 Develop capacity of service providers in line with the code of practice

Area specific service provision models developed and adopted

FOSCA & FOs Effective models of service provision to FOs identified, created or adapted, for 3 mains areas: institutional, management and technical

Partners and SPs identified to

Standard capabilities of SPs overcome the existing gaps between the demand of FOs and the SPs’ ability to deliver

Scalable training

Progressive reduction of gaps between available capacity and FOs demands

Shared learning between different

Gap between demanded services identified and quantified per service model in view of available SPs

Content focusing on identified gaps

FOSCA, SPs & FOs


48

developed and approved develop content and conduct training

materials/toolkits for SPs created or adapted

regions on thematic lines SPs trained in their areas of inability FOSCA & SPs

Objective 4. Link FOs with relevant and effective services that upgrade their capabilities across all dimensions.

4.1 Link FOs with available services based on their preferences.

Multi-level packs of the requested services per country developed

Reciprocal SP packs identified and mapped onto the demands

FOSCA & SP

Specific individual FOs’ request for services received.

FOs demands aggregated and clustered (by geography, service, or stage of development)

Clusters of service providers proactively identified, and contacted to deliver services, by cluster where possible

Service provider offering matching FO needs presented to all participating FOs accomplished

Service providers contracted by FOs

90% of participating FOs report satisfaction with services received

Formal notifications of available SPs issued to FOs for decision

FOSCA

SPs and FOs matched and formally introduced to start working

FOSCA & National FOs

Mechanisms for tracking progress concretized and commissioned

FOSCA & SP

4.2 Facilitate FOs access to funding for services

Criteria for funding developed and approved

Accountability provision defined and concretized

All participating FOs and SPs acquainted with both

FOSCA & SP

Criteria/mechanism for funding developed and approved (including accountability provisions)

FOs demands for funding prioritized based on criteria

100% of budgeted sub-grants awarded

FOs receiving needed support through a simple, transparent and efficient process

FOs report that funding enabled them to obtain a service impossible otherwise

FO demand priority listings finalized FOSCA & SPs

Flow of funds from FOSCA to FO then SP enhanced and sustained

FOSCA & FOs

4.3 Prioritize services for gender inclusive FOs

Coordinate with new AGRA Gender PO

Develop targeted strategy for the integration of gender across FOSCA’s implementation

AGRA mgmt.& FOSCA

Tailor criteria for resourcing FOs with high representation of women membership and leadership

Incentivize FOs to expand membership of women smallholders

Provide some targeted service credits to women’s FOs

FOs increase membership of women smallholders

Robust criteria for resourcing FOs

Women membership in FOs

# of women’s groups receiving services

Livelihood impact on women smallholders

Objective 5. Build a knowledge base to improve service to FOs and inform policy discussions

5.1 Compile and create evidence on the impact of FOs on farmers’ livelihoods

Initial priority listing of FO specific information/technological needs completed and approved

Available technologies/information quantified and matched onto the demand

FOs, FOSCA, SPs & Partners

Criteria for qualifying cases set and approved

Partners or SPs identified and contracted to compile existing evidence

Articles on declared thematic areas of the year received at FOSCA progressively

Compelling cases for FO

Appropriate measures including submissions to existing journals and publications to be


49

lists Initial store of evidence developed, and informed by FOSCA’s experience/M&E

Materials that incorporate evidence into policy perspective created and distributed to all relevant stakeholders

importance being actively incorporated in the follow-up development planning

defined by Task Team

Existing gaps clearly quantified

Criteria for solicitation of the knowledge and information developed and approved

FOSCA & SPs

Criteria used to generate the needed knowledge and information

FOSCA

Mechanism for tracking and responding to upcoming demands developed and utilized

FOSCA & SP

5.2 Compile pool of learning on best practices in service provision to FOs

Mechanism to call for research proposals developed and adopted

FOSCA & SP

Partners or SPs identified to research on existing best practices along specified dimensions

Code of practice on how development partners can best engage with FOs

Pool of learning developed on service provision to FOs, and process in place to update knowledge based of FOSCA’s experience

Curriculum/toolkits developed based on the learning

Comprehensive set of best practice actively in use

At least 5 best practices identified and up scaled every year

Mechanism/criteria used to secure the existing best practices

FOSCA

FOs engagement codes of practice developed and adopted

FOSCA & SP

Curricula and thematic FO packs developed and distributed amongst the participating FOs

FOSCA

5.3 Monitor FOs (ongoing) to track improved outcomes for farmers, e.g. application and sustained adoption

FO evaluation criteria developed FOSCA & SP

Evaluation partner identified

Evaluation approach determined to ensure a representative samples of farmers and intervention types, and right “n”

Criteria identified along which farmers evaluate FOs

Mechanisms for farmer feedback and other means of evaluation designed:

o surveys of farmers o use of mobile technology

Feedback gathered, synthesized and analyzed

Report card and metrics developed to measure the

Smallholder farmers in every participating FO given a voice in the performance of their organizations

An improving trajectory of feedback from smallholders indicating that their FOs are becoming more effective and member-driven

Partners identified and commissioned FOSCA

An all partner feedback mechanisms developed and communicated

FOSCA & SP

Feedback gathering and synthesis process instituted at FOSCA

Formats and matrices for reporting developed and distributed for use by participating target groups

FOSCA

Feedback analyses procedure developed and applied

FOSCA & SP


50

improvement or “upgrading” of FO capabilities

Results of feedback analysis reported and compiled

5.4 Monitor provision of services to FOs

Indicators for FOs performance and impact developed

FOSCA & SP Criteria for FOs evaluation of SPs identified

Mechanism for FO feedback on SPs defined, e.g. post-engagement feedback on SPs (appropriate partner engaged)

Feedback gathered, synthesized and analyzed

Results of feedback analysis compiled into SP report card

Mechanism established for verification of successful and sustained FO application of new capacities (received through SPs)

Every participating FO given a voice in the performance of service providers

An improving trajectory of feedback from FOs indicating that SPs are becoming increasingly “customer oriented”

FO Reporting /feedback mechanisms developed and distributed

FO/SP operations regularly monitored for effective management

New competencies noted and evaluated for up/out scaling

FOSCA

5.5 Monitor the activities of FOSCA through an organized process

Align FOSCA’s implementation tracking guidelines with the M&E of AGRA

Monitor regularly the progress within FOSCA in line with AGRA’s activities roll out

FOSCA & AGRA FOSCA and AGRA M&E approach aligned

Periodic checks on the implementation of the activities conducted regularly

Monitoring matrix actively used to guide implementation of activities

Quantity and quality of evidence on FOSCA impact



51

Appendix 6: FOSCA Theory of Change


52

Appendix 7a: FOSCA Country Dashboard (2011 – 2013)

Sub-Program Indicator Definition 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013

FOs delivering improved

service to members

Number of FOs whose capacity

performance index (CPI) for supporting

SHFs has improved

Number of target FOs whose CPI has

increased from the baseline 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145

Percentage of SHFs who are satisfied with

the services offered by their FO

Percentage of FO members who score their

FO above 70% in the delivery of services0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 93

Enhance capacity of FOs to

access credit for SHFs

Number of supported FOs accessing

financial services for their members

Number of supported FOs accessing credit

for their members from at least once source 0 0 0 12 0 5 72 103 0 39 387 0 0 0 4 111 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 115 623

Amount of credit in US$ Loan amount borrowed in US$ 0 0 1,900,000 1,190,000 0 47,146 400,000 1,366,917 0 122,000 222,500 0 23,700 0 58,215 151,007 113,207 0 119,000 0 0 0 0 113,207 2,480,215 3,120,270

Improve the capaciy of FOs to

access markets for their

members

Number of supported FOs aggregating their

produce to sell collectively

Number count of FOSCA supported FOs who

are aggregating their members produce for

sell ing to bulk buyers

0 0 0 0 0 0 55 39 0 0 20 0 0 3 30 52 0 64 24 0 0 0 0 3 149 135

Value of sales in US$ Value of aggregated produce by FO 0 170,250 0 0 0 1,981,086 6,058,929 7,431,867 0 104,532 187,409 0 0 0 3,150,461 6,078,856 0 2,515,596 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 11,829,517 15,852,468

Volume of sales Volume (MT) of aggregated produce by FO's 0 950 0 0 0 3,744 15,511 25,998 0 530 1,193 0 0 0 10,201 20,203 0 4,809 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,051 52,089

Number of FOs who have established new

markets for their members

Number of supported FOs who have

established at least two new markets for

their members in the last two years

0 0 40 85 0 0 60 46 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 44 10 28 0 0 0 0 44 110 172

Improve managerial and

institutional capacity of FOs

Number of FOs supported by capacity

building support (specify type of support)

Number of FOs who have been reached by at

least one of capacity building intervention

supported by FOSCA

0 1 0 0 138 244 341 244 0 94 771 0 214 0 706 789 0 0 0 0 0 0 275 0 1,279 2,538

Number of SHFs supported through

capacity building interventions

Number of SHFs reached by at least one

capacity building intervention supported by

FOSCA

0 3,800 846 1,050 340 0 31,394 20,832 0 3,261 12,604 0 8,213 0 15,108 17,538 0 12,373 26,590 0 0 0 4,367 0 63,322 94,994

Membership of FOs

increases

Number of FOs with increased

membership

Number count of FOs targeted by FOSCA

whose membership has increased between

25 and 50%.

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86

Number of FOs whose women membership

has increased

Number count of supported FOs who whose

women membership is greater than 30% of

the total membership

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136

Number of FOs who have set aside some

slots for women in their management

committees

Number of supported FOs who have set

aside at least 2 slots for women in their

management committees

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30

Number of service providers (SPs)

registered in AGRA SPs database

Number of SPs whose capacity has been

assessed and added into the AGRA SPs

database

0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 158

Number of farmer organizations (FOs)

registered in AGRA FOs database

Number of FOs whose capacity has been

assessed and added into the AGRA FOs

database

0 0 0 254 0 150 147 24 0 0 589 0 143 0 0 314 9 12 21 0 154 189 411 9 348 2,060

Number of FOs receiving services from

FOSCA supported SPs

Number count of FOs receiving at least one

service from FOSCA supported SPs0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85

Total number of knowledge products/items

in the FOSCA knowledge base

Number of newsletters, flyers, thematic

papers, development papers, articles posted

in the AGRA website

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Number of media engagements by FOSCA

staff and grantees

Number of times FOSCA staff and grantees

have engaged the media (mention the media

house and type of enggaement e.g media

brief, meeting coverage etc.)

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79

Number of FOs members who have

participated in knowledge sharing and

learning forums

Number count of stakeholders participating

in FOSCA supported forums0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 5 2 17 5 0 42 0 0 2 18 103

Sub-Sahara AfricaTanzania Zambia Burkina FassoYear GhanaKenya MalawiMali MozambiqueRwanda


53

Appendix 7b: FOSCA’s Achievements Data Scorecard (05-11-2014)

2011 2012 2013 2014 Total

Number of FOs whose capacity performance index (CPI) scoring a CPI of 70% and above 1 0 0 145 272 417

Number of FOs with increased membership 2 0 17 274 371 662

Number of new members registered by FOs (disaggregate by gender) 3 0 4,016 19,423 20,028 43,467

Number of FOs who have set aside some slots for women in their management committees 4 0 1 29 107 137

Number of supported FOs accessing financial services for their members 5 1 115 886 375 1,377

Amount of credit in US$ 6 113,207 2,480,215 5,539,209 2,053,996 10,186,627

Number of supported FOs aggregating their produce to sell collectively 7 3 149 163 580 895

Volume of sales 8 0 67,951 121,723 71,893 261,567

Value of sales in US$ 9 0 15,561,225 29,409,666 15,915,149 60,886,039

No. of FO supported to Development of business plans 10 0 0 180 125 305

Number of service providers (SPs) registered in AGRA SPs database 11 0 105 53 114 272

Number of farmer organizations (FOs) registered in AGRA FOs database 12 9 348 1,806 705 2,868

# of FOs Trained 13 0 1,535 2,929 1,937 6,401

# of farmers trained 14 0 141,463 180,624 114,112 436,199

Number of FOs receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs 15 0 0 92 49 141

#Indicator nameAggregate



54

APPENDIX 8: ANALYSIS OF PROJECT INTERVENTIONS TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT OF FOSCA OBJECTIVES

This appendix presents provides an analysis of each sampled project. Project purpose and objectives

were examined for their alignment with FOSCA’s and AGRA’s objectives, level of achievement of

targets were assessed while grantees were invited to evaluate and comment on relevance,

effectiveness, efficiency, knowledge transfer and sustainability of their project.

A summary table of each project is presented and a colour code is associated to the assessment of

the level of achievement toward its target of each indicator.

Agence pour la Promotion de la Petite et Moyenne Entreprise. Agriculture et

Artisanat (APME.2A) (2012 MKT 006) Burkina Faso

The purpose of APME is to increase yields and farmers’ revenue through

adoption of the Fertilizer Microdose Technology. Support from AGRA has

enabled acquisition of post-harvest equipment hence strengthened links

between the suppliers and FBOs; and trainings have strengthened governance

and transparency in the management of FBOs.

The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:

Training sessions were developed to also benefit leaders of local authorities and agents of

Provincial Directorates of Agriculture and Food Security (DPASA) in all intervention for grip

training modules. This arrangement notably allowed a close support and sustainable produce.

The self-assessment of the grantee showed that from the capacity assessment of the selected 600

FOs, 453 FOs were reached; 1,797 members of the Executive Board including 543 women were

trained, 906 members oversight committees including 278 women, 1,278 committee members

marketing FOs were trained including 557 women; 96 members of the management committees

of aggregation centers including 32 women were trained. MTR observed that it was difficult to

determine the specific areas of training for each group.

FOSCA should review with the project on addressing study tours as the level of achievement at

the time of the review was below satisfactory i.e. 50% for the number of study tours and 38% for

number of participants in the study tours.

Farmer groups visited by the MTR in Central West Region - Province of ZIRO - Common Sapouy -

Sector 4 and Sector and Central Plateau - Province Oubritenga - Common LOMBILA and

DAPELOGO showed need for strengthening linkages of Farmer Groups and Service Providers.

As presented in the following table, out of 31 indicators, 14 (45 %) show a level of achievement

above 90 %, while 13 (42 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents

24.7 % of the total budget.



55

Aug 1st 2012 Planned Budget: (USD) MKT $650,000 FOSCA $100,000 GENDER $67,870July 31st 2015 Actual disbursement:(USD)Aug 1st 2012 Remaining disbursement:(USD)

Budget Spent:(USD)

Cumulative

Target (at

end of

project)

Cumulated

Target (at the

time of review)

Cumulative

Actual Value

A B C

1 0.9 0.3 0.1 23.3% 7.8%

2 650

3 5

4 10

5 600 150 152 101.3% 25.3%

6 3,000 1,000 169 16.9% 5.6%

7 10,000 3,000 169 5.6% 1.7%

8 13,000 2,000 899 44.9% 6.9%

9 10 5 10 200.0% 100.0%

1011 13,000 8,000 7,366 92.1% 56.7%

12 600 350 207 59.1% 34.5%

13 13,000 10,236 5,835 57.0% 44.9%

14 150 100 100 100.0% 66.7%

15 50 30 6 20.0% 12.0%

16 50 30 20 66.7% 40.0%

17 60,000 36,000 - 0.0% 0.0%

18 50 30 37 123.3% 74.0%

19 12 6 - 0.0% 0.0%

20 52,000 31,000 - 0.0% 0.0%

21 600 600 600 100.0% 100.0%

22 600 600 600 100.0% 100.0%

23 600 600 600 100.0% 100.0%

24 1,500 900 2,314 257.1% 154.3%

25 3 2 1 50.0% 33.3%

26 150 100 38 38.0% 25.3%

27 600 400 600 150.0% 100.0%

28 50 45 33 73.3% 66.0%

29 50 30 41 136.7% 82.0%

30 9 6 9 150.0% 100.0%

31 9 6 8 133.3% 88.9%

32 1,200 800 1,359 169.9% 113.3%

Project Timeliness Project Budget

Planned Start Date (PSD):Planned Finish Date: 311,011.08

Actual Start Date (ASD): 506,858.92 202,301.40

Progress Achieved:

Number of smallholder farmer groups accessing financial services from financial institutions

Indicators Level of

achievement at

the time of review

(%) (C/B*100%)

Colour code: Total level of

achievement

(C/A*100%)

Change in market sales per household (volume in MT)

% change in post harvest losses in storage - cereals% change in post harvest losses in storage - cowpeaNumber of FBOs with functional marketing committees

Average income of smallholer farmers' incomes

Output IndicatorsNumber of farmers trained on post harvest technologies and post harvest handling

Number of farmers using trading facilities (warehouse receipt systems, contracts)Volume of commodities sold through aggregation (MT)Price spreads between farm gate an the market (%)

Number of FBOs for which the capacity assessment is completed

Number of post harvest technology trainings conductedNumber of farmers trained on quality standardsNumber of demonstartions conducted on postharvest best practicesNumber of FBOs trained on the use and management of postharvest equipmentNumber of matching grants made to FBOs to access post harvest equipmentTotal value of matching grants made to FBOsNumber of private service providers trained in business managementNumber of matching grants made to private service rpovidersTotal value of matching grants made to FBOsNumber of FBOs profiledNumber of FBOs geo-referenced

Number of aggregation centers provided with equipmentNumber of market prospection events organizedNumber of negotiation meetings organizedNumber of marketing committee members trained

Number of executive members trained in governance, leadership & financial management

Number of study tours organizedNumber of participants to the study tourNumber of marketing committees establishedNumber of aggregation centers established

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



56

Concern Universal (2011 MKT 006) Ghana

Concern Universal focuses on low existence of FBOs and strengthening the existing FBOs.

An underlying challenge has been weak linkage between Ministry of Food and

Agriculture and apex farmer associations which precludes an effective consensus for

developing strong FBOs, enhancement of access to quality, demand-driven and income-

enhancing services by small holder farmers.


The self-assessment of the grantee indicated exceeding the target for beneficiaries mobilized by

20% and achieved approximately 85% of activities and outputs as per the project implementation

plan.

Primarily access to post-harvest services and collective marketing facilitated by the FOs are

meeting the needs of the smallholder farmers. However, these services were indicated as still

inadequate due to further need for aggregation for the groups.

The project targeted to increase (or not reduced in the past 2 years) the membership of 140 FBOs

however this has not been adequately captured in the IPTT. Discussions with smallholder farmers

in Techiman Region (Fiaso Community, Apemkrom, Amoma Nkwanta, and Boasu Farmer Group)

showed that the project has been effective in strengthening Farmer groups however, some groups

especially those in remote areas required more “hand-holding”. For the remaining period Concern

Universal indicated that they will work with the groups especially in the open market.

As presented in the following table, out of 15 indicators, 7 (46.6 %) show a level of achievement

above 90 %, while 5 (33.3 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents




57

Project Budget USD

01/10/2011 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)30/9/2013 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) 519, 710.9101/10/2011 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) 180, 227.09

Budget spent:(USD) 463, 167.37

Planned Target

(at end of project)

Planned

Cummulated

Target (at the time

of review)

Cumulative

Actual value at

time of review

% of

Achievment

at the time

of review

Colour code: % Total

Level of

Achievment

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 200 200 513 256.5% 256.5%

2 10,000 10,000 12,028 120.3% 120.3%

3 70% 70% 75% 107.1% 107.1%

4 70% 70% 0% 0.0% 0.0%

5 30 30 22.5 75.0% 75.0%

6 1,000 1,000 2,003 200.3% 200.3%

7 200 200 463 231.5% 231.5%

8 10,000 10,000 8,840 88.4% 88.4%

9 10 10 13 130.0% 130.0%

10 10,000 10,000 8709 87.1% 87.1%

11 140 140 0 0.0% 0.0%

12 140 140 0 0.0% 0.0%

13 1,785,714.27 1,785,714.27 351,674.85 19.7% 19.7%

14 165 165 198 120.0% 120.0%

15 581,590 581,590 344,500 59.2% 59.2%

BMGF/ RF: $499,938 ; FOSCA: $200,000

Progress Achieved:

Indicators:

Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):

Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Date (ASD):

Number of FBOs whose membership has increasedNumber of FBOs whose membership has not reduced in the past 2 years (85% threshold) Value of maize sold collectively by all FBOsNumber of FBOs accessing finance for their membersAmount of credit received by FBOs

Quantity of maize sold collectively by all FBOsNumber of FBOs trained in organizational managementNumber of farmers trained in good post harvest practices Number of storage facilities refurbished and/or equiped Number of farmer trained in marketing and collective action

Total number of FBOs Total membership of all FBOsReduction in Percentage post-harvest losses in maizePercentage of smallholder farmers accessing post harvest servicesPrice per kg received by farmers for produce sold collectivley as percentage of price on open market

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



58

Adventist Development Relief Agency (ADRA) (2012 BBTE 003) Ghana

The Adventist Development Relief Agency INTAPIMP’s intervention model target

strategy is based on development of existing groups and nurturing infant FBOs,

through sensitization and group dynamics. Service providers provide services such as;

tractor services, agro-chemicals, mobile information and financial services to provide

insurance to farmers especially on risk from drought.


The targeted 200 communities, 196 (98%) communities have been covered by the

second year of the project. The project targeted to work with 400 FBOs and has registered and

worked with 389 (97.25%) FOs made up of 11,404 (114.04%) farmers from the 10,000 (100%)

farmers targeted.

Subsequently, from the ADRA project, 3,000 farmers were receiving direct inputs and

services support through starter support package through an input credit provider. The rest of the

farmers were being linked to agro-input dealers and tractor service provider. The FOs have also

been linked to financial institutions e.g. a tractor service provider linked to Sinappi Aba (Financial

Institution) to access GH¢27,000 to purchase a tractor to service farmers in Central Gonja district

of the project area.

The extent of the target setting was considered to be moderately satisfactory, this is

because the coverage of the targeted group is indicated as being overambitious, but this is being

addressed through collaborations, partnerships and internships programs.

Discussions with SHFs in Tamale Region showed some FBOs still had challenges in

governance structures.



3.2 % of the total budget. However, the disbursement represents 69.1 % of the total budget.



59

1st Oct. 2012 Planned Budget: (USD)

30th Sep. 2015 Actual disbursement:(USD)

Dec. 2012 Remaining disbursement:(USD)

Budget Spent:(USD)

Cumulative

Target (at

end of

project)

Cummulated

Target (at the

time of

review)

Cumulative

Actual Value

A B C

150 75 39 52.0% 26.0%

10,000 5,000 5,106 102.1% 51.1%

150 353 235.3%

1 1 170.0%

5,000 4,382 87.6%

400 200 - 0.0% 0.0%

10,000 5,000 10,085 201.7% 100.9%

10,000 200 212 106.0% 2.1%

3,000 2,891 96.4%

84 29 35.1%

300 200 132 66.0% 44.0%

10,000 5,000 10,085 201.7% 100.9%

2,000 1,405 70.3% 3,000 2,891 96.4%

84 10 12.1%

688 319 46.5%

84,400 19,097 22.6%

375,500 163,225 43.5%

400 200 178 89.0% 44.5%

3,000 - 0.0%

5,000 3,099 62.0%

10 5 3 60.0% 30.0%

200 193 96.5%

280 50 24 48.0% 8.6%

300 15 5 33.3% 1.7%

56,042 6,780 - 0.0% 0.0%

10,000 3,000 1,916 63.9% 19.2%

7,500 2,500 3,592 143.7% 47.9%

500 100 23 23.0% 4.6%

50 - 0.0%

100 - 0.0%

5,000 3,099 62.0%

150 - 0.0%

180 - 2 1.1%

400 50 237 474.0% 59.3%

300 100 106 106.0% 35.3%

350 100 148 148.0% 42.3%

400 100 234 234.0% 58.5%

400 100 178 178.0% 44.5%

3,000 2,019 67.3% 400 353 88.3%

Total level of

achievement

(C/A*100%)

Colour code: Level of

achievement

at the time of

review (%)

(C/B*100%)

Number of FBOs benefiting from agricultural extension services


Planned Finish Date:

Actual Start Date (ASD):

Project Budget

BBTE $949,764 FOSCA $100,000

$725,530 (as at 31st March, 2013)

$324,234 (as at 31st March, 2013)

$33,413 (as at 31st March, 2013)

Progress Achieved:

INDICATORS

Number of farmers provided with agro input starter packs

Number of on-farm demonstration plots established

Number of farmers trained in soil health management practices

Number of lead farmers trained in ISFM

% of farmers aware of ISFM technologies

Number of farmers trained in technical BDS

Number of Volunteers Extension Workers trained to backstop the FBOs

Number of farmers selected and organized into FBOs

Number of FBOs trained in group dynamics

Number of farmers using improved seeds

Quantity of improved seeds accessed by farmers

Value of agro-inputs sold by agro input dealers fertilizers

Number of FBOs organized for joint input procurement

Number of storage facilities constructed/rehabilitated

Number of farmers with access to land preparation services

Number of hectares ploughed

Number of farmers accessing agro-inputsQuantity of inputs accessed by farmers / FBOs: Seeds (maize, rice, soybean) in tonnes

Quantity of inputs accessed by farmers / FBOs: Fertilizers in tonnes

Volume of produce processed by FBOs/SMEs (in tons)

Number of farmers linked to processing facilities

Number of farmers accessing harvesting and processing equipment

Number of SMEs /Agro-dealers trained

Number of Community artisans trained in the construction and rehabilitation of storage facilities

Value of agro-inputs sold by agro input dealers seeds (maize, rice, soybean)

Number of FBOs with business plans developed

Number of smallholder farmers with access to storage and processing services

Number of farmers trained in primary processing

Number of Micro-processors and SMEs receiving mentorship

Number of SMEs investing in up-scaling value addition

Number of FBOs linked to aggregators/warehouse operators

Number of new agricultural sector related jobs created

Number of FBOs with skills in credit and financial management

Number of FBOs regularly monitoring their activities to track progress

Number of FBOs that have simple business plans

Number of farmers trained in pre- and post-harvest technologies

Number of SMEs trained in post-harvest handling and grain storage

Number of agro-dealers /SMEs accessing credit

Number of FBOs with access to financing

Number of FBOs with contract and procurement arrangements

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



60

Kenya National Farmers Federation (KENAFF) (2012 FOSCA 001) Kenya

Kenya National Farmers Federation banana project aims at improving income of

Smallholder Banana Growers in Kenya by strengthening the Banana Growers

Association in Kenya (BGAK). BGAK stands as a comparative advantage to the project

as a result of its support from KENFAP. BGAK has revolutionized banana farming with

farmers shifting from coffee farming. Farmers highlighted the marginal involvement

of youth in banana growing as an investment, but are more involved in value addition such as wine

and crisps production.


The MTR analysis of the IPTT, noted that the planned cumulated target at the time of the review

was missing, thus determining the achievement level is unattainable. Regardless of the planned

target for the entire project is satisfactorily realistic, some of the targets set at the onset of the

project had to be reviewed during the project implementation phase.

Some indicators were added during implementation of the project e.g. % of women in the groups,

which has been difficult to track.

Though the project set up a functional Secretariat, the funding provided for implementing some

of the project activities were underestimated hence limiting the number of beneficiaries. The

setting up of 4 Market Service Centres (MSCs) is one such example where the budget allocated

was not enough to set up even one MSC.

With the limited budget allocated to some of the project activities; it could have been prudent for

the project to focus on lesser number of project areas and beneficiaries to ensure that the

capacities of the SHFs are adequately developed for sustainability purposes.

Membership in the 4 project counties is 88 FOs representing 6,896 smallholder farmers out of the

project target of 8,000 members. The MTR discussions with Cooperatives (Lamina Banana

Growers, Kariga Banana Growers Muyu Banana Growers, Satellite Banana Growers, Kiangugi

Banana Growers and Marketers, Vision Banana Growers and Kiparara Banana Growers and Self

Help Group) indicated the need to improve women participation as well as youth.

For this project, data only enabled the possibility to assess the level of achievement toward the final

target. We therefore considered the two following level of achievement: equal or above 70 % and

below 70 %. Out of 22 indicators, 13 (59 %) show a level of achievement above or equal to 70 %,

while 9 (41 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents 45.6 % of the

total budget.



61

Project Budget USD

07/01/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)30/6/2014 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) 176,755.00

01/10/2012 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) 123,165.00

Budget spent:(USD) 136,770.00

Planned Target (at

end of project)

Planned

Cummulated

Target (at the time

of review)

Cumulative Actual

value at time of

review

% of Achievment

at the time of

review

Colour code: % Total Level of

Achievment

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 20,012,689.10 16,707,073.10 83.5%

2 119,348.40 91,332.00 76.5%

3 30 22 73.3%

4 800 360 45.0%

5 8 4 50.0%

6 8 4 50.0%

7 800 360 45.0%

8 16 8 50.0%

9 4,500 1,600 35.6%

10 100% 71% 71.0%

11 1 1 100.0%

12 4 4 100.0%

13 5,853 4,865.20 83.1%

14 100% 100% 100.0%

15 1 0 0.0%

16 100 120 120.0%

17 20 20 100.0%

18 5,000 3,445 68.9%

19 8,000 6,896 86.2%

20 1 1 100.0%

21 Number of products BGAK produces targeting members 5,000 4,000 80.0%

22 Number of resource centres established 10 6 60.0%

Number of positions recommended in the BGAK SecretariatNumber of operations covered by the management systems in placeValue of funds mobilized by BGAK in US$A revised BGAK constitutionRevised and re-launched strategic planNumber of leaders trained on leadership and governanceNumber of outreach activities undertaken to increase membership baseNumber of BGAK sub FOs which have at least a third women membershipNumber of new members joining BGAKA database of FOs established

% of target BGAK members reporting improvement in services offered by BGAK

Progress Achieved:

Indicators:

Change in value of sale of bananas by participating FOs Change in volume or quantity of bananas sold through participating FOs bananas in MTNumber of new markets established for BGAK members in target counties.Number of TOTs trained on quality control, packaging, branding and pricingNumber of hardening nurseries establishedNumber of demonstration plots establishedTOTs trained in orchard managementNumber of field days held on appropriate planting materialsNumber of farmers trained on appropriate planting material



Markets: $299, 920; FOSCA: Technical support

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



62

Institute of Rural Economy (IRE) (2011 SHP 006), Mali

The Institute of Rural Economy targets improvement of productivity of maize-based cropping

systems. The project’s development of loan guarantee scheme with financial institutions, fertilizers

and seed suppliers, and the markets in a strong organized farmer’ clusters has been a positive boost

in adoption of the maize/cowpea cropping system.


The approach of IRE selection of a specific region establishes the importance of target setting to

ensure sufficient reach of the target group of the project. From a scrutiny of the IPTTs and

technical report by the MTR it is difficult to establish the level of achievement as it seems IRE has

not adequately completed the IPTT. Despite this IRE an increase of market access and better

management of FOs had been observed.

Significant progress was made in production of maize and cowpeas, with an increase of producers

from 656 in 2012 to 3,200 in 2013 and 5,300 in 2014.



3.2 % of the total budget. However, the disbursement represents 36.8 % of the total budget.



63

Project Budget USD01/02/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)31/01/2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD)01/06/2012 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD)

Budget spent:(USD)

Planned Target

(at end of

project)

Planned

Cummulated

Target (at the

time of

review)

Cumulative

Actual value

at time of

review

% of

Achievment

at the time

of review


Level of

Achievme

nt

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 70 50 32 64.0% 45.7%

2 50 66 132.0%

3 100 100 100.0%

4 3.125 3 2.23 74.3% 71.4%

5 0.75 0.8 0.33 41.3% 44.0%

67 70 70 28 40.0% 40.0%

8 100

9 160

1011 1875

12 30000 30000 20149 67.2% 67.2%

13 10000 10000 20149 201.5% 201.5%

14 90 90 45 50.0% 50.0%

15 90 90 45 50.0% 50.0%

16 90 90 45 50.0% 50.0%

17 35000 35000 3200 9.1% 9.1%

18 20 20 118 590.0% 590.0%

19 90 90 45 50.0% 50.0%

20 10000 10000 10 0.1% 0.1%

21 3400 3400 4759 140.0% 140.0%

22 3 3 6 200.0% 200.0%

23 30 30 15 50.0% 50.0%

24 60 60 10 16.7% 16.7%

25 40 40 228 570.0% 570.0%

26 3 3 1 33.3% 33.3%

27 40 40 0 0.0% 0.0%

Number of farmer groups/production clusters establishedNumber of lead farmer trained in group dynamics, financial and general managementNumber of lead farmer trained on ISFMNumber of farmers trained on the use of ISFM technologies

Number of meeting held

Progress Achieved:

Indicators:

Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Date (ASD):

SHP 749,049, FOSCA 300,000385736 (as at June 2012)

33556 (as at June 2012)

1049049 (as at June 2012)

Number of meetings of farmers and financial institution heldNumber of farmers groups accessing credit from financial institutions

Number of community seed producer trained

Cow-peas grain yield (T/ha)Cow-peas forage yield (T/ha)Percentage of farmers using improved varieties Amount of NPK use per unit area (Kg/Ha)Amount of Urea use per unit area (Kg/Ha) hybrib

Number of Sensitization meetings held on the importance of farmer aggregationNumber of farmer groups/production clusters receiving KIPNumber of leaflets on ISFM technologies distributedNumber of demonstration plots establishedNumber of radio programs on ISFM producedNumber of exchange visits organized

Amount of NPK use per unit area (Kg/Ha) hybribAmount of Organic manurre use per unit area (Kg/Ha)Number of farmers sensitizedNumber of farmers reached with community based awareness meetings

Proportion of farmers using ISFM technologies (%)Number of villages using ISFM technologiesNumber of extension districts using ISFM technologies Maize yield (T/ha)

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



64

Union des Professionnels Agricoles pour la Commercialisation des Céréales au

Mali (Faso Jigi/Projet d’Appui à la Commercialisation des céréales au Mali

(PACCEM) (2011 MKT 018)

Mali

Union des Professionnels Agricoles pour la Commercialisation des Céréales au

Mali is a union of FOs set up as a collective marketing system to partially address

the marketing issues faced by members. However, farmers are still faced with some

challenges in accessing post-harvest management and processing services for the

grains and shallots. Market demand has become more specific in terms of produce quality and

conditions of delivery but efforts of the project are attracting new clients to the union through visits

and participation in regional events such as fairs.


The MTR notes the outcome target indicators are understated, this may give an erroneous

achievement at the end of the project, a revision is thus pertinent.

Visits and participation in regional events such as fairs was planned to attract new clients to the

union. However, the progress of field trips was low.

During the interview with the project team, it was stated that in order to track the impact of the

organization’s activities on farmers, a participatory monitoring and evaluation system will be

developed and embedded both at cooperatives and union levels. On-going training of

cooperatives (monitoring) (follow-up and coaching of cooperatives) is performed by field staff

throughout the year.

In order to track the impact of the organization’s activities on farmers, a participatory monitoring

and evaluation system was developed and embedded both at cooperative and union levels. It is

pertinent during project evaluation that the effectiveness of the M&E system is conducted to

determine the impact of the farmer’s organizations primarily on SMFs.






65

Project Budget USD04/01/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD) MKT (BMGF/ RF): $ 359, 368; FOSCA (BMGF): $ 150,000

31/3/2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) $ 254, 674Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) $ 254, 694Budget spent:(USD) $ 191, 480.54

Planned

Target (at

end of

project)

Planned

Cummulated

Target (at the

time of

review)

Cumulative

Actual value

at time of

review

% of

Achievment

at the time

of review

Colour code: % Total Level

of

Achievment

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 5%

2 5% 18 16.78 93.2% 33560.0%

3 5% 19 8.62 45.4% 17240.0%

4 5% 19 1.17 6.2% 2340.0%

5 5% 7 5.27 75.3% 10540.0%

6 30% 0.0%

7 3,400 1900 1,019.20 53.6% 30.0%

8 600 350 153.1 43.7% 25.5%

9 12,000 7,000 5,906.80 84.4% 49.2%

10 500 200 0 0.0% 0.0%

11 75% 0 0.0%

12 140 85 20 23.5% 14.3%

13 124 69 20 29.0% 16.1%

14 37 22 13 59.1% 35.1%

15 50 25 5 20.0% 10.0%

16 37 22 2 9.1% 5.4%

17 21 12 0 0.0% 0.0%

18 21 12 0 0.0% 0.0%

19 21 12 0 0.0% 0.0%

20 664 372 80 21.5% 12.0%

21 Le nombre de membres formés sur la gestion des opérations post-récolte 5,600 3,400 1,858 54.6% 33.2%

22 5,277 3,130 1,745 55.8% 33.1%

23 323 270 113 41.9% 35.0%

24 Le nombre de productrices formées sur les techniques de conservation et de transformation de l'échalote 840 420 0 0.0% 0.0%

25 30 18 0 0.0% 0.0%

26 810 408 0 0.0% 0.0%

27 36 24 12 50.0% 33.3%

28 30 20 12 60.0% 40.0%

29 103 53 18 34.0% 17.5%

30 5 3 0 0.0% 0.0%

31 500 250 80 32.0% 16.0%

32 29 29 32 110.3% 110.3%

33 1,826 1,023 270 26.4% 14.8%

34 26 26 20 76.9% 76.9%

35 2,686 2,686 2,018 75.1% 75.1%

36 206 206 215 104.4% 104.4%

Number of members of the management committees trained on their roles and responsibilities

Le nombre d'élus et de personnel formés sur la loi de l'OHADA

Number of members of the management committees trained in management tools for monitoring and evaluation system

Le nombre de formation donné

Le nombre de membre formé

le nombre de coopérative formé

Number of contract signed with customers at regional level

Le nombre de coopérative échalote dotées en équipemnt de transformationLe nombre de découpeuses d’échalote remisLe nombre de séchoirs d’échalote remisLe nombre de membre des comités de gestion formés

HommesFemmes

Hommes

Femmes

Number of technical staff and the marketing committees trained on the trade legislations at UEMOA and ECOWAS level

Number of technical staff and marketing committees trained in regional trade financing tools

Number of cooperatives trained in contracting and negotiation with financial institutions

Le nombre de décortiqueuses de riz remis

Grain Impurity rate at cooperative level - MaizeGrain Impurity rate at cooperative level - % of shallots processed Quantity of produce sold (MT) by the union per year - MilletQuantity of produce sold (MT) by the union per year - SorghumQuantity of produce sold (MT) by the union per year - RiceQuantity of produce sold (MT) by the union per year - Shallot% of committee members using M&E data for decision making Le nombre de comités de gestion mis en placeLe nombre de coopératives céréales dotées en équipements post-récolteLe nombre de batteuse de riz remisLe nombre de batteuse de mil remis

Grain Impurity rate at cooperative level - Sorghum

Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Date (ASD):

Progress Achieved:

Indicators:

% of post-haverst losses at storageGrain Impurity rate at cooperative level - RiceGrain Impurity rate at cooperative level - Millet

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



66

Farmers Union of Malawi (FUM) (2011 MKT 005 Malawi

The Farmers Union of Malawi (FUM) (2011 MKT 005) is building the capacity of

farmers through FOs to participate in structured markets. The project highlights

that the need for market infrastructure development is not yet being adequately addressed but has

supported rehabilitation of existing warehousing facilities for farmers and has ensured that SHFs are

organized in FOs for members to effectively engage with other value chain players.


The project intervention facilitated highly in the rise of the number of members. For instance

Kumbukani has 3,619 members; 2,150 women and 1,469 men with majority is age group

between 30 -50. The main reason for this increase of membership was that opportunity opened

up for farmers to focus on other commodities besides Tobacco.

The IPTT was introduced later in the project lifespan and FUM had to perform some alignments,

thus some indicators lack targets.




Project Budget USD

Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) 600,000.00 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) -

Budget spent:(USD) 432,693.00

Planned Target

(at end of

project)

Planned

Cummulated

Target (at the

time of

review)

Cumulative

Actual value

at time of

review

% of

Achievment at

the time of

review


of Achievment

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 60 10 21 210.0% 35.0%

2 300 100 57 57.0% 19.0%

3 22,500 7,000 7,815 111.6% 34.7%

4 260 100 0 0.0% 0.0%

5 22,500 7,000 6,145 87.8% 27.3%

6 5

7 0

8 24

9 0

10 0

11 10 3 30.0%

12 40 11 27.5%

13 20 101 505.0%

14 50 15 16 106.7% 32.0%

15 18,000 6,000 28 0.5% 0.2%

16 260 100 47 47.0% 18.1%

17 22,500 7,000 14,665 209.5% 65.2%

18 11 4 5 125.0% 45.5%

19 119,000

20 24

21 3,000

2223

Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD): July 1 2011

Planned Finish Date: June 30 2014Actual Start Date (ASD):

Markets $500,00.00, FOSCA & 100,000.00

No. of SHFs selling to structured markets

Progress Achieved:

Indicators:

No. of FO members who have participated in knowledge sharing and learning forumsProportion of Maize lost during pre and post harvesting No. Of Aggregation centres practicing storage techniques to minimize post harvest lossesNo. Of Stores Assessed No. Of Aggregation Centers established

No. Of Staff members/FO leaders trained No. Of Aggregation centres inspected No. Of FOs linked to grain buyers

No. of Fos aggregating

No. Of stores Rehabilitated and Equiped

Value of aggregated commodities sold

No. Of FOs assessed No. Of ToTs Trained No. of Smallholder Farmers Trained No. Of ToTs Trained No. Of Smallholder Farmers Trained

Volume of grains sold through the aggregation centers owned by smallholder farmersNo. Of ToTs trained No. Of smallholder farmers trained No. Of FOs linked to Financial Institutions Amount of funds borrowed (USD)

Volume of grains sold through the aggregation centers owned by smallholder farmers

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



67

MICAIA Foundation (2011 MKT 002) Mozambique

MICAIA Foundation through Eco-MICAIA Limited, extends its activities to provide support to farmer groups and local NGOs. The project principally focuses on maize and legumes, though the private partner is also interested in volumes of other crops including sorghum. The project also works closely with V&M Grain, a leading private company working in the grain trade, engaging with WFP P4P program and other private buyers. The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:

On the effectiveness front, MICAIA conducted a capacity needs assessment highlighting the main weaknesses of the FOs as lack of visionary leadership, internal conflicts, weak management, weak culture of collective action, over-dependence on external support (NGO), lack of warehousing facilities, unstructured producer clubs and weak member participation.

While the project was able to report reaching 7,500 farmers out of 14,000 farmers targeted. MICAIA target setting was weak, as they are overestimated with a target of 400 FOs in Manica Province, yet that number of FOs in the region does not exist. Initially, the project started with 3 districts in Manica Province (Manica, Guro and Barue), the targeted FOs was later realised to be unrealistic and an additional province – Sussundanja was included.

To meet the intended achievement the FOs will need to be assisted with approaches that strengthen business negations between buyers and farmers.

As presented in the following table, out of 27 indicators, 3 (11.1 %) show a level of achievement above 90 %, while 13 (48.1 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents 38.4 % of the total budget.



68


Budget spent:(USD)

Planned

Target (at

end of

project)

Planned

Cummulated

Target (at the

time of

review)

Cumulative

Actual value

at time of

review

% of

Achievment

at the time of

review


of

Achievment

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 21,000 10,500 69 0.7% 0.0%

2 4,200 2,100 0 0.0% 0.0%

3 2,400 1,000 0 0.0% 0.0%

4 1,800 800 0 0.0% 0.0%

5 1,400 7,000 269 3.8% 0.0%

6 1,400 75% 4,752 0.0%

7 400 60% 6,061 0.0%

8 400 200 3 1.5% 0.0%

9 120 80 6 7.5% 0.1%

10 27,600

11 2

12 33

13 5

14 4

15 3

16 0.2 0.05 25.0%

17 0.6 0.03 5.0%

18 60% men 45%

women #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

19 0.6 40 6666.7%

20 300 150 50.0%

2114,000

households

supported and

develop family

farm Business

Plan 14 #VALUE! #VALUE!

22 400 100 14 14.0% 0.0%

23 400 100 150 150.0% 0.4%

24 6 1 3 300.0% 50.0%

25 400 400 150 37.5% 0.1%

26 6 1 3 300.0% 50.0%

27 25 25 13 52.0% 2.1%Number of group leaders trained in warehouse systems

Number of Farmer groups trained in family farm business planning by FBFs with support from PEOs

Number of farmer groups and key officials trained in group management Number of groups develop governance structures and tools Number of area cooperatives registered Number of farmer groups trained in postharvest handlingNumber of aggregation centres established with storage equipment

Number of Fos members who have participated in knowledge sharing and learning forumsPercentage change in reported post-harvest losses in storageProportion of farmers using on-farm improved storage systems Proportion of men and women using aggregation centres

Volume of produce sold through aggregation centresNumber of FBF trained

Number of supported Fos aggregating their members produce to sell collectivelyValue of produce soldNumber of supported Fos accessing financial services for their membersAmount of funds US$ borrowedNumber of Fos who have established new markets for their membersNumber of Fos with increased membership (baseline and at the end of the project

Volumes of grains marketed through commercial buyers - BeansVolumes of grains marketed through commercial buyers - G. Nut

Number of households selling grains to commercial buyersProportion of men and proportion of women farmers selling surlpus cropsProportion of men and women farmers participating in group activitiesNumber of groups sign and sell grains though supply contracts

Volumes of grains marketed through commercial buyers - Soy Beans

311,336.43

Progress Achieved:

Indicators:

Volumes of grains marketed through commercial buyers - Maize

Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD): Markets 661,763; FOSCA 150,000

Planned Finish Date: 660,330.00

Actual Start Date (ASD): 288,993.57

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



69

SNV (Netherlands Development Organization) (2011 SHP 020) Mozambique

progress on linkages to markets has been slow because of low prices and weak

demand. In addition, the selected project areas, have few existing functioning FOs

- the project has had to start from zero with regards to FO strengthening. There

were few service providers for agricultural extension for food crops. The companies providing

extension services for cash crops were not inclined to consider food crops, as it was considered to be

competing with their main interest.


Achievement on overall output of the project was to reach 10,000 farmers on ISFM

technology, either rotation or intercropping pigeon pea and maize and supply of pigeon pea (PP)

seed - 7,223 farmers reached in 2 years. The PP marketing season in the target region which was

yet to begin in Tete Province will be a yardstick to evaluate the success of the market linkages

component.

At the start of the project SNV was able to identify 18 FOs in the project area. After

further analysis, it was found that only 7 of the 18 FOs analysed had sufficient potential to

improve.

A major challenge indicated by the grantees in regards to “Associativismo”

(cooperatives) poor popularity with the population of Tete province, because of past experiences

with forced collectivism and as a result individualism and mistrust are high. So far 141 groups

were formed and are in the process of training (of 200 planned; 70 %) with 3,377 members (of

total participants of 4,695; 72%). Looking forward, FOSCA may reconsider focusing on addressing

policies governing “Associativismo” (cooperatives) in Mozambique in order to address strengthen

FOs in Mozambique, this will involve engaging the Policy and Advocacy Program at a more

heightened level to build a strong national policy support system in Mozambique to drive

accelerated and sustained national strengthening FOs. Recommendation ?

The project was supposed to facilitate the access to credit to buy imputes through

Standard Bank (which operates an AGRA backed loan guarantee scheme). In practice, this never

worked as interest rates are prohibitive and collateral requirements high.

The target on maize marketing was dropped as only relatively few farmers would sell

any maize at all. On the other hand, SNV monitored the production of maize, by supervised

harvesting of sampled farmers’ fields (5% of all participating farmers.)

The organisation level of FOs differs substantially between the three target districts.

Angonia has prime agricultural conditions and therefore much more choices of crops available,

while Moatize and parts of Tsangano are more arid and depend on very few cash crops, including

pigeon pea (and cotton). Therefore, the focus of the project is on the latter two districts, while

farmers in Angonia are usually better organised, because they have an economic incentive to do

so. This has heavily influenced the work of organising the FOs.

As presented in the following table, out of 25 indicators, 3 (12 %) show a level of achievement above

90 %, while 10 (40 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents 48.1 %

of the total budget.



70

Project Budget USD

01/04/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)31/03/2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) 581,566 (as at 12/11/2013)01/04/2012 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD)

Budget spent:(USD)

Planned

Target (at

end of

project)

Planned

Cummulated

Target (at the

time of

review)

Cumulative

Actual value

at time of

review

% of

Achievment

at the time of

review


of

Achievment

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 1

2 20,000 14,400 17202 119.5% 86.0%

3 10,000 7,200 4695 65.2% 47.0%

4 132

5 18 18 25 138.9% 138.9%

6 100,000 72,000 25,310 35.2% 25.3%

789

10 200 60 28 46.7% 14.0%

11 90 60 31 51.7% 34.4%

12 20000 14400 17202 119.5% 86.0%

13 10000 7200 4695 65.2% 47.0%

14 3600 2085 57.9%

15 100 50 0.0% 0.0%

16 15 20 10 50.0% 66.7%

17 7.5 3.75 0.0% 0.0%

18 10000 7200 3377 46.9% 33.8%

19202122232425 Annual rate of lab utilization

218,434 (as at 12/11/2013)

384624.54 (as at 12/11/2013)

Number of soil and plant laboratory technicians trained in soil testing and analysis.How many students have started on their research work? (MSc or PhD)Science knowledge generation (What science related knowledge is being generated from the students’ research work?)Annual amount (kg) of inoculum produced for commercial purposes.Number of MSc. students enrolled in ISFM with AGRA support.Number of PhD students enrolled in ISFM with AGRA support (50% should be female).

Number of target farmers using ISFM practices in their fieldsArea (ha) under Legume Effects of legume-cereal rotations on increasing crop yields Quantity (tones) of legume seed distributed to farmersQuantity of cereal seed (by crop) distributed to farmers Proportion of target farmers belonging to farmer organizations/ cooperatives

Volume of fertilizers sold to farmers in the SHP project areas by A-DYield increases realised from the use of fertilisers sold by A-DImpact of enhanced fertiliser use on incomesNumber of farmer associations trained in use of inorganic fertilizers.Number of farm level demonstrations in ISFM established.Number of farmers (M/F) who attend farm level demonstrations, training sessions and field days on ISFM.

Number of farmers (M/F) trained in the use of inorganic fertilizer.Number of farmers (F/M)using inorganic fertilizersNumber of farmers (F/M)using organic fertilizersNumber of extension workers trained.Quantity (tons) of fertilizers distributed to farmers (through demos)

Progress Achieved:

Indicators:

Number of agro-dealer shops established.

Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD): SHP 600,000; FOSCA 200,000


90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



71

Catholic Relief Service (CRS) (2012 MKT 009) Niger

Catholic Relief Service is implementing MISOCO project aimed at

strengthening the service provision capacity of POs, to reduce

post-harvest losses of SHFs through improved post-harvest

management and improved marketing of agricultural goods. Recruiting staff workshop,

internalization and guidance was organized by CRS at the location of the project staff leading to a

better understanding of the project objectives, and continuous learning during implementation.


A close supervision of project beneficiaries was performed through the recruitment and allocation

of land agents at each joint target MISOCO project. There was also regular field monitoring of the

activities by the project team. Partnerships (INRAN, Purdue, federations and technical services) to

implement certain activities on the ground and holding quarterly meetings to share results of the

project also enhanced the reach of FOs.

The formulation of MISOCO project objectives is satisfactory and focused on addressing the

difficulties faced by small producers of FOs in Niger such as low/lack of FO structures, low level of

knowledge on technical post-harvest storage and marketing of agricultural products. In addition,

the joint process of AGRA, CRS and INRAN, facilitated reframing some indicators in the IPTT table

to be more result focused.

The project did not foresee the realization of seed distributions, aggregating groups for FO stock

centers or post-harvest mechanization (introduction of harvesters and mechanical hulling), which

affected MISOCO project in achieving some targets.

Availability of trainers for the planned timeframe was a major challenge for MISOCO.






72

Project Timeliness Project Budget USD

Planned Start Date (PSD): October 1, 2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)

Planned Finish Date: September 30, 2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) $619,720

Actual Start Date (ASD): 01/02/2013 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) $244,613

Budget spent:(USD) $331,750

Progress Achieved:

Indicators: Planned Target (at

end of project)

Planned

Cummulated Target

(at the time of

review)

Cumulative

Actual value at

time of review

% of Achievment

at the time of

review


Achievment

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 Number of partner coordination mtgs held 12 8 4 50.0% 33.3%

2 Number of POs created and/or supported 150 150 150 100.0% 100.0%

3 Number of PO members 7,500 7,500 7,944 105.9% 105.9%

4 Number of female members in the PO 3,750 3,750 2,619 69.8% 69.8%

5 Number of POs trained in group dynamics, leadership and good governance 150 150 150 100.0% 100.0%

6 Number of POs member trained in group dynamics, leadership and good governance 600 600 300 50.0% 50.0%

7 Number of female PO members trained in group dynamics, leadership and good governance 120 120 100 83.3% 83.3%

8 Number of male PO members trained in group dynamics, leadership and good governance 180 180 200 111.1% 111.1%

9 Number of PO members who received "restitution" training in group dynamics, leadership and good governance 5,000 5,000 1,341 26.8% 26.8%

10 Number of unions created 30 30 13 43.3% 43.3%

11 Number of staff and partners trained 25 25 - 0.0% 0.0%

12 Number of farmers who attended fairs 162 108 - 0.0% 0.0%

13 Number of community mtgs held 400 300 - 0.0% 0.0%

14 Number of staff and partners trained 26 26 25 96.2% 96.2%

15 Number of female Savings and Internal Lending Community (SILC) groups supported 300 300 143 47.7% 47.7%

16 Number of females accessing savings & loans services through SILC 7,500 7,500 2,903 38.7% 38.7%

17 Number of male farmers accessing savings & loans services through SILC 2,500 1,000 43 4.3% 1.7%

18 Number of POs with business plans 150 150 - 0.0% 0.0%

19 Number of demos conducted 300 250 94 37.6% 31.3%

20 Number of members of OPs reached during the demonstration sessions 15,000 12,000 2,022 16.9% 13.5%

21 Number of members (female) of POs reached during the demonstration sessions 3,900 3,900 583 14.9% 14.9%

22 Number of members (male) of POs reached during the demonstration sessions 8,100 8,100 1,439 17.8% 17.8%

23 Number of POs representatives trained on post-harvest technologies 300 300 300 100.0% 100.0%

24 Number of POs representatives (female) trained on post-harvest technologies 90 90 81 90.0% 90.0%

25 Number of POs representatives (male) trained on post-harvest technologies 210 210 279 132.9% 132.9%

26 Number of partner staff who attend trainings 25 25 20 80.0% 80.0%

27 Number of individual grants disbursed 4,200 2,800 6,812 243.3% 162.2%

28 Number of individual grants disbursed to women 700 700 2,044 292.0% 292.0%

29 Number of institutional grants disbursed 120 80 - 0.0% 0.0%

30 Number of mtgs held between farmers and vendors 6 6 6 100.0% 100.0%

31 Number of women trained in processing technologies for millet and cowpea 300 300 - 0.0% 0.0%

32 Number of commercialization committees (CC) created 150 150 150 100.0% 100.0%

33 Number of POs trained in agricultural marketing 150 150 150 100.0% 100.0%

34 Number of male PO members trained in agricultural marketing 600 600 300 50.0% 50.0%

35 Number of female PO members trained in agricultural marketing 90 90 81 90.0% 90.0%

36 Number of meetings

between POs , IMFs, grain

traders, institutions like 24 16 2 12.5% 8.3%

37 Number of contracts signed 15 7 1 14.3% 6.7%

outcomes43 % of PO that follow at least 3 rules of management 1 1 1 132.9% 116.3%

44 % of POs with access to at

3 basic services (extension,

private sector, community 1 1 1 115.7% 101.3%

45 Number of PO producers

who have access to credit 15,000 3,500 2,160 61.7% 14.4%

46 Average ( %) post harvest

losses 0 0 0 68.0% 56.7%

47 % of PO members who report having used improved post-harvest technologies 1 1 0 41.3% 34.4%

48 % farmers selling produce collectively 0 0

49 % increase in selling price due to higher quality produce (millet, sorghum, cowpea) 0 0.0%

MKT: $ 650,000; FOSCA $100,000, GENDER: $114,333

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



73

Rwanda Development Organization (RDO) (2011 MKT 014) Rwanda

Rwanda Development Organization partnership with Hand in Hand (HH) targets

farmer to increase productivity, improve post-harvest management and

consolidate their marketable commodities to collectively connect with valuable

markets.


A profiling of 147 cooperatives undertaken considered 113 cooperatives. On the second year, an

update of this profile was conducted and 9 new cooperatives were incorporated into the project

resulting to an overall output achievement of 90% at the time of the review. RDO has reached 122

FOs of the 100 FOs targeted.

A review of the interim reports showed an increase of total membership reaching a number of

21,480 farmers i.e. through 122 farmer organisations.

Some targets especially output targets were underestimated. The underestimation may be related

to the activities under training, in this case was observed to exceed the target, as more

Cooperatives and farmers were trained as compared to the planned number, with limited but with

no effect to the planned budget.






74

Project Budget

Dec 1st 2011 Planned Budget: (USD)

Nov 30th 2014 Actual disbursement:(USD)

Remaining disbursement :(USD)

Budget Spent:(USD)

Cumulative

Target (at

end of

project)

Cumulated

Target (at

the time of

review)

Cumulative

Actual Value

A B C

1 50 29 54 186.2 108.02 24,000 16,000 18,180 113.6 75.83 5,955,314 4 30 20 24 120.0 80.05 1 1 2 200.0 200.06 100 100 122 122.0 122.07 20,000 15,000 20,528 136.9 102.68 100 100 122 122.0 122.09 300 300 460 153.3 153.310 100 100 122 122.0 122.011 20,000 12,500 16,548 132.4 82.712 30 20 24 120.0 80.013 4 1 4 400.0 100.014 50 30 55 183.3 110.015 1,398,917 16 7 7 100.017 3 3 100.018 15,000 9,000 21,458 238.4 143.119 20,000 12,500 21,480 171.8 107.420 120 80 475 593.8 395.821 9 6 16 266.7 177.822 28 0 0.42324 1 1 1 100.0 100.025 20,000 15,000 21,408 142.7 107.026 12 8 18 225.0 150.031 20 20 9 45.0 45.032 8 8 9 112.5 112.533 6 6 6 100.0 100.034 16 16 12 75.0 75.035 20 20 20 100.0 100.036 4 4 4 100.0 100.037 50 27 54 200.0 108.038 24,000 16,000 18,180 113.6 75.839 3 2 1 50.0 33.340 6 6 5 83.3 83.341 1 1 1 100.0 100.042 5 2 3 150.0 60.043 1 1 1 100.0 100.0

Number of aggregation centers established

Volume of credits received $Average yield of maize achieved by cooperatives (T)Average yield of beans achieved by cooperatives (T)Number of farmers accessing agricultural inputs

Number of Demonstration Plots establishedNumber of farmer field days conducted on district levelChange in postharvest lossProportion change in annual income from crop salesAssessment on postharvest and storage conditionNumber of farmers trained in PHH

20 small stores rehabilitated

Number of cooperatives selling commodities through aggregation centersAverage volume (MT) of produce collectively sold by cooperativesValue of produce sold (US$)Number of coops accessing funds through warrantageCoop. Profile and UpdateNumber of cooperatives trained in Leadership and Group ManagementNumber of farmers trained in LeadershipNumber of Cooperatives trained in Business Plan and Financial MgtNumber of farmers trained in Business Plan and Financial MgtNumber of Cooperatives trained in Business skills Number of farmers trained in Business skills Number of Coop Linked to financial institutions/warrantageNumber of farmer platforms strengthened Number of FOs accessing credits from banks

Number of farmers trained in ISFM

Number of HH staff involved full time in project management

6 drying yards are rehabilitatedNumber of scales distributedNumber of moisture meters distributedNumber of tarpaulins distributedNumber of coops selling together

Project assistant recruited and manage activities in Nyanza district for HH




Progress Achieved:

Output Indicators:

8 big stores rehabilitated

Volume of grain sold jointly by coops (MT)Number of new projects for HH Number of directors trained in management and financial systemsFinancial software installed for HH computers

Colour code: Total level of

achievement

(C/A*100%)

Level of

achievement

at the time of

review (%)

(C/B*100%)

Markets $405,000 FOSCA $52,192 SHP $43,333

424,765 (as at 31st May 2012)

75,760 (as at 31st May 2012)

332,493 (as at 31st May 2012)

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



75

Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative (RWARRI) (2011 MKT 009) Rwanda

RWARRI is focused on building the capacity of cooperatives to increase income through increased production and access to the high value markets. Study tours facilitated by the project enabled cooperative heads engage with policy makers, FIs and other SHFs. Meetings showed that farmers learned from their peers about accessing financial resources to increase production and add value to their produce. Furthermore, the use of TOTs is a very important tool for dissemination of skills and knowledge among big farmer groups. The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:

It is observed that the achievement of RWARRI is satisfactory with expected outcomes achieved within the budget and planned target. However, the level of achievement at the time of review for the outcome, % change in household income from crop sales ($) is 47%.

The number of ToTs conducted was highlighted as being smaller in comparison to the large number of cooperative members.

As presented in the following table, out of 26 indicators, 18 (69.2 %) show a level of achievement above 90 %, while 2 (11.1 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents 75.3 % of the total budget.



76

Project Budget1st Dec 2011 Planned Budget: (USD)30th Nov 2014 Actual disbursement:(USD)

Remaining Budget :(USD) Budget Spent:(USD)

Cumulative

Target (at end of

project)

Cumulated

Target (at the

time of review)

Cumulative

Actual Value

A B C

1 3 3 3 120.0% 100.0%

2 2 1 1 100.0% 60.0%

3 70 40 42 105.0% 60.0%

4 37,500 25,000 34,022 136.1% 90.7%

5 5 5 9 180.0% 180.0%

6 70 58 64 110.3% 91.4%

7 728 1,350 642 47.6% 88.2%

8

9 120 90 90 100.0% 75.0%

10 180 180 258 143.3% 143.3%

11 18,000 13,500 19,292 142.9% 107.2%

12 20

13 24

14 38 28 29 103.6% 76.3%

15

16 180 180 193 107.2% 107.2%

17 18,000 13,500 19,292 142.9% 107.2%

18 90 54 60.0%

19 180 180 373 207.2% 207.2%

20 83 83 100.0%

21 20 15 64 426.7% 320.0%

22

23 18,000 13,500 14,614 108.3% 81.2%

24 180 180 283 157.2% 157.2%

25 32 22 5 22.7% 15.6%

26 36 36 55 152.8% 152.8%

27 18,000 13,500 19,292 142.9% 107.2%

Yield per hectare at farm level (Maize) - ha

Proportion/Percentage of farmers using improved seed

Quantity (MT) of grain collectively sold by cooperatives through aggregation centers

% change in postharvest losses

Level of

achievement at the

time of review (%)

(C/B*100%)

Indicators

Yield per hectare at farm level (Beans) - ha

Number of cooperatives collectively selling commodities through aggregation centers

% change in household income from crop sales($)

Colour code:

383931 (as at 30th Nov 2013)79617 (as at 30th Nov 2013)430383 (as at 30th Nov 2013)

Progress Achieved:

Total level of

achievement

(C/A*100%)

Basic quality management equipment (moisture meters, scales) procured and distributed

Number of Members trained on book keeping and business planning

Number of TOTs trained on book keeping and business planning

Stores rehabilitated and equipped

Training store keepers and cooperative members on stock management tools

Train Cooperative members on postharvest handling and quality management

120 on-farm demonstrations on ISFM practices (including soil and water conservation) of beans, soybean

180 TOTs trained on ISFM practices for beans, maize and soybean

ISFM input procured and distributed for use in demonstrations

Cooperative profile and social and gender analysis report

38 Cooperatives are formally registered with RCA

90 Cooperatives have sound governance and administrative structures

180 trainers trained in Cooperative management

90 Cooperatives trained on collective marketing skills

180 ToTs trained on postharvest handling and management

18000 farmers trained in Cooperative management

18,000 farmers trained on ISFM practices for beans, maize and soybean

Co-operatives trained on postharvest handling and management

Aggregation centers established

Markets $405,000 FOSCA $61,667 SHP $43,333 Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Dat (ASD):

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



77

The Network of Farmer Organizations in Tanzania - Mtandao wa Vikundi vya

Wakulima Tanzania (MVIWATA) (2012 FOSCA 002) Tanzania

MVIWATA builds on its experience of empowering SHFs to acquire the requisite capacities to capitalize on untapped opportunities to make Tanzania food self-sufficient and expand to export markets. The project aims to strengthen the capacity of FOs under MVIWATA to facilitate access to improved services and increased income for their members.


Targets were indicated as overestimated, this is in comparison to the available internal human capacity to work in a large geographical distribution, the field officer end up focusing more on numbers rather than quality. This nonetheless, could have been addressed during the project design and was primarily falls on the grantee to have assigned targets based on a realistic geographic distribution as per the obtainable capacity.

MVIWATA - In regards to events affecting the achievement of the project targets, notably land conflict in Kivomero was one of the issues, this required the collaboration of the land officers and District Commission especially in the participation of meeting with FOs to address land conflicts within specific regions. Internal finance control was difficult and recruitment procedures took long.

As presented in the following table, out of 20 indicators, 7 (35 %) show a level of achievement above 90 %, while 8 (40 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents 40.6 % of the total budget.



78

Project Budget USD 9/1/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD) US$ 600,00008/01/2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) US$ 274,05601/03/2012 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) US$ 325,944

Budget spent:(USD) US$ 243, 741

Planned Target

(at end of

project)

Planned

Cumulated Target

(at the time of

review)

Cumulative Actual

value at time of

review

% of Achievment at

the time of review


Achievment

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 675 N/A N/A #VALUE!

2 10,000 7,300 73.0%

3 1 1 100.0%

4 4 4 4 100.0% 100.0%

5 6 9 15 166.7% 250.0%

6

10,500 8,006 76.2%

7 1 1 100.0%

8 8,000 4,500 3,334 74.1% 41.7%

9 900 600 66.7%

10 10,500 4,854 46.2%

11 85 93 109.4%

12 2,000 885 44.3%

13 588 265 45.1%

14 2,000 1,070 53.5%

15 2,300 1,682 73.1%

16 1 5.45 M 6.18 M

17 360 2,300 1,396 60.7% 387.8%

18 8 5 62.5%

19 4 4 100.0%

20 12 8 4 50.0% 33.3%

No of Demo plot established and maintained

Number count of FO members tried the skills

Number of FOs who have established new markets for their members

Total quantity of produce sourced to new markets sold by MVIWATA FOs on behalf of members (rice and maize)

Number of members accessing credit

Total portfolio of loans advanced to farmers

Number of SACCO members trained

Number of types of communication materials disseminated to members

Number of knowledge sharing and learning forums conducted

Number of project related decisions implemented

Number of SHFs trained on GAP

Progress Achieved:

Indicators:

Percentage increase in Household Income of the targeted SHFs

Number of members receiving market information

Improved capacity of MVIWATA to respond to the needs of its members

Number of project staff recruited

Number of people trained in project management

Total number of active FOs profiled and added in the database of FOs. Full profiling includes name of FO, address, number of members disaggregated by gender,

date of registration and contact detailsBaseline report on Agricultural Practices and Marketing conducted

FO members trained on entrepreneurship and business skills undertaken (Good business models identified and scaled up)

Agricultural production No. of lead farmers participated in ToT

Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):Planned Finish Date: Actual Start Date (ASD):

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



79

Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU) (2013 FOSCA

002) Tanzania

(SACAU) seeks to establish and demonstrate the

effectiveness of a Digital Farmer Aggregation Platform

(DFAP) to enable SHFs to create and capture more value

in the agricultural value chain. More specifically, the

platform facilitates the aggregation of fragmented input

demand from smallholder farmers, bulk procurement of critical services and bulk marketing of

outputs. This initiative targets the rice value chain.


Most output targets have been achieved except for the number of farmers sensitized on the

initiative, number of FOs serving as distribution and collection centres, and number of contracts

signed with off-takers/buyers. The project targeted to reach 4 FOs. This target was exceeded by

100% and now a total of 8 FOs are involved in the project.

The number of FOs benefiting from training was surpassed. However, the target of 4,000 farmers

to be trained was over-estimated. The combined membership levels of FOs involved was less than

4,000. In addition, it would be difficult to train all 4,000 farmers due to a number of factors

including the need for the training to be slow and continuous and put into consideration the

literacy levels.

The project assists farmers to aggregate input requirements and outputs for marketing. Thus far,

farmers were able to purchase inputs at discounted prices.






80

Project Budget USD

Sept 1st 2013 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)

31st Oct2014 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) US$ 86,199

Sept 1st 2013 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) US$ 213,801

Budget spent:(USD) US$ 109,710

Planned Target

(at end of

project)

Planned

Cumulated Target

(at the time of

review)

Cumulative

Actual value at

time of review

% of Achievment

at the time of

review


Achievment

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 4 4 8 200.0% 200.0%

2 4,000 2,500 572 22.9% 14.3%

3 4 - 4 100.0%

4 4 3 8 266.7% 200.0%

5 TBD N/A

6 2 2 2 100.0% 100.0%

7 TBD

8 300 300 - 0.0%

9 0 - - 0.0%

10 4 3 - 0.0% 0.0%

11 300 240 0.0% 0.0%

12 TBD TBD

13 TBD TBD

14 TBD TBD

15 300 240 - 0.0% 0.0%

Number of FOs who purchase inputs using the DFAP

% farmers in the FOs who purchased inputs using the DFAP

Quantity of inputs purchased using the DFAP

Volume (MT) of produce sold through the DFAP

Value of produce sold through the DFAP

Percentage of farmers in the FOs who sold their produce using DFAP

Percentage change in FO membership of target Fos

Progress Achieved:

Indicators:

Number of FOs trained

Number of farmers sensitized

Number of FOs serving as distribution and collection centres

Number of contracts signed with input suppliers

Number of FOs receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs (input supplier)

Number of contracts signed with off-takers/buyers

Number of FOs receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs (off-takers)

Number of target farmers satisfied with services provided by Fos




1,480,635.00 BMGF; AGRA 300,000.00

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



81

Farmer Organization Support Program (FOSUP) (2011 MKT 005) Zambia

FOSUP proposed initiative complemented the AGRA supported project on scaling up integrated soil

fertility management (ISFM) practices. The relevance of project objectives is satisfactory but is not

addressing the need for market infrastructure development which FUM found to be a key component

in ensuring farmers are able to aggregate produce and linked to structured markets. The project also

supported rehabilitation of existing ware-housing facilities for farmers. The project activities are thus

in line with FUM’s strategic approach in ensuring that SHFs are organised in FOs for them to

effectively engage with other value chain players.


The project reached was above target mainly because of the project approach of working with the

FOs already registered under the ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and those also supported by

other AGRA projects in the region. This significantly reduced time taken of identification, formation

and strengthening of new groups.

The targets were set based on well researched indicators, for example the number of extension

staff in the camp, FOs in each agriculture camp and production levels. The baseline study

undertaken at the start of the project validated the justification of the targets set in the proposal.

Major assumption of FOSUP project was availability of extension staff to backstop in the

identification of FOs in their agricultural camps. Out of the anticipated 65 staff only 15 stationed

were supported by staff in the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock.






82

Project Budget USD

08/01/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)31/7/2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) $ 148, 820

08/01/2012 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) 451,180$

Budget spent:(USD) $ 122, 565

Planned Target

(at end of

project)

Planned

Cummulated

Target (at the

time of

review)

Cumulative

Actual value

at time of

review

% of

Achievment

at the time

of review


Level of

Achievmen

t

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 50% #DIV/0! 0.0%

2 100% 50% 58% 116.0% 58.0%

3 500 200 #DIV/0! 40.0%

4 70,000 210 #DIV/0! 0.3%

5 35% 15% 44% 293.3% 125.7%

6 95% 90% 0% 0.0% 0.0%

7 100% 0% #DIV/0! 0.0%

8 90% 40% 70% 175.0% 77.8%

9 10,000 8,000 9,100 113.8% 91.0%

10 265 165 596 361.2% 224.9%

11 108 90 139 154.4% 128.7%

12 108 108 205 189.8% 189.8%

13 67 67 46 68.7% 68.7%

14 365 165 187 113.3% 51.2%

15 10,000 7,000 5,225 74.6% 52.3%

16 30 20 30 150.0% 100.0%

17 365 200 215 107.5% 58.9%

18 10,000 7,000 5049 72.1% 50.5%



SHP: $168,993; FOSCA: $100,000

Number of lead farmers trained in water management technologies

Progress Achieved:

Indicators:

Percentage change in smallholder farmers’s incomesProportion of target farmers using water management technologiesNumber of farmers access revolving fund for irrigationAverage value ($) of input credit provided by financial institutions to farmers to purchase irrigation equipment

Proportion of target farmers using irrigation equipment.Rate (%) of input credit repaymentChange in yield (tons) per ha (soybean, cowpeas and maize) Proportion of farm size under legume cultivation Number of farmers who complete training in water management technologies

Establishment of demonstrations to train farmers on conservation farming and irrigation mechanisms.Number of farmers participating in Farmer Field DaysNumber of officers trained in utilization of water management techniquesNumber of farmer organizations (Fos) profiled and registered in AGRA databaseNumber of members in the participating FosNumber of FOs whose women membership has increasedNumber of Fos trained in governance and core businessNumber of SHFs trained in governnace and core business

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



83

African Investment Climate Research (AFRICRES) (2013 FOSCA 001) Regional

AFRICRES seeks to strengthen the capacity of FOs in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) through implementation of a multiplicity of capacity building interventions to be translated to a support system for SHFs thus enabling them to increase income and improve their food security. The project links FOs to service providers offering capacity strengthening interventions including training and development of operational toolkits for FOs, mentoring and coaching, facilitated access to finance, information and input and output markets. The strengthening is further complimented by knowledge sharing and learning platforms and other facilities such as online services to access information to enable FOs and SHFs from different countries to share experiences, successes, challenges and best practice. This is done through forums and online tools such as web-based links. The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:

The establishment of the Africa Farmer of the Year Award was observed as a major success story throughout Africa. Demonstrating the high extent of improved internal capacity of AFRICRES from the AGRA grant.

The project targets were not meet in the first year of the project as a result of delay in the project implementation plan, but significant progress has been made. Interesting AFRICRES has specific targets on women and youth. This will be an interesting target achievement to monitor.

The intervention model of AFRICRES project for capacity building, in particular training, provision of information and promoting of FOs through awards, seminars and workshops. The document produced by AFRICRES for use by FOs require approval by AGRA before release, a process that takes longer than anticipated thus affecting target achievement. The project began with a scoping phase where capacity assessment of FOs and Service Providers (SPs) was undertaken. A selection criterion for identifying FOs to be supported was developed and a code of standards for SPs set to facilitate selection of SPs to be involved in this project. In both the assessment and the selection phase, AGRA grantees were included so that those that meet the code of standards to serve as SPs were selected, while those that did not would benefit from capacity enhancing interventions.


above 90 %. The budget spent represents 3.4 % of the total budget.



84


Budget spent:(USD)

Planned

Target (at

end of

project)

Planned

Cummulated

Target (at the

time of

review)

Cumulative

Actual value

at time of

review

% of

Achievment

at the time of

review


of

Achievment

A B C C/B*100 C/A*100

1 200 200 244 122.0% 122.0%

2 1 1 n/a

3 200 200 244 122.0% 122.0%

4 50 50 76 152.0% 152.0%

5 1 1 1 100.0% 100.0%

6 1 1 1 100.0% 100.0%

7 160 160 243 151.9% 151.9%

8 1 n/a n/a

9 80 40 n/a

10 80 40 n/a

11 50 20 n/a

12 60 20 n/a

13 n/a n/a

14 >30% n/a n/a

15 >10% n/a n/a

16 >30% n/a n/a

17 >50% 1 1 100.0%

18 1 1 1 100.0% 100.0%

19 6 2 n/a

20 12 4 n/a

21 30 10 n/a

22 6 2 n/a

23 120 40 n/a

24 9 3 n/a

25 15 5 n/a

26 3 1 n/a List of best performersCeremony to present awards

Amount of Loans (US$)More women participating in management committees of target FOs More Youth participating in FO activities Target FOs linked with market service providers

Number of exchange visits conducted

Success stories documented Lessons learned documentedWorking Papers relevant to FO issues producedNumber of FOs who have participated in knowledge sharing and learning forums

FOs meeting the set quality standards for service delivery (standards are to be developed under this project)Checklist for quality standards that FOs would work to achieve in the delivery of services to their membersBest practices emerging from target FOs documented and shared

Level of satisfaction of targeted SHFs (FO members) with services offered by FOsNumber of FOs trained (in leadership, good governance, business management, human resource management etc.)Toolkit document that FOs use to access services by SPs in placeSupported FOs receiving mentoring and coaching Proportion of target FOs accessing financial services

Number of FOs profiledNumber of SPs ProfiledChecklist for FOs to qualify for support developedCode of Standard ReportNumber of FOs whose geo-coordinates available in FOSCA information depository

FOSCA 997,086; Markets 600,000


60,627.11


Progress Achieved:

Indicators:

Number of active FOs and SPs registered in FOSCA information depositoryFOSCA Information depository available online to stakeholders

90%≥

70%≥ <90%

<70%



85

Appendix 9: Summary of Project Reporting

Project

Project/Grantee Technical/Narrative Reports

IPTT

Financial Reports

2013 FOSCA 001 Sep 2013-Feb 2014 Jan-Mar 2014 Mar-Aug 2013

2012 MKT 009 Sep 2013-Feb 2014 Oct-Dec 2013 Sep 2013-Feb 2014

2011 MKT 009 Jun-Nov 2012 Apr-June 2014 Jun-Nov 2013

2011 MKT 014 Dec 2012-May 2013 Oct-Dec 2013 Dec 2011-May 2012

2012 FOSCA 002 Apr 2013-Sep 2013 Jan 2013 - Mar 2013 Oct 2013 - Mar 2014

2013 FOSCA 002 Sep 2013-Feb 2014 Dec 2013-Feb 2014 Sep 2013 - Feb 2014

2011 MKT 005 Jul-Dec 2013 Oct-Dec 2013 Jan-Jun 2013

2012 SHP 002 Aug 2012-Jan 2013 Feb-Apr 2014 Jan-Jul 2013

2011 MKT 006 Apr-Sep 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 Apr-Sep 2013

2012 BBTE 003 Oct 2012-Mar 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 Oct-Dec 2013

2012 MKT 006 Feb-Jul 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 Jul 2012-Jan 2013

2012 FOSCA 001 Jan-Jul 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 Jan-Jun 2013

2011 MKT 018 Jan-Jun 2013 Apr-June 2014 Jul-Dec 2013

2011 SHP 006 Aug-Jan 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 Jan-Jul 2012

2011 MKT 002 Dec 2011-May 2012 Jan-Mar 2014 Dec 2012-May 2013

2011 SHP 020 Apr-Sep 2012 Jan-Mar 2014 Apr-Sep 2013


86

Appendix 10: FOSCA Expenditure Report as at 31 August 2014 – estimated BUDGET LINE

BMGF RF IITA SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN

BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET UF 2010 UF 2011 UF 2012 BMGF RF IITA UF 2010 UF 2011 UF 2012

Grants Committed 4,142,500 250,000 - 319,659 265,925 1,800,000 6,778,084 5,568,142 300,000 - 319,659 335,209 735,247 7,258,257 (480,173)

Personnel 3,082,707 - 655,904 - - 60,000 3,798,611 1,836,682 - 335,150 - - 59,874 2,231,705 1,566,906

Travel 508,584 30,000 49,995 11,738 18,750 19,668 638,736 334,934 28,862 39,694 11,738 3,511 10,000 428,739 209,997

Consultants 447,553 50,000 423,350 40,000 - 960,903 351,204 42,150 117,290 - - 15,750 526,394 434,509

Other Direct Costs 248,167 94,654 143,478 32,149 16,234 75,187 609,868 315,607 40,329 31,291 32,149 16,936 27,214 463,525 146,343

Indirect Costs 1,264,427 - 127,273 51,935 34,091 195,486 1,673,211 823,207 - 52,342 51,935 35,566 70,757 1,033,807 639,403

Total 9,693,938 424,654 1,400,000 415,481 375,000 2,150,341 14,459,413 9,229,776 411,341 575,767 415,481 391,221 918,842 11,942,428 2,516,985

BUDGETS TOTAL

BUDGET

EXPENDITURE TOTAL

EXPENSES

BUDGET

BALANCE


87

Appendix 11: Summary of key enabling factors, internal and external constraints of projects Countries

Key Enabling Factors Key Internal Constraints Key External Constraints

Ghana Training extension workers

Facilitating access to services

Links established between FOs, service providers and off-takers

Capacities of SHFs & FOs enhanced

Partnerships with government & NGOs

High staff turnover

Internal power struggles

Concept quality still unpopular

Slow rate of adoption of technology

Poor rainfall

Tribal conflicts

Lack of provision of credit

Inadequate SP/off-takers

Un-favorable economic environment

Regional AFOYA promoting success and bringing in sponsorships

Training in partnership with universities

Geo-referencing platform and the information repository developed

Greater involvement and ownership by FOs

Supply-side constraints; not being able to maintain expectations

Lack of additional funds

Lack of interest to update continually

FOs politicizing the project

Zambia Working with NGOs, government, research institutions

Establishment of the FO award encourages farmers to work hard

Revolving fund established with a view to grow it into an innovative financing mechanism supported by the private sector

SHF and FOs linked to a network of agro-dealers and market providers

Limited funding to project activities

Limited support to human resources in terms of remuneration and skills

Shifting policies in AGRA can compromise the long-term results

Climate change

Environmental constraints

Global financing towards market-led development may have the potential to side-line the vulnerable societies in preference for affluent beneficiaries

Mali Capacity building of stakeholders

Establishment of M & E

Implementation of simple management tools

Capitalization and sharing of results (e.g. a documentary)

Creation of cooperatives

Financing difficulties

Low yields

Poor governance of FO

Climatic hazards

Market liberalism

Malawi Farmers engaging buyers

Availability of equipped storage facilities

Well trained FOs

Government extension staff involved in capacity building initiatives

Poorly negotiated contracts

Government policies that impinges on farmers

Mozambique FOs acquire knowledge & information

Links to buyers & financial institutions

Establishment of FO structures

Access of markets & inputs

Training extension officers and TOTs on extension services

Aggregation systems

Training farmers to multiply seed & linked with seed companies

Mistrust among farmers because of incompetency and lack of transparency

Low literacy levels against new technology

Cross cultural challenges

Limited number of extension services

Unavailability of improved seeds in local market

Political challenges

Inflation challenges

Lack of proper infrastructures

Global climatic change

Political and security situation

Low price of PP applied by buyers


88

Kenya Massive recruitment into BGAK and setting up of a functional secretariat and training the staff and board

Tissue culture banana (TCB) nurseries will act as a revenue source to BGAK

TOTs ensure that farmers are continuously trained

Nurseries have been set up and are continuously refilled with seedlings

Low adoption of technologies being exposed to farmers

Conflict of interest among the beneficiaries on Tissue Culture Banana nurseries and demonstration plots

Leadership wrangles among FOS

Climatic effects

Increased county levies on banana marketing

Competition from other sectors such as revival of the coffee sector

Tanzania Established collective marketing

Presence of promoters

Linkages to cooperative banking

The savings made from aggregation

The digital platform brings various players together

More funding of technical training

Institutional arrangements beyond pilot

Cost of software and license

Lack of sufficient number of field officers

Late disbursement of funds

Output/ commodity pricing issues

Infrastructure, policy and logistical constraints

Land conflicts

Changes in the weather patterns

Limited access to improved seed

Rwanda Cooperatives dealing with different SPs

Cooperatives capacity was increased

Use of TOTs

Aggregation of produce

Link to financial institutions for credit

Leaders with low skills

Insufficient storage facilities

Climate change

Local leaders not committed to sensitize farmers to work together

Burkina Faso Multiplication of seed

Linking to microfinance institutions for access to credit

Capacity of FOs in planning and organizing enhanced

Development of public-private partnership

Triangulation mechanism for accessing inputs and equipment

Links to buyers: contracting for annual deliveries with negotiated prices

Key players have been trained

Low financial resources to subsidize the purchase of post-harvest facilities, rehabilitation of stores and equipment

Misunderstanding by farmers on the issue of prices

Access to finance for FOs to provide financial service to their members is difficult

Instability of prices of agricultural products

Rainfall risk affecting yield of crops

Niger Structuring FOs and their links with producers

Local expert trained

Ownership of post-harvest technology by beneficiaries

SILC raise funds at local level and engage in income-generating activities

Establishment of local management committees within FOs

Establishment of agents/private service providers (AT / PSP) for the monitoring and supervision of SILC

Establishment of the link between producers and local suppliers of inputs; and registered buyers for the collective sale

Not taking into account the proposed staffing of FOs, modern materials, threshing and transportation of agricultural products to reduce post-harvest losses

Not taking into account the project storages, agricultural products of high capacity and meeting conventional standards at the Unions

Failure to consolidate the achievements of project beneficiaries and project partners



IDEA International Institute

Nairobi Regional Office, Saachi Plaza,

3rd Floor, Suite 7A,

Arwings Kodhek Road.

www.idea-international.org

Kanjata Road, off Muthangari Drive (off Waiyaki Way) •P.O. Box 66773 •Westlands

00800•Nairobi, Kenya •Switchboard: +254 (20) 3675 000 •Fax: +254 (20) 3750 653

•E-mail: [email protected] • Web: www.agra-alliance.org•

http://www.idea-international.org/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.agra-alliance.org•/