Fair Trade Plus, India End-of Project Evaluation · FAIR TRADE PLUS Monitoring and Evaluation October 2009 2 Introduction Fair Trade Plus is an EU funded project being implemented

Fair Trade Plus, India

End-of Project

Evaluation

Evaluation commissioned by FTF-I

And

Conducted and written by

Ram Bhat and Vip Kumar Options & Solutions A-3 Leela Apartments 44/478, 6th Cross, Ashram Colony RMV II Stage, Bangalore 560094

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................2

Proposed methodology ....................................................................................................2 Findings ...............................................................................................................................3

Project Design..................................................................................................................3 Relevance............................................................................................................................4

Country Context: ..............................................................................................................4 Key stakeholders..............................................................................................................4 EU policy ..........................................................................................................................5 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................5 Problem Analysis and the Logframe.................................................................................6 Change in external conditions ..........................................................................................8

Project Implementation ........................................................................................................8 Roles and responsibilities.................................................................................................8 Activities and timeframe ...................................................................................................9

Results and impact ............................................................................................................19 Sustainability and learning .................................................................................................20

Lessons..........................................................................................................................21 Annexure 1 Terms of Reference for evaluation..................................................................23 Annexure 2 Evaluation Framework....................................................................................27 Annexure 3 Questionnaire to PGs, trainers and mentors...................................................32 Annexure 4 Specific Questions about the project’s impact as per revised logframe ..........34 Annexure 5 Original Logframe of project, excluding activities, with comments..................38 Annexure 5 Modified Logframe, used as basis for evaluation............................................42

FAIR TRADE PLUS Monitoring and Evaluation October 2009

1

Executive Summary The project Fair Trade Plus was taken up by Traidcraft, FTF-I and FAKT jointly with EU funding under the Asia-Invest programme.

The specific objective of the project, revised as per discussions with the implementing team, was “To increase producers' understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain”, with the Overall Objective being “To increase producers' access to Fair Trade markets in Europe, and hence to increase the impact of Fair Trade on poverty in India”.

The project is seen as very relevant to the needs of the poor in India, and can contribute, in the long run, to a degree of reduction of poverty. The choice of the target group is also appropriate.

In terms of implementation, the project has been successful in meeting the revised objectives in a very good manner. The majority of the group members trained have had a much better understanding of the Fair Trade standards and the need to comply with them, as part of their overall roles and responsibilities in the supply chain. The project has also been able to develop a team of trainers with good training capabilities, who hopefully would continue to be associated with Fair Trade in future.

The project has also been able to develop an excellent trainers’ tool-kit, which can be used to develop a larger number of trainers at the FTO and grassroots level, if so desired.

In terms of sustainability, it is felt that involvement of the FTOs in a stronger manner would help. And it is suggested that in any future project, the FTOs are involved as central stakeholders. For long term contribution to the Overall objective, it is suggested that FTF-I should make additional efforts relating to product design, quality and product mix choices, especially in moving towards including food products as a significant area of fair trade in India.


2

Introduction Fair Trade Plus is an EU funded project being implemented by Traidcraft Exchange, UK, in partnership with Fair Trade Forum India (FTFI), and FAKT, Germany, with the overall objective being “To increase the impact of fair trade on poverty in India”. The specific objective of the project is “To increase producers' access to fair trade markets in Europe through an increased understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain.”

The main beneficiaries of the project are:

Direct:

a) 100 fair trade producer groups/ MSEs from various craft clusters across and the 2,000 poor and disadvantaged producers they employ.

b) 9 Fair Trade Trainers selected from 35 fair trade member organisations of FTFI

Indirect:

35 member organisations of FTFI and 3,000 fair trade MSEs and the 60,000 poor and disadvantaged producers they employ.

According to EU guidelines, the project has to be evaluated externally. The focus of the evaluation is to learn about the relevance, efficiency (implementation of the project against the logframe), effectiveness, impact and sustainability: What has been achieved, what hasn’t, and key factors for success or failure both through desk research and field research. Specifically, the evaluation needs to look into the following:

• To assess to what extent did the project meet the aims and objectives as set out in the proposal logframe.

• To evaluate the methodology and design of the project from the point of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

• To help Traidcraft Exchange, Fair Trade Forum India and FAKT better understand which practices and intervention strategies work best and bring about change, so to help them learn lessons that will help achieve better impact in the future.

Options & Solutions, a development consultancy organisation working closely on Fair Trade, has been retained to conduct the evaluation, and a team consisting of Mr. Ram Bhat and Mr. Vip Kumar have been deputed by Options & Solutions for the assignment. The specific Terms of Reference, in terms of the evaluation framework, is attached as Annexure 1. The evaluation framework given to the evaluators is attached as Annexure 2.

Proposed methodology The methodology was framed based on the evaluation framework provided to the evaluators, where questions were posed on project design; implementation and efficiency; results and impacts; and sustainability and learning. Specifically, the evaluators were asked to record data against indicators in the logframe. As the questions in the evaluation framework follow a logical pattern, the report also


3

provides in-depth analysis on each section.

Desk Research/ study

The evaluation began with desk research, using the project document and other information available, including search on the Internet, for the assessment of the project design, and to identify and understand the various Target Groups in the country that are relevant to the project. Desk work also included a detailed analysis of the project design, as this was the first element that was to be studied.

Field visits

The team visited at least 1 trainer, and at least 2 producer groups, from each zone. In addition, the team also met most of the mentors to understand their perceptions of the project and its impact. The specific methods used were one-to-one interviews, Focused Group Discussions, and other participatory tools as felt appropriate. While the discussions were primarily semi-structured, the questionnaire used as the basis is provided in Annexure 3.

Analysis, assessment and report writing

After the field visits, the team analysed the data gathered, assessed the project performance, and prepared the draft report. The draft report was submitted to Traidcraft/ FTF. Their feedback has been incorporated and the final report prepared.

Report Structure

The report has the following sections, in line with the questions in the evaluation framework:

a. Project Design – relevance, effectiveness, target groups

b. Implementation and Efficiency – activities, roles, efficiency in terms of costs

c. Result and impact – achievements and non-achievements – vis-à-vis the logframe, and unexpected.

d. Sustainability and learning

e. Conclusions and Recommendations

f. Specific data against indicators in logframe as per the revised logframe, as Annexure.4.

Findings

Project Design The project initiative arose from an earlier effort by Traidcraft in training producers in understanding the concept of Fair Trade. It had been observed earlier that this understanding was limited to the intermediary organisations, and hence Traidcraft developed a Trading Fairly programme, aimed at developing such understanding. This subsequently led to the idea of scaling up his process in India, in collaboration


4

with FTF (I) (ref. Concept note1). The outcomes of the proposed project, as mentioned in the concept note, state that Fair Trade Producers would (a) be able to identify key principles of Fair Trade; (b) understand how the supply chain works; (c) identify their rights and responsibilities; (d) decide whether they wish to be Fair Trade producers or not; (e) get a better understanding of the Fair Trade market in Europe.

It was expected that these outcomes would lead to achievement of, or movement towards, the objective of increasing the impact on poverty in India, in the longer term. The underlying assumptions here is that the Fair Trade intermediary Organisations (FTOs) in India would be able to enable increased markets once this increased understanding had been achieved.

These initial ideas were then framed into a proposal, with objectives as stated in the section on Project Objectives, where the outcomes were modified to denote an increased access to Fair Trade markets in Europe.

Relevance The relevance of the project is to be seen in the context of (a) the country context in India; (b) the aims of the EU Asia-Invest programme.

Country Context: Though in recent years India has seen significant economic growth, in terms of GDP, averaging an annual growth of 7.7% in the years 2003-2007, the proportion of the poor has reduced only marginally. Among the marginalised groups, the incidence of poverty has hardly reduced at all2. The Eleventh Plan therefore stresses on a strategy that would rapidly create jobs. The plan also talks of targeted livelihood programmes aimed at increasing productivity and incomes of the poor in several low income occupations which will continue as important sources of employment for quite some time. Special programmes aimed at target groups such as small and micro enterprises, weavers, artisans, craftsmen, etc. will therefore remain important in the Eleventh Plan period.

Key stakeholders There are a large number of artisanal and other livelihood groups which do not have adequate access to markets, and that too to markets offering a reasonable return for the investment and the efforts put in by these groups. The most significant target group is the disadvantaged producers group, as mentioned on page 7 of the proposal. The key focus is to develop their skills for access to new markets, for better incomes. The relevance is clearly stated as “it will help poor and marginalised producers meet their basic needs and reduce their vulnerability”. The term “specific objective” is usually understood to state the key objective that is to be attained by the end of the project, And in that sense, the specific objective in this project, as stated in the above paragraph, is very relevant.

Increasing producers’ access to fair trade markets in Europe, through an increased understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain, hence is a very

1 Trading_Fairly_concept_note_for_FTFI_300106.doc 2 Government of India Eleventh Plan Vol 1 p1


5

relevant need for longer term improvement in the economic condition of the producers. In this regard, as compliance with Fair trade standards is a key requirement for such increased access, developing producers’ understanding of Fair trade Standards and of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain is an equally important objective,

Member organisations of FTF (I) are also regarded in the project as recipients of the training proposed, which would imply that these organisations also would develop a better understanding of the Fair Trade market, and gain access to larger markets, and in this sense their performance would improve.

EU policy The project has been taken up under the Asia-Invest Alliance component, focusing on institutional reinforcement of Asian intermediary organisations, specifically institutional capacity building and networking. In this sense the primary aim would logically be to strengthen the Fair Trade intermediaries and the producer groups, viz., the Intermediate Marketing Organisations and the Fair Trade Forum (India), by improving their capabilities to service local businesses (producer groups). This objective would be met by developing a group of trainers capable of training the various IMOs and the PGs. As this is a key result of the project, it may be said that the project is relevant from the EU programme objectives.

Project Objectives The Overall Objective of the Project has been stated to be “To increase the impact of fair trade on poverty in India”, while the Specific Objective is stated to be “To increase producers' access to fair trade markets in Europe through an increased understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain.”

This particular phrasing of the Specific Objective has two logically different elements – (a) To increase producers' access to Fair Trade markets in Europe” and (b) to increase understanding, among producers, of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain”. From a logical aspect it is seen that Objective is a requisite for Objective (a), and hence the two should not be at the same logical level.

From an initial reading of the Specific Objective, coupled with some of the Activities listed, it would appear that the primary focus was on “To increase producers' access to Fair Trade markets in Europe”. (Refer Activity 11, which has one of the results stated as “there is increased networking between Indian fair trade intermediary organisations and their EU counterparts”; Activity 14, where one of the Results again states “Increased networking between fair trade intermediary organisations and participant trainers in India and in the EU”; Activity 15, where one of the Results states “MSEs develop stronger relationships with European fair trade buyers and increase their access of European fair trade markets”.) The indicators listed in the logframe, at the Output level,(Output 7, where the indicators also state “ 25% increase in export sales to EU for targeted fair trade SMEs” and 25% increase in income to targeted fair trade SMEs”). These elements pointed to the fact that the key focus was on “To increase producers' access to Fair Trade markets in Europe”, rather than just “To increase understanding, among producers, of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain”, which was seen as a subsidiary objective, more at the Output level.


6

In subsequent discussions, there were responses from Traidcraft, one of the implementers, that what was meant in the project was “to increase producers' understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain”, and that this needed to be the focus through which the project needed to be assessed. It was also clarified that the basic premise was also that the Project was targeting producer groups that were already in the export market - but one of the issues arising in the European market (with buyers) was that producers on the ground did not fully understand roles and responsibilities and therefore did not comply with standards. This project therefore was meant to remedy this situation - so that their access to European fair trade markets are not threatened by the weak compliance standards.

It was also known that FTFI members were already in the export market and hence it was also assumed that once this project would put in place some of the basics to help them sell their products as fair trade, the members in question would be able to translate this into improved market access.

The project design, implementation, and effects were therefore seen through this lens instead, and this report focuses on the project accordingly.

Problem Analysis and the Logframe

The proposal (including annexes) does not specifically reveal any documented efforts at problem analysis, though it would have been done as a part of developing the logframe. It is difficult therefore to comment on the quality or completeness of such analysis. An assessment of the logframe might throw some indirect light on the process. The key elements of the Project Design are expressed in the Project Logframe, and the evaluation team assessed the logframe for its logical links and the appropriateness of the indicators listed in it. The complete logframe is provided in Annexure 5, with the comments from the evaluators, while the key parts are analysed here.

The logframe itself has the Overall Objective in the first row, the Specific Objective in the second row, and the main activities in the subsequent rows. Usually the structure of a logframe calls for four main rows – Overall Objective, Specific Objective, Expected Results, and Activities. In this case the logframe shows an overall objective, a specific objective, seven expected results, and 16 main activities. To assess the quality of the logframe, one would need to assess the indicators listed, the assumptions mentioned, and the logical completeness of the link between upper and lower rows (a) the activities and the Results; (b) the Results and the Specific Objective; and (c) the Specific Objective and the Overall Objective.

1. Specific Objective: The Specific Objective in the Logframe, as already mentioned, combines increased understanding of roles and responsibilities in the supply chain by producers, and their access to increased access to the market. As also mentioned, these two elements are at two different logical levels. As confirmed by Traidcraft, the focus was on increasing understanding of roles and responsibilities. Accordingly, in the logframe, the Specific Objective would have been better stated as just “To increase producers' understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain”.

2. Overall Objective: If the Specific Objective is to increase producers' understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain, the longer term effect would be “to increase access to Fair Trade markets in Europe”. In


7

effect, this part of the earlier Specific Objective is best included in the Overall Objective, which can be then expanded to include impact on poverty. Thus the Overall Objective would have been best stated as “To increase producers' access to Fair Trade markets in Europe, and hence to increase the impact of Fair Trade on poverty in India”.

3. Outputs: In connection with the Specific Objective as re-stated, in line with what was meant, it is seen that Outputs numbering 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are appropriate and required for the Project. However, as the Outputs of any Project are the guaranteed deliverables of the Project, it would be better to rephrase Output (5) as “Fair Trade Producers are trained in understanding their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain”, and Output (6) as “Fair Trade Producers are trained to assess their own status with regard to compliance with Fair Trade criteria”. This obviates the question of whether the Producer Groups are actually doing so, which actually is a component of the Specific Objective, rather than of the Outputs.

4. With regard to Output 4, “Increased cooperation, collaboration, networking between the core group of trainers and fair trade intermediary organisations in the EU”, it is felt that in this Project, the trainers are independent professionals who may or may not have further continued association with the FTOs or the Producer Groups. Under these circumstances, increased networking between the trainers and the intermediary organisations in the EU are not very relevant for the Project at the Specific Objective level. Also, this Output is not supported by any Activity other than the EU visit, and no follow up Activities are planned. It would be better if this Output were re-stated as “Increased cooperation, collaboration and networking between FTF (I), Indian FTOs and intermediary organisations in the EU” – this is also supported by Activity 14 and Activity 15.

5. With regard to Output 7, it is felt that this is not something that can be delivered by the implementers, being out of their control, and should not form part of the Project. The term “Output” in a Project is defined as something that the Project delivers as a direct consequence of a set of Activities – and for this Output there are really no supporting Activities. Ideally this is a post-Project element that the Producer Groups would focus on once the Project Specific Objective is achieved.

The actual project design in terms of activities planned, their adequacy to achieve the objective, fit in very nicely with this terminology. The overall design in this context may be said to be well thought out, with the choice of implementing partners also so planned as to enable continuity beyond the project period.

Indicators

The second row of the logframe is considered the most important with regard to the achievement by the end of the project. Taking the modified Objective statements as the basis, it is seen that the indicators themselves do not logically match the Objective statements at each level. The question of increased access and income belong at the level of the Overall Objective, instead of the Outputs, where they have been placed. Similarly, indicators referring to Producer Groups starting to assess and address issues of compliance should be at the level of the Specific Objective, while those referring to FT intermediaries and EU buyers supporting Producer Groups for


8

compliance are appropriate at the Overall Objective level.

Given these aspects, it is felt that for the evaluation to focus on the spirit of the Project, there is a need to suggest a modified logframe as the basis for such an evaluation. This is provided in Annexure 6.

Assumptions

While a few assumptions have been listed, it is not clear if they have been analysed with regard to their importance and degree of risk. For instance, “Fair Trade SMEs are identified and are keen to be involved in the project” (row 18 of the logframe file) appears to be an activity itself – the wording is almost the same as the activity itself - “Identify Target Fair Trade Producers”, in the same row. When the project identifies any target Fair Trade SME, it would need to ensure that such identified SME and producers are interested. It is felt that this Assumption is not needed separately.

The same reasoning is applicable for the assumption in row 16 of the logframe file (identify and recruit mentors, and right type of mentors are available). Here again, when mentors are chosen, it is the responsibility of the project to ensure that the right type of mentors are chosen.

Change in external conditions

During the course of the project, the significant change has been the worldwide recession in 2009, leading to difficulties in marketing products especially for artisanal producer groups, which form the largest section of the target group in India. This makes the task of increased access all the more difficult, given the fact that most EU buyers are facing considerable difficulties in marketing such products. The Fair Trade market for food products and garments has not shown as severe a downturn, and in fact some buyers have been able to maintain and even increase market share – but this has not so far had significant meaning to the crafts producer groups.

With regard to the problems faced by the producer groups, the conditions have remained largely the same.

Project Implementation

Roles and responsibilities The role division envisaged in March 2006 allocated all implementation work in India to FTF (I), with support from Traidcraft on any methodological issues. It was agreed that Traidcraft would focus on developing the training programme and the trainers' toolkit, and facilitate FTF (I) in developing criteria, in trainer and mentor selection, and support to FTF (I) on system building. FAKT was given the role of developing the M&E system based on EU requirements, to follow up on the M&E process, and to organise the EU visit. These roles have broadly been maintained, with generally good communication among partners. Overall, the role division, the support to one another worked very well among the team members.

There were some constraints faced by all three partners in implementation. Initially there were difficulties at FTF (I) as it did not have a full time CEO or Director, and decisions needed to wait at times for the Board to meet. This was resolved with the appointment of an Executive Director subsequently. However, this did lead to some


9

delays in implementation in the initial stages, though this did not materially affect the key Activities of training the trainers, or the subsequent conduct of training of Producer Groups by the Indian trainers. The M&E formats were developed by FAKT independently, and finalised in November 2007. The project had proposed a baseline study of the FTOs and some Producer groups, as part of the initial Activity (Project Planning & Refinement). If this had been completed early, the results could have been used for fine tuning the M&E system further. However, as the study report was completed only by late 2008, mid-way through the project, and hence could not be used for any M&E. The delay also meant that this data could not be used in actual M&E, for the first one and a half years.

With regard to monitoring, regular monthly meetings were held at FTF (I), with frequent participation by Traidcraft representatives, who were in the country for either the training programmes or system support to FTF (I). While discussions with the project team showed that all key aspects were discussed in depth, the documenting was sketchy and could not be analysed to understand the management co-operation and efficiency. From the discussions with the Project team, it was seen that the issues discussed related to activity planning for the most part, with less attention on results and impact. Specifically, the assessment of the end-of-project indicators, in terms of increased access, was not seen to be discussed – no reference to these aspects were found in the minutes. Most issues discussed referred to immediate operational issues. In this sense, having a broader 6-monthly review would have been a useful step.

Similarly, while a good set of monitoring tools was developed for all the activities, tools for assessment of the results and outcome were not developed to the same degree. This in turn meant that the focus in monitoring remained more at activity level than at results and objective level.

Some indicators relating to results, specific objective and impact were taken up to some extent in a mid-term review, where the trainers and mentors were asked to fill up a questionnaire relating to the programme and its impact on the producer groups. Most respondents felt that it was too early at that time to comment, but were optimistic that these would be achieved. At that time there was not yet any feedback from the Producer Groups themselves on the Project.

Activities and timeframe The key activities for the project were the training of trainers, the EU visit for the trainers, and the subsequent practice and mentoring, i.e., training of SME producer groups on Fair Trade principles, supply chain roles and discipline. The other activities, i.e., the preparation of the training, the development of the toolkit, were meant to enable the first named set to be conducted well. In this sense, all the training programmes and the toolkit developed have been implemented very well, the quality of both the training programmes and the toolkit being of a high order. The subsequent training of producer groups has also been effective, with a majority of groups able to recall the topics covered, realise their relevance and importance, and modifying their own practices to some extent. Mention must also be made of the excellent trainers’ toolkit that has been produced as part of the project.

However, implementation has suffered to a fair degree because of delays – a number of activities were delayed for a period of 6 -12 months, and this has affected


10

the achievement of the outcome to some extent. If, as earlier planned, the training programmes for the producer groups had been completed by June 2009, there would have been 6 months more available for follow up activities, which would have enabled a much greater movement towards improved compliance by Producer Groups, with Fair trade standards. Holding the EU visit in the earlier year, as originally planned, would have provided more time for the trainers and the MSEs to build on the contacts and enhance their networking, which has not been possible due to lack of sufficient time.

A detailed analysis of each major activity is given below:

1. Project Planning and Refinement:

The key components of Project Planning & Refinement were: (a) baseline study, to collect data for use in monitoring and evaluation; (b) initial planning meetings to develop a detailed action plan, as well as roles and responsibilities of the different implementing partners; (c) developing a system for M&E; and (d) regular planning/review meetings to further fine tune the planning.

The first three elements were expected to be complete in the first four months of the project, according to the duration and action plan3. The initial meetings were held by July 2007 between Traidcraft and FTF-I, with FAKT participating in meetings after November 2007. Roles and responsibilities were clearly assigned, and a broad action plan was developed in July itself, and reviewed subsequently on a regular basis.

The baseline study was also meant to be complete by late 2007. However, this was delayed considerably, and was completed only in early 20094. However, in discussions with the implementing team, it was stated that while complete editing had been delayed, actual data relevant to concerned groups was communicated to all selected trainers well before the ToT workshop in October 2008, so that they could plan the specific issues on which training needed to focus for each group. In this sense, though the report was delayed, the results themselves were used by trainers.

One aim of the study was to enable fine tuning of the monitoring indicators and systems (refer page 8 of the proposal, description of Activity 1), which however could not occur because of the delay. The M&E system was hence developed independently based on the logframe submitted to the EU, with FAKT developing questionnaires to assess the status of different elements of the Project. This included some assessment of indicators, and formats for data collection on various activities.

An analysis of the monitoring is provided under Activity 16.

2. Project Promotion

The components of this Activity are: (a) develop promotional material; and (b) create awareness about project and persuade FTOs and PGs to participate. Communication to FTOs and PGs was quite effective, with over 60 PGs applying to participate in the Project by December 2007, and another 50 by February 2008. The implementers felt that the priority was to ensure a good understanding of the Project, 3 Section 1.9 of the proposal 4 Minutes of meeting 6th Feb 2009


11

including why such training, on FT standards compliance, was proposed, and the specific areas it would cover, so that expectations from the FTOs and the PGs would be realistic. This caused a slight delay in the completion of most of the promotional activity, but this is seen to be justified.

As part of promotion, the promotional material was also circulated to FT buyers in Europe, to keep them informed of the developments, and the point that some of them would be requested to participate in the Project for the EU visit activity.

As such, it was felt that the promotional activities were carried out very well, with attention to quality and focus.

3. Select Participant Trainers

it was proposed that the Project would need at least 10 trainers to work with the proposed 100 PGs for training. As part of this process, criteria for trainers were developed by December 2007, and actual selection was completed by February 2008. 12 trainers were selected initially instead of 10, to allow for any contingency. In the event, the actual number of trainers subsequently dropped to 9, due to the dropping out of 2 trainers and the untimely death of one.

Trainers were asked to make a commitment to participate for the full duration of the project and in all relevant activities, and this was complied with by all selected trainers. In all cases, trainers showed a high degree of commitment to the process, confirming that the selection was done very well.

In terms of the time frame, the selection process was delayed by a period of three months, with selection being complete in February 2008 instead of November 2007. However, this did not hinder the subsequent activities in any significant manner.

4. Identify and Recruit Local Mentors

It had been proposed that the Project would select at least 3 mentors for guiding the trainers selected. Criteria were developed by October 2007, and actual selection of 4 mentors, one from each region, was completed by February 2008. It was felt that with such a large geographical area to be covered, it would be better to have one mentor each from the South, East, North and west regions. The key aspect in selection of mentors was their understanding of the Fair Trade concept and requirements, as well as their familiarity with the producer groups in the country.

5. Needs Assessment

The needs assessment essentially was carried out simultaneously with the trainer selection process, using the information from the applications and the selection interviews. The needs assessment was meant to feed in to the development/ modification of the Trading fairly training programme. Given the fact that the time frame available was short, and that Traidcraft already had the broad outline of the programme in place, the first needs assessment was a quick one, used to re-check the training programme and make minor modifications. The Project carried out a further refinement of the needs assessment after the first workshop, and these were used in developing the second, ToT workshop, held in October 2008.


12

6. Identify target FT Producers

identifying target Producer Groups was a key activity, as appropriate selection would help in ensuring that the PGs did utilise the training and assessed their existing compliance levels, and carried out improvements subsequently. As mentioned with regard to Activity 2, the implementing team took care to communicate in depth about the project, and this helped in generating a high degree of interest. Applications from over 100 PGs had been received by January 2008, and initial selection of 67 PGs had been completed by February 2008. it took a little longer to develop specific profiles of the participating PGs, and allocate these to the selected trainers, and the process was completed by July 2008.

The selection process depended largely on the link the PGs had with the FTOs, as it was felt that the impact of the Project could be achieved better if the FTO was already exporting products made by the PG. Applications from PGs were also generated through the interaction of the FTOs with their PGs, and hence, to a great extent, the suggestions from the FTOs were relied on in finalising the PG participants.

It is felt that this would be the most practical approach, as it would be extremely difficult for the Project to contact PGs across the country directly – in many cases, it would be impossible to approach them without the FTOs introducing implementing team. Given the fact that FTF-I is a network organisation, and depends on members for greater interaction, this was a natural course of action.

The drawback was that in a few cases (approximately 10%), the PGs selected were not involved in regular or significant trade with the FTOs – there were also practical constraints for FTF-I as a network organisation to attempt an equitable sharing of selected PGs from different regions – there were more active PGs in some regions than in others, and thus a few groups who could not immediately use the benefits did get included. To overcome this drawback, the project team selected and trained a slightly larger number of groups – 118 – as against 100 planned.

For future projects involving PGs, it is felt that defining clear non-negotiable criteria, and communicating clearly to all members about these, might help improve the selection further.

7. Development of training Programmes

The training programme was based on a successful model developed by Traidcraft – the “Trading Fairly Workshop”. To a large extent, the training for this project also followed the same pattern, as the needs assessment did not throw up any major change requirements. Traidcraft also had experienced trainers who had conducted such programmes elsewhere, and hence the programme as developed was of a high quality, both in terms of content, training materials, and methodology, as elicited from discussions with the participants.

8. Development of tool-kit

As with the development of the training materials, the tool-kit also is based on previous successful programmes conducted by Traidcraft. A major part of the tool-kit is a collation of good quality material for conduct of the programme – the overview, contents, methods and a detailed session plan, for each topic. Since most of the


13

material was already available to Traidcraft, the development of the tool-kit and the training material (the previous Activity) was completed in time, without any problems.

The overall tool-kit itself is of high quality, with excellent instructions to trainers, and example case studies, activities for each topic well explained. The overall formatting is also very well done, following a standard pattern for each aspect of the tool-kit. Trainers have generally expressed great satisfaction with the tool-kit, and have said that it has enabled them to conduct programmes in a more interactive manner, as per discussions with the trainers.

9. Trading Fairly workshop (for trainers)

The Trading fairly workshop primarily focused on training the selected trainers and orienting the mentors on different FT standards, trends in FT in Europe, buyer expectations, areas of non-compliance, etc. The training programme was conducted in March 2008, as against a planned date of February 2008. Given the fact that the initial planning and selection took a little longer than expected, it is felt that managing to conduct the workshop in March itself was a good result.

The feedback for the programme was satisfactory with most participants stating that it was relevant and helped them understand the concerned issues better.

10. Field Visit to Selected PGs

The main aim of the field visits was to enable the selected trainers become more familiar with the actual situation faced by many of the PGs. While they had all been given the data from the baseline study, it was felt that actual exposure to the PGs would help them gain a much better understanding of the difficulties that PGs experience. While some trainers were from the FT background, some others were not, and this activity helped them understand the issues mentioned.

However, due to difficulties in organising visits to the PGs, many of the visits were delayed. It was initially felt that if these visits were completed before the EU visit and the second workshop, the trainers would be able to discuss key issues with buyers during the EU visit, and bring up relevant aspects for discussion in the second workshop. These two components were not greatly affected, as a few visits had been completed and these formed the basis for such discussions. Most visits were in fact completed in Jan-Feb 2009, just before the postponed EU visit. Trainers were able to use their insights in fine tuning their own training for the PGs concerned.

11. EU Visit

The aim of the EU visit was to enable the selected trainers get a hands-on experience of the EU Fair Trade market, and the expectation of the buyers. It was also hoped that these initial contacts would be followed up by the trainers or the FTOs, to work on improved market access in future. The realisation for the trainees was more in terms of the type of markets and products that had opportunities, the challenges faced by the buyers in Europe, and the need for focus on quality, appropriate product mix and range, and adherence to the FT standards.

A significant departure from the planned timeframe was the shifting of the EU visit from March-April 2008 to March-April 2009. The reason stated is that trainers needed to complete their field visits, get more time to understand groups and identify


14

areas for focus during the visit. Also, in the discussion with project team members and the trainers, some respondents stated that there was some apprehension that a few trainers might drop out after such a visit. Finally, once the decision to postpone was taken it was felt that April 2009 would be the best time as that would coincide with the Fair Trade Fair in Germany, when the trainers could meet a larger number of buyers.

Logically, the experience of the EU visit could have been woven into the training of trainers workshop, and some issues raised in the visit could have been dealt with. This opportunity was not available with the re-arranged schedule, which meant that the ToT workshop was conducted much before the EU visit.

In one sense, the fact that the visit was postponed helped the trainers complete their field visits and hence develop a better understanding prior to the EU visit, leading to better interaction with the buyers, and a better appreciation of their difficulties as well. The field visits also helped the trainers understand the product range that was being produced by the PGs, the quality they maintained, and enabled them to compare these with the requirements of the buyers.

The major part of the learning from the visit related more to issues regarding product type and range, the need for certification and labelling, design, packaging, and quality. FT standards were referred to, but more as a basic requirement. Individual insights varied considerably.

With regard to the use of this experience in subsequent training, one issue that arose was the difficulty in defining what Fair Wage was. All other issues were those that had been experienced prior to the EU visit.

12. Training of Trainers

The Training of Trainers workshop was held in October 2008, well within the planned schedule. The focus in this workshop was on developing training skills, as well as looking into a few key issues that needed clarification, based on some of the Field Visits that the trainers had carried out prior to the workshop. The workshop also provided the participants with additional training materials and tool-kit, which could be used as a basis for planning and delivering interactive training programmes in general.

The workshop was very well organised and conducted, with the sessions planned using the approaches being suggested, and developing a good understanding of how a good training programme can be structured, prepared for, and delivered.

The last sessions of the workshop also focused on the forthcoming EU visit and the preparations that the trainers needed to do prior to the visit, and the manner in which they would manage the visit itself. There was also a good planning and division of tasks on the preparation stage.

13. Practise and mentoring

Training of the PGs was planned in a step by step manner – initially the trainers were to conduct one or two observed workshops, with feedback from the observers (the ToT trainers), and then conduct programmes independently. Some training programmes were conducted prior to the EU visit, while the majority were conducted subsequent to the EU visit. The number of training programmes were substantial in


15

number, and needed a fair amount of time for organising and conducting.

The original schedule had envisaged that the training programmes would start soon after the ToT (October 2008 in this case), and would be completed by June 2009. However, as the EU visit had been postponed, the trainers needed time for preparation and the actual visit, with the consequence that most of the organising occurred after April 2009. Given the complexity of communicating with the PGs, finding suitable time slots for training, and conducting them, FTF-I has accomplished a difficult task creditably.

The programmes were generally conducted well, based on feedback from the producer representatives. There were variations among the different trainers, as could be expected, and some of the programmes needed to be cancelled or curtailed due to unavoidable circumstances.

The fact that the training programmes needed to be completed in a short time meant that the interaction with mentors and modifying the programme was difficult for many trainers. The actual quantum of interaction between the trainer and mentor varied fairly widely, and while some trainers were able to learn from the interactions, others did not have much opportunity.

As the training programmes have been continuing till November-December 2009, it is too early to assess the outcome in terms of increased assessment of Fair Trade compliance, and action taken to improve compliance.

14. Systems support to FTF-I

The three major components of this activity are:

• Build capacity on project management

• Improve website on information to members – main component

• Improve networking

Of these, the main work appears to have been on developing / improving the website of Fair Trade Forum (India). As on November 2009, the changes had not been uploaded, but this has been done by February 2010. The overall design of the website appears to be good, with links for product selection, member addresses, current information on FTF-I activities and news. However, the final links for most of these are yet to be completed – uploading of activities, resources, message board, the blog and the interactive forum are in the demonstration stage and have not been finalised to date. The page on the Fair Trade Plus has been developed well, with links to 5 documents relating to the project. The members’ login set-up has been enabled, but the evaluators were not able to check the details available after login. The link to latest news has been set up, but has only an announcement about a programme in January 2010.

In terms of improvements, it would be good if the members’ page had links to members’ websites, and the product selection links completed, along with listing of which products are made by which members. It would also be desirable if a specific staff member in FTF-I is given the responsibility of updating the various links, which is a fairly comprehensive task, needing day-to-day attention.

With regard to building capacity on project management, the actual experience of managing the FT Plus project has helped FTF-I definitely in improving their


16

capabilities. In a sense, the appointment of a full time Executive Director, and designating specific staff members for different tasks, has helped greatly in streamlining the management process at FTF-I.

Increased networking per se does not seem to have been achieved as a consequence of this project. FTF-I has had improved networking, but mostly due to independent efforts, rather than any specific effort in this project.

15. Advisory support

The key elements of this Activity are:

• Build capacity of MSEs (PGs and FTOs) in addressing issues of compliance and

• Build capacity of MSEs to more effectively access European Fair Trade markets.

As part of this process, the project had originally planned to appoint a local technical consultant, with wide experience on Fair trade, who would provide technical support to target MSEs throughout the programme. It was further specifically stated that the local consultant would attend the first Fair Trade workshop and the field visits, and would

• Provide further mentoring support to the participant trainers

• Receive the same input as the participant trainers so that a consistent message is received by the producers.

This wording would tend to imply that the focus of the consultant in advisory support would be to provide ongoing advice to the participating MSEs and trainers, on specific questions and challenges. As most of the training for Producer groups was organised in 2009, the question of further advisory support would be relevant only subsequent to such training. This also meant that the time available for individual support to any of the groups would be short, and that it would be more appropriate to identify activities that would address issues of common concern.

The Project retained Management Development Institute (MDI), Gurgaon as the main consultant, and it was decided that the support would be in the form of a series of workshops – one national workshop for the FTOs involved, and four regional workshops for the Producer Groups trained. The national workshop was also used to identify issues that needed to be taken up in the regional workshops.

The national workshop was well organised, with most of the key concerns of the FTOs with regard to Fair Trade standards and compliance, as well as on business aspects such as pricing, market share expansion, financial analysis and planning, supply chain management and adherence to Fair Trade, branding, etc.

The workshop also deliberated and listed the issues that needed to be addressed in the Regional workshops. The needs for the Eastern regional workshop were listed as under:

• Production Management System (PMS) • Understanding market requirements (EU market as well) • Implementation of Fair Wage. • Follow up training.


17

• EU legislative requirements. • One toolkit to each implementing to continue training (FTFI to get trainers

involved and working).

However, what was covered was general finance management, break-even analysis, quality, Fair Price and Fair Wage, developing a customer-centric mindset, adherence to Fair Trade.

Similarly, the needs for the Southern workshop were listed as:

• Training required on FT standards for better understanding of fair Trade • Educate and revisit the pricing challenges which include costing and

pricing, product development, delivery time etc. • Understanding commitments for better trading partnership. • Supply chain management. • Importance of collaboration

The regional coverage in the Southern workshop focused on the following, as per the report of the workshop, and the personal observation by one of the evaluators:

• Establishing Qualitative supply Chain: focusing on systems for FT adherence, audit, and certification

• Implementation of FT standards – broad discussions on FT standards. • Sharing of Case studies by trainers – focusing on producers’ narration of

benefits of the Fair Trade plus Project • Evolution of Fair Trade Alliance Kerala – focus on alliance building and FLO

standards for food products • Cooperation and Collaboration for building the FT Brand – address by Dr.

Arumugam on need for networking and importance of FTF-I and similar networks.

• Participatory Guarantee System of certification • Challenges in FT adherence – address by Mr. Purushottaman, IFFAD

The Eastern Zone workshop covered the following points, as per the report:

• Keynote address – Prof. Bhattacharya, Former faculty IIM-C, focusing on brief history of FT and challenges.

• Strategic Financial Management – Prof. Arup Chowdhuri, International Business School, focusing on costing, pricing approaches, brief explanation of break-even point, and briefly touching on collaboration and branding.

• Quality and quality Management – Mr. Ashim Ghosh, International Business School, focusing on quality in manufacturing systems, the approach to total quality management

• FT adherence – OP Yadav and Sraboni Hazra, focusing on an explanation of FT standards and experience sharing by Ms. Hazra and producers on this topic.

• Fair Price and Fair Wage – Ms. Sujata Goswami, Sasha, explaining concepts of Fair Price and different ways of looking at Fair Wage, and a panel discussion on the process.

• Developing a customer centric mindset – Mr. Vip Kumar, Consultant FTF-I, an


18

interactive session on customer perspectives and demand, and the need for producers to understand how customers think and act.

• Communicate to Collaborate – Dr. Neelu Bhullar, Faculity, MDI, on communicating with the customer, focusing on the customer’s needs and thinking, and collaboration instead of exploiting. The session also delineated the overall supply chain

• Fair Trade Brand Building, on the importance of brand development and building, and marketing approaches.

• Evolving Roadmap for CEOs – Prof. Ranjan Mitter, IIM-C, a presentation on the need to take on leadership roles and plan for the future, followed by a short group work on developing road maps for the FTOs.

In the workshop for the northern and western regions, the sessions covered were:

• Design and quality – highlighting the importance of deign and product quality for market acceptance

• Domestic and EU market needs • Roles and responsibilities of all in the Supply Chain – highlighting the

importance of all roles • Challenges in fair Trade adherence – the need to work on providing support/

benefits as per the standards

Thus, while a fair number of the issues identified in the national workshop were touched upon in the different workshops, the workshops appeared to be more generic in nature, and varied from region to region, depending on the needs of the groups in that region. The topics covered were fairly useful to the participants, in general concept terms, but did not address specific issues faced by the MSEs, such as PMS, the EU market and legislative requirements, and further training beyond the project. It was felt that, having done an excellent job in the National workshop, the regional workshops also would have been equally focused.

16. Evaluation and dissemination

Activities under this head comprised of ongoing M&E, interim and annual reviews, the final evaluation and a dissemination workshop.

Regular review was conducted through monthly meetings for internal review, and quarterly and interim reports to EU based on the format prescribed. It was felt that the documentation of the review meetings can be improved further, and could be an area for further capacity building. It was stated that the regular review meetings discussed the indicators for the Output and Specific Objectives, but no evidence of such discussion was found in any of the minutes.

Analysis of key activities, relating to training, has been well captured through questionnaires at each step, from trainers and mentors. Most of these have focused on Activities and their quality, rather than on the indicators in the logframe per se. Detailed feedback from PGs has not been received in full, as many groups were trained in the second half of 2009. some studies on impact have been conducted, but the data collected does not lend itself to any specific conclusions.

Financial administration


19

The financial administration was seen to be effective, with adequate inputs from time to time on transparency and audit. The reports themselves do not show any overspending on any head of account. Overall, the financial management appeared to be a high order of quality, transparency and adherence to norms, and is highly commendable.

Results and impact Results and impact for the project need to be assessed primarily based on the logframe and the indicators that had been developed for the project. The detailed table providing the assessment is provided in Annexure 4, which looks at specific questions about project impact.

Achievements

The major achievement of the project has been the development of a committed group of trainers, who are familiar with the Fair Trade requirements of European buyers and have the skills for training to a large degree. This has been a successful result of the project, in that trainers are aware of EU buyer requirements, have established contact with many buyers, and have been able to train producer groups effectively. Many trainers are willing to continue to train other groups, but are not sure of how their time can be recompensed.

A secondary result has been the development of a comprehensive training toolkit on training methodologies, which can be used in future for developing other trainers.

The third major achievement is the effective training of about a 100 producer groups on Fair Trade principles, and understanding supply chain roles and responsibilities. This has in turn brought about some change in the practices followed by some groups, especially the concern for quality, timely delivery, and in greater interest among the producers about new product development. It has also brought about an appreciation of Fair Trade principles, and the desire to follow them in full – but it is felt by many producers that all the requirements as per the principles would cost them considerably, and they are not certain if they would get higher orders to offset these costs.

An additional effect is that most groups are more aware of major areas of bon-compliance, and are interested in improving their compliance in this regard.

Factors that supported achievement

The primary factors that helped developing the trainers are (a) the high quality work done on developing the training programme and the toolkit by Traidcraft; and (b) the care taken in selection of the trainers. There was initially a fair degree of pressure on FTFI to choose some of the senior management team members of the intermediaries as the trainers, but the project partners were firm that the trainer selected must be able to devote considerable time for training, which would have been difficult for any senior management team member. Care also was taken to ensure that the trainers' initial workshops were observed in depth and feedback given to them for improving their performance.

Based on the revised logframe, it may be said that most of the Outputs and the Specific Objective have been achieved successfully, in terms of the indicators developed and assessed. The project as a whole, again based on the revised logframe, may be said to be highly successful, with minor areas for improvement.


20

Factors hindering achievement

The project as a whole has been successful. It could have reached higher levels, in terms of SMEs taking steps to identify areas of non-compliance, and taking action to address these issues, if the following difficulties had not been encountered.

1. Delay in the project implementation, which has meant that producer groups have just been trained, and many have not had the time to bring in the changes aimed.

2. For a majority of producers, the difficulty is that they are receiving low orders from the intermediary organisations. This means that they are not clear on how these practices would help them achieve better orders, and consequently better incomes. The intermediaries themselves have not been part of the interaction process, and are not in a position to confirm how they can help get better orders.

3. For some groups, production is a new area – they have not so far been a producer group, but only a savings and credit group. For them, the process is very new, and they require support in product design and development, quality management, and many other aspects before they can get involved in even small orders.

4. For others, exposure to various products and designs that sell in the market are more needed – these are not part of the project, and without this support, they are not in a position to bring in any changes.

5. A significant aspect is that the trainers themselves are not clear on how their visit to EU could help in building better access for the groups – in almost all cases, such access is through the intermediary organisations, which have not had the benefit of these contacts. Even those trainers, who are part of an intermediary organisation, are not in a position decision making, and as such might not be in a position to interact with the buyers they met, in order to build the network of the producers.

6. A major factor that would affect greater access o European buyers is the recent recession in Europe – this has resulted to some degree in reduction of demand, and hence to lower orders than before. In such a context, expecting increased orders for any producer group is difficult, and can occur only as a replacement for another producer group, in the short run. Domestic marketing is being done by very few groups, and this has not changed much.

Sustainability and learning Sustainability of the project essentially looks beyond the project time frame, and the process needed to ensure that the actions initiated by the Project can continue. Thus these points are not a reflection on the project success, but on additional needs that may be required in future. The project itself was focused primarily in developing a core group of trainers, and if these trainers can commit to continue to be associated, the chances of sustainability will be improved.

The sustainability of this project needs to be looked at from two aspects:

1. The likelihood of the producer groups continuing to work on following Fair Trade principles and supply chain roles.


21

2. The likelihood of greater number of producer groups getting trained and initiating work on following Fair Trade principles and supply chain roles.

For both aspects, the key factor is the continuing work by the intermediaries to support the producer groups to follow these practices and to ensure that supply chain responsibilities are taken up and implemented.

However, the intermediaries in turn will take up this role only if they are in a position to get orders from buyers – this means that producers must make good quality and market oriented samples, be willing to learn new designs and so on. Many of the groups trained either get too little by way of orders, or get none at all. It is difficult to expect either the intermediary or the group to continue to work on these aspects, unless support is provided in product development and improvement. Design, quality consistency are two key factors which affect such product development, and it is essential that groups in different craft sectors are helped with such support in future if the results of the project are to be sustained. These can become the core areas for development of a further project in this area.

An additional area that FTF-I needs to explore is the movement towards food production as a significant area for expansion of Fair Trade in India. FTF-I is already taking some steps in this regard, and these may need to be strengthened by way of an additional project to develop at least a minimum number of producer groups and FTOs involved in Fair Trade food products.

For the second aspect, the key factor is the continuance of training for other groups. Many of the groups trained have expressed their desire for all other groups in their organisation to be trained in these aspects, and would like to practise Fair Trade principles further. Here again, the availability of the trainers, and their willingness to impart this training to other groups, is the key. This again calls for appropriate funds to be raised to enable such training. At the same time, if a large number of groups are trained, the difficulty will be to find adequate orders for such groups, so that their efforts at practise is rewarded by larger incomes. This factor depends on the abilities of the FTOs themselves in becoming market friendly and efficient. In this regard, the process initiated in the National Workshop by MDI is highly worth pursuing and following up, possibly as a future project, as well.

Another possibility is to find more trainers at the group levels, and use the existing trainers to train other trainers at grassroots level, who would be able to communicate awareness about the FT standards and the need for compliance. Similarly, most FTOs h=conduct some form of training, and have trainers associated with them. These trainers also can be trained to carry out these programmes and follow up with the groups for support on identification and addressing issues of non-compliance.

The present pilot effort at SFTMS certification addresses very similar issues, and it would be worthwhile if the trainers who participated in this project are involved by the FTOs, or FTF-I, in providing support to groups and FTOs on preparing a Gap analysis on FT adherence, developing improvement plans, and implementing them.

Lessons A key lesson with regard to sustainability would be to get a commitment from the trainers for a longer term association. At present, while trainers have shown a great deal of commitment, it is not clear if all trainers will continue their association on a long term basis. It would be desirable in future projects to make this clause also a


22

part of the MoU with the trainers, subject of course to availability of funds fir the trainers to be reimbursed for their time.

The question of greater networking with FT buyers applies mainly to the IMOs, who were not involved in the EU visit – it was only the trainers, not all of whom were attached to any IMO. In future projects it would be better if the involvement of the FTOs is higher than in this case, so that they also benefit from the overall process.


23

Annexure 1 Terms of Reference for evaluation

1. Background

This terms of reference is for the external evaluation of the Project: FAIR TRADE PLUS in India which has a duration of 33 months, and being implemented by Traidcraft Exchange, UK, in partnership with Fair Trade Forum India (FTFI) India) and FAKT, Germany.

Project Objectives:

Overall Objective: To increase the impact of fair trade on poverty in India

Specific Objective: To increase producers’ access to fair trade markets in Europe through an increased understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain

Key target groups / beneficiaries:

Direct:

a. 100 fair trade producer groups/ MSEs from various craft clusters across and the 2000 poor and disadvantaged producers they employ

b. 9 Fair Trade Trainers selected from 35 fair trade member organisations of FTFI Indirect: 35 member organisations of FTFI and 3,000 fair trade MSEs and the 60,000 poor and disadvantaged producers they employ

Activities undertaken:

• One workshop on Trading Fairly was provided to Trainers on Fair Trade Principles and the roles and responsibilities of each member in the supply chain.

• Coursework to practice the skills and techniques from the workshops, supported by local mentors in between two workshops.

• One workshop on Training of Trainers was provided to 9 trainers so that these trainers are able to design their own sessions and modules with the help of tools and techniques that had been taught to them during the workshop.

• Exposure study tour to Germany & UK by 9 Trainers to get exposure to the European market, understand requirements of the European buyers, participate in a Fair-Trade Trade Fair and meet with buyers and other intermediary Fair Trade Organisations.

• Trainers conducted trainings with the assigned 10-12 producer groups based on their needs assessed through the baseline information.

• A dissemination workshop will be held in November to share the experiences of the trainers.

2. Objectives of the evaluation

According to EU guidelines, the project has to be evaluated externally. The focus of the evaluation is to learn about the relevance, efficiency (implementation of the project against the logframe), effectiveness, impact and sustainability: What has been achieved, what hasn’t, and key factors for success or failure both through desk


24

research and field research.

• To assess to what extent did the project meet the aims and objectives as set out in the proposal logframe

• To evaluate the methodology and design of the project from the point of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

• To help Traidcraft Exchange, Fair Trade Forum India and FAKT better understand which practices and intervention strategies work best and bring about change, so to help them learn lessons that will help achieve better impact in the future.

Scope and focus

The scope and focus has been outlined in detail in the Evaluation Framework document (see attached). The evaluation must be undertaken with the indicators relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

Information which will be provided to the evaluator

• Literature review and consolidation of existing data including:

• Trainers’ application forms • Baseline data • Activity Reports • Activity evaluations • Mentors’ review reports • Qualitative assessment of participants post trainings conducted by them,

based on mentor and consultants’ input • Information gathered about the producer groups by the project management

team over the project duration. • Original project proposal and logframe

Key contacts to use in the evaluation

Traidcraft Staff

• Project Manager (Traidcraft consultant) : Manisha Jani • Business & Training Consultant, Traidcraft Consult: Alistair Leadbetter • India Country Director: Neeti Malhotra • Head of South Asia Programme: Maveen Pereira

Support on the content and methodology of the evaluation, as well as delivery of the report should be with Neeti Malhotra, at Traidcraft Exchange. Manisha Jani has been managing the project from Traidcraft’s end and is involved in monitoring the progress of the project. She will support the consultant in providing a literature review of existing data, reporting against the Evaluation Framework.

FTFI Staff

• FTFI Executive Director: Mallikarjuna Iytha • Project coordinator: O P Yadav • Rajeev Pillai: Finance manager


25

For day to day queries and logistical support the consultant will contact Mr. O.P. Yadav at FTFI who will coordinate any support necessary.

FAKT Staff

• Project Coordinator: Franziska Krisch

Mentors selected by the project

Mentor’s role in the project has been to guide the trainers in the trainings and the coursework assigned to them during the project duration. They play a vital role in the project as they are experts in Fair Trade.

• K. Panchaksharam • Padmaja Pai • Debasish Ray Choudhuri • Immanuel Bundellu

Participant Trainers selected by the project

9 trainers who were involved in the project should be part of this evaluation. Out of the list given below, the consultant will interview all of them plus the one who dropped out of the project. He will then choose 4 trainers and interview them personally(one from each region).

• Alka Rawal: ( Independent) New Delhi • Mathew K.K.: (MESH) New Delhi • Jay Kumar: (FTFI) New Delhi • Shraboni Hazra: (CRC Exports) Kolkata • Srita Bhol: (Independent) Bhuwaneshwar • Anamika Purohit: (IRFT) Mumbai • Ivan Carvalho: (Asha Handicrafts) Mumbai • Johny Joseph: (Creative Handicrafts) Mumbai • Raghu Nathan: (IFFAD) Chennai

Beneficiaries (Producer Groups/Intermediary Organis ations)

At least 2 of the 10-12 producer groups/ intermediary organisations who received training from the trainers selected for evaluation have to be interviewed. In selecting them it is suggested to achieve a mix of groups from different states of which some have participated fully in the project, while others haven’t fully participated.

3. Methodology

The methodology for undertaking the evaluation has to be proposed by the consultant, and will be used subject to the contractor’s approval or amendments. It is expected that the methodology used will be participatory, using interactive techniques, including information gathering tools, key questions, and a project timetable.

4. Selection of the evaluator

Selection Procedure:


26

• We request Expression of Interest and CVs of the potential evaluators • Terms of Reference and Evaluation framework will be shared and proposals

will be requested by 10th of September 2009. The proposal should provide a clear overview of the methodology and a plan

• On receipt of the proposals a designated Evaluation team will study the proposals, and take a decision about the evaluator/s for the study.

• Selection of the evaluator will be based on scores on various criteria.

5. Deliverables and timeframe

Deliverables Deadlines

• Inviting Expression of Interest and CV 9th of September 2009 • Sending the ToR and the evaluation framework to the consultants 11th of

September 2009 • Develop and provide methodology for conducting the evaluation 18th of

September 2009 • Selection of the consultant 21st of September 2009 • Signing of the contract and start of the evaluation 25th of September 2009 • Draft written report of preliminary findings In first week of December for the

dissemination workshop • Submission of the Final Evaluation report 15th of January 2010

6.Budget

• Fees: Euros 1800 • Per diems: Euros 1000 • Travel: Euros 400


27

Annexure 2 Evaluation Framework

1. Key Broad Questions to be answered against the l ogframe The key questions below are broad to encourage all stakeholders in the project to answer openly about their opinion on the project. They should be answered by all stakeholders: Project Partners, Mentors, Trainers, producer groups and beneficiaries. The evaluator should consider the results that were framed in the project logframe when analyzing the answers to these questions. Relevance of project design

A. How relevant was this project? How relevant was the project to the different stakeholders’ requirements and objectives; to country needs and EC policies? What was the quality of the problem analysis and the project’s logical framework? Have the problems originally identified changed? How flexible was the project to changes in circumstances?

B. How effective was the design and methodology of the project?

C. Have we worked with the right partners / target groups ? Are there other partners /

target groups that Traidcraft and FTFI should be increasing / decreasing contact with? Are there new partners / target groups that Traidcraft and FTFI should work with?

Implementation and efficiency

D. What has been done by Traidcraft Exchange, FAKT and FTFI? How successful were the roles that Traidcraft and FTFI played as project management and implementing partner?

E. How efficient was this project in terms of funds, expertise, time, administrative costs,

etc? What has been spent in the project? How well have the resources been used? Does the expenditure justify the outcome? Have the resources been allocated in the most strategic way?

Results and impact

F. What has been achieved (expected, unexpected results, successes)?

G. What has not been achieved (failures, disappointments, missed opportunities) and why?

H. What were the contributions of the different project activities in the change

achieved?

I. What else has changed (external context )? – e.g. What has been happening in India / state / sector? What impact has this had on our work / future work in this area? What else has supported / hindered our work in this area?

Sustainability and learning


28

J. How sustainable is this project? How sustainable is the change? What will continue after the project has finished? How could it have been made more sustainable? (e.g. were whole groups or individuals affected, did the project affect power structures / attitudes / behaviours and practices) Can this be replicated? Why / why not?

K. What has been learnt about how to work effectively and efficiently to achieve lasting

change in this area of work? L. How should this learning affect ongoing work / future work in this area?


29

2. Specific Questions about the project’s impact Specific data needs to be recorded in the report against the logframe, using data which has already been collected, and if necessary finding out any gaps in information.

Result (as per logframe) Indicator (as per logframe) Information to collect and analyze A core group of trainers are trained to understand the EU market for fair trade (e.g. demands of fair trade buyers in the EU, different fair trade standards and labels, certification and consumer expectations)

~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors understand the demand for fair trade products, fair trade standards and expectations of buyers and consumers ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors are trained to deliver training on the demand for fair trade products, fair trade standards and expectations of buyers and consumers

Numbers trained on fair trade What was the process of selecting the trainers? What are the lessons here? Numbers who have dropped out of the project and why % of participants who are training on fair trade Type of participant trainers who were most supportive of the training process Main results of training these trainers How many Producer groups/intermediary organizations/MSEs have received training under the project: Who worked with who, and how often did they provide training

2. A core group of trainers are trained to understand the rights and responsibilities of all actors in the fair trade supply chain

~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors understand the rights and responsibilities of all actors in the fair trade supply chain. ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors have a better understanding of the problems facing fair trade SMEs trying to access European markets. 10 trainers and 5 mentors are better equipped to support fair trade SMEs access fair trade EU markets

Are the producers able to understand the rights and responsibilities of the actors in the fair trade supply chain? What are the problems facing their fair trade SMEs in trying to access the European markets and are the trainers able to find solution for them Has any support been provided by the trainers to the fair trade MSEs in accessing the EU markets? State a few examples of non-compliance, if any

3. A core group of trainers are trained in effective training skills to enable them to transfer

~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors are trained to deliver training on fair trade standards to fair trade SMEs and producers ~ 10 trainers trained to train other fair

Are the trainers confident about delivering training on fair trade standards to the producers? How many producers have they trained on fair trade? How many other intermediary organizations have these trainers trained?


30

learning to producers

trade intermediary organisations

4. Increased cooperation, collaboration, networking between the core group of trainers and fair trade intermediary organisations in the EU

~ Fair trade intermediary organisations meet their EU counterparts to share information and skills. ~ Fair trade organisations and buyers in the EU are more aware of the constraints for fair trade producers in India ~ Fair trade buyers in the EU support their fair trade producers to address issues around non-compliance ~ The capacity of FTFI built to enable them to encourage ongoing cooperation and collaboration between fair trade intermediary organisations, MSE and producers ~ Fair trade networks are strengthened (including building the capacity of FTFI and developing an internet platform)

Has information been exchanged by the trainers with EU counterparts? Any examples Has the intermediary organization established contact with the EU counterparts for sharing information and skills? Any examples Did the buyers in the EU support the fair trade producers in any manner to address issues of non-compliance through the interaction of the trainers with the EU buyers? Was any information shared with them? Does FTFI feel confident to encourage the collaboration and co-operation even after the project ends? What are the different measures taken by FTFI to co-operate and collaborate between fair trade intermediary organizations and MSE and producers? How are the fair trade networks strengthened? Validate the information with the EU contacts established.

5. Fair trade producers can identify their roles and responsibilities within the fair trade supply chain

~ 80 fair trade SMEs can identify their roles and responsibilities within the fair trade supply chain ~ 80 fair trade SMEs can identify the roles and responsibilities of other actors within the fair trade supply chain ~ The capacity of FTFI built to enable them to provide ongoing information and support to fair trade intermediary organisations, MSE and producers

Are the Fair Trade SMEs able to identify their and other actors’ roles and responsibilities within the fair trade supply chain? Submit crib sheets of their responses. Does FTFI provide ongoing information and support to fair trade intermediary organization, MSEs and producers? If so, how often and how?

6. Fair trade producers have the means to assess where they stand in relation to their compliance with fair trade criteria

~ A tool-kit is developed to support fair trade SMEs in identifying areas of non-compliance with fair trade criteria ~ 80 fair trade SMEs identify areas of non-compliance with fair trade criteria

Do the fair trade producers have access to fair trade principles and standards which they need to comply with? Are the producer groups able to identify the weak areas in compliance of fair trade?


31

How many such groups are able to identify areas of non-compliance under fair trade criteria?

7. Fair trade producers address issues of non-compliance that they have identified

~ 80 fair trade SMEs inform FTFI, fair trade intermediaries and EU buyers of the support they need to address issues around non-compliance ~ FTFI, fair trade intermediaries and EU buyers support their fair trade producers to address issues around non-compliance ~ 80 fair trade SMEs start addressing areas of non-compliance ~ 25% increase in export sales to EU for targeted fair trade SMEs ~ 25% increase in income to targeted fair trade SMEs

How many producer groups/MSEs inform FTFI, EU buyers about the support that they need on issues of non-compliance? Have FTFI, fair trade intermediaries and EU buyers supported the producer groups in complying with fair trade in cases of non-compliance? How has this been addressed? How many group/SMEs have begun addressing areas of non-compliance? % of SMEs who have increased exports / orders (based on number of MSEs interviewed) % of SMEs who have new exports / orders (based on number of SMEs interviewed) Amount of new / increased orders (%)


32

Annexure 3 Questionnaire to PGs, trainers and mento rs Check list and main questions for discussions with PGs, trainers, mentors. It must be noted that the process of interviewing PGs and trainers is primarily a semi-structured one, not a closed questionnaire. A number of additional spin-off questions were asked based on responses received. PGs

Question

What is this project about? What aims, objectives?

How were you selected? Was the selection process known to you before selection? What information did you get at that time?

What is the change you see in yourself (knowledge, skills, attitudes), your group because of the project? In terms of markets, new products, compliance to FT norms?

What do you plan to do further?

What support do you need to progress further?

If the training was to be done again, what changes you would expect?

Has there been any feedback from the buyer/ IMO on your performance?

What support are you getting from the IMO to continue this process?

What are your experiences / success stories?

Trainers

1. What is your interest – why are you involved?

2. What is the change you see in different stakeholders – PG, IMO?

3. What is the change in yourself as a trainer, FT practitioner?

4. What support from mentors, and how was it?

5. What is the effect of specific programmes and activities – different training sessions, EU visit etc.?

6. What would you suggest as changes if the project was to be implemented again?

7. What do you plan to do in future with the changes in yourself, in terms of Attitude, Skills, Knowledge?

8. What is your commitment to longer term continuing of the process – more training, follow up? How much time can you commit. If at all?


33

9. Has there been any mention of such commitment in the MOU? Any other discussions on this?

10. What according to you is the main outcome of the project?

Mentors

c) What is you involvement and why?

d) How were you selected? Was the process satisfactory?

e) Whom did you mentor, and what are your opinions about the trainers with whom you worked?

f) What systems did you follow in mentoring? Any records, reports?

g) Were you involved in any M&E after training?

h) What would be your suggestions if the project was to be implemented again?

i) What is your commitment in the long term?

j) Did FTF review the mentor performance with you? If so, how and what documentation?

k) What according to you is the main outcome of the project?

FAIR TRADE PLUS Monitoring and Evaluation August 2009

34

Annexure 4 Specific Questions about the project’s i mpact as per revised logframe Output (as per logframe) Indicator (as per logframe) Information collected and analysed A core group of trainers are trained to understand the EU market for fair trade (e.g. demands of fair trade buyers in the EU, different fair trade standards and labels, certification and consumer expectations)

~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors understand the demand for fair trade products, fair trade standards and expectations of buyers and consumers

12 trainers were initially selected, of whom one passed away in an accident and two others dropped out. Thus actual training of groups was shared among 9 trainers. The two who dropped out did so as they were not as interested in the process, and it was felt that it would be better to let them go than have training conducted with disinterest. The selection of trainers was seen as the most critical element in the project success. The aim was to ensure a committed team, who would focus on getting results than conducting a mechanical programme. Actual selection was based on criteria developed by Traidcraft and FTFI. All trainers have exhibited a high degree of commitment to the training process, and it is hoped that they would be willing to take this up in future as well. Originally it was thought that independent trainers would be selected. There was a high degree of pressure from many intermediary organisations that their staff or management personnel be chosen as trainers. This was generally accepted, because it was thought that such trainers would continue to train other producer groups as part of their regular work in the intermediary. Six of the nine trainers thus belong to Fair Trade organisations. This however, did to some extent take away from the process of getting other trainers who might have been better. In terms of training quality there were mixed results, among both independent trainers and trainers coming form an intermediary. It was generally seen that all trainers showed a high degree of commitment, but actual training quality varied because of their intrinsic abilities. The TOT helped most of them change from a lecture based mode to a more interactive and activity based mode. The main results of the training was the creation of a group of trainers aware of EU Fair Trade requirements, and their interest in working with


35

Output (as per logframe) Indicator (as per logframe) Information collected and analysed different producer groups to ensure that such practices are followed in future. Training was still continuing when the evaluation began. Details are awaited.


~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors understand the rights and responsibilities of all actors in the fair trade supply chain. ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors have a better understanding of the problems facing fair trade SMEs trying to access European markets. 10 trainers and 5 mentors are better equipped to support fair trade SMEs access fair trade EU markets

A majority of producer group members who attended the programme showed good recall of the topics and the key principles. Fair Trade principles and supply chain roles and responsibilities were well understood in a majority of cases. The overwhelming problem that most producers faced was the lack of orders. Some groups in fact were not into any production before this training, and the rationale for their selection is still not clear. The main responsibility in such a situation is that of the IMOs, but these were not always part of the workshop, and could not interact with the producers to find a solution. In such a situation, while members appreciated the importance of Fair Trade principles and wished to follow them, the question was that this would not help them get better orders anyway. Many groups wished to obtain improved skills in product development, understanding of market dynamics, and these issues were not covered. Also, though the trainers did visit a Trade Fair and saw a variety of products, there was little discussion on what kinds of products, designs, and quality would enable producers at least get access to the market. On these issues there was no solution at all. No support has been provide in accessing or interacting with EU market!! No data on compliance or non-compliance after training. Many group members did say they were changing their practices, while others felt that for such small orders that they were getting, it would not be practical for them to bring in the changes needed.

3. A core group of trainers are trained in effective training skills to enable them

~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors are trained to deliver training on fair trade standards to fair trade SMEs and producers

Most trainers have undergone a change in their training styles, though to differing degrees. Many still do use a lecture based approach, but the structured design of the training programme, with activities also prescribed, has meant that an interactive process has been available.


36

Output (as per logframe) Indicator (as per logframe) Information collected and analysed to transfer learning to producers

~ 10 trainers trained to train other fair trade intermediary organisations ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors are trained to deliver training on the demand for fair trade products, fair trade standards and expectations of buyers and consumers.

However, only a few are able to be highly interactive in analysing the issue and enabling the group itself to reach decisions – this is partly due to the original styles, and partly due to lack of time in the programme. Most trainers are confident of imparting information and awareness about the Fair Trade principles. A key need was to train intermediaries also in the process. However, no intermediary organisation has been part of the training, in terms of a formal commitment and attendance. This means that the issue of further progress, with sensitisation of the intermediaries, is still pending.

4. Increased cooperation, collaboration, networking between the core group of trainers, FTF (I), Indian FTOs and fair trade intermediary organisations in the EU

~ Fair trade intermediary organisations meet their EU counterparts to share information and skills. ~ The capacity of FTFI built to enable them to encourage ongoing cooperation and collaboration between fair trade intermediary organisations, MSE and producers ~ Fair trade networks are strengthened (including building the capacity of FTFI and developing an internet platform)

There have been no efforts at continuing interaction so far, or in assessing non-compliance of any group and improving it. It is not clear to what extent Fair Trade buyers are aware of the constraints in India, as a consequence of this project as such. Awareness may have risen, but the attribution to this project cannot be assessed, in the absence of any sub sequent contact. FTFI would like to encourage the collaboration and co-operation even after the project ends, as this is the primary aim of FTFI – to support Fair Trade members in India get a better market share both in India and abroad. FTFI on its own will not be able to continue the process without some form of project support at this point of time. As part of the project FTFI has been in touch with various groups. Given the fact that FTFI is a lean organisation, most of its work needs to be done by members than by staff, and this depends on the availability of people from member organisations to commit adequate amount of time for such networking. The regional workshops held as part of the project have helped FTFI build a bridge with many producer groups, who earlier did not have any contact with FTFI.


~ 80 fair trade SMEs can identify their roles and responsibilities within the fair trade supply chain ~ 80 fair trade SMEs can identify the

There has not been any formal data collected on the number of SMEs that have tried identifying their roles and responsibilities post training. In the discussions that the evaluators had, most groups stated that they were more aware of FT standards, and were able to identify their own


37

Output (as per logframe) Indicator (as per logframe) Information collected and analysed roles and responsibilities of other

actors within the fair trade supply chain ~ The capacity of FTFI built to enable them to provide ongoing information and support to fair trade intermediary organisations, MSE and producers

roles and responsibilities better. However, they also felt that this needed to be scaled up to train more group members, so that a majority of group members could reach the same stage. With regard to identifying roles and responsibilities of other actors, not enough attention has been paid by most groups trained.



While there has been an excellent tool-kit for the trainers, there has not yet been a tool-kit developed for the SMEs to identify areas of FT compliance and non-compliance. A good suggestion would be to use a questionnaire, in local languages, which list major areas of conce3rn and checks if the issue is being managed, considered, or not attended to. From the interactions that the evaluators had, no member reported any formal effort at identifying areas of non-compliance. At the same time, many members pointed out that they became aware of major areas of non-compliance (usually one or two in a group) and would like to act on these issues. Thus the conclusion is that most groups are aware of some areas of non-compliance, but have not made a full listing.


38

Annexure 5 Original Logframe of project, excluding activities, with comments LOGICAL FRAMEWORK, Fair Trade Plus, India Intervention logic Objectively verifiable indicator s of

achievement Sources and means of verification Assumptions

To increase the impact of fair trade on poverty in India

~ 25% increase in export sales to EU markets by target fair trade SMEs ~ 25% increase in income for targeted fair trade SMEs ~ Improved working conditions for fair trade producers ~ 10% increase in employment in fair trade SMEs ~ 15% increase in productivity for targeted fair trade SMEs ~ 30% increase in level of compliance with fair trade criteria amongst target fair trade SMEs and producers

~ Baseline study of fair trade SMEs ~ SME records ~ Final report

~ European demand for Indian fair trade products does not decline ~ Other entities like government, financial institutions provide the required to support to deal with other issues like credit, infrastructure, regulation of trade

To increase producers access to fair trade markets in Europe (this component is shifted upward to the Overall Objective) through an increased understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain.

~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors understand the demand for fair trade products, fair trade standards and expectations of buyers and consumers ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors understand the rights and responsibilities of all actors in the fair trade supply chain ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors are trained to deliver training on fair trade standards to fair trade SMEs and producers (these refer to Outputs, and are duplicated, and hence shifted to Outputs) ~ Fair trade SMEs value the training

~ Fair trade intermediary organisations and fair trade trainer records ~ Training records ~ Project progress reports ~ Feedback from fair trade SMEs - evaluations and interviews

~ The fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers commit the necessary time and resources ~ The fair trade trainers will perform as expected ~ The fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers continue to work with SMEs


39

Intervention logic Objectively verifiable indicator s of achievement

Sources and means of verification Assumptions

available to them and make changes to their business practices as a result ~ 10 trainers develop networks at a national and European level ~ 10 trainers are trained to train other fair trade intermediary organisations (see note above)

1. A core group of trainers are trained to understand the EU market for fair trade (e.g. demands of fair trade buyers in the EU, different fair trade standards and labels, certification and consumer expectations)

~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors understand the demand for fair trade products, fair trade standards and expectations of buyers and consumers ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors are trained to deliver training on the demand for fair trade products, fair trade standards and expectations of buyers and consumers

~ Training records ~ Project progress reports

~ The fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers implement the skills, tools and knowledge provided by the project


~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors understand the rights and responsibilities of all actors in the fair trade supply chain. ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors have a better understanding of the problems facing fair trade SMEs trying to access European markets. ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors are better equipped to support fair trade SMEs access fair trade EU markets

~ Visit report ~ Fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers records ~ Feedback from fair trade intermediary organisations, trainers and SMEs - evaluations and interviews ~ Project progress reports ~ Final report

3. A core group of trainers are trained in effective training skills to enable them to transfer learning to producers

~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors are trained to deliver training on fair trade standards to fair trade SMEs and producers ~ 10 trainers trained to train other fair trade intermediary organisations

~ Fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers records ~ Final report

~ fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers implement the skills, tools and knowledge provided by the project

4. Increased cooperation, ~ Fair trade intermediary ~ EU visit report ~ fair trade intermediary


40



collaboration, networking between the core group of trainers and fair trade intermediary organisations in the EU

organisations meet their EU counterparts to share information and skills. ~ Fair trade organisations and buyers in the EU are more aware of the constraints for fair trade producers in India ~ Fair trade buyers in the EU support their fair trade producers to address issues around non-compliance (these are aspects beyond control of the Project, and are more appropriate for Assumptions) ~ The capacity of FTFI built to enable them to encourage ongoing cooperation and collaboration between fair trade intermediary organisations, MSE and producers ~ Fair trade networks are strengthened (including building the capacity of FTFI and developing an internet platform)

~ Feedback from fair trade intermediary organisations (in India and EU) - evaluations and interviews ~ Project progress reports ~ Final report

organisations and trainers maintain the momentum of the training process



~ Feedback from fair trade intermediary organisations, trainers and SMEs - evaluations and interviews ~ Fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers records ~ Fair trade SME records

6. Fair trade producers have the means to assess where they stand in

~ A tool-kit is developed to support fair trade SMEs in identifying areas of

~ Feedback from fair trade intermediary organisations, trainers

~ The project is successful in raising awareness of the need to address fair


41



relation to their compliance with fair trade criteria

non-compliance with fair trade criteria ~ 80 fair trade SMEs identify areas of non-compliance with fair trade criteria (this is related to the Project Outcome, and is a consequence of FT Producers having the means to assess – hence shifted to the specific Objective level)

and SMEs - evaluations and interviews ~ fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers records ~ fair trade SME records

trade compliance amongst SMEs

7. Fair trade producers address issues of non-compliance that they have identified (This Output as a whole is at the outcome level, and the relevant indicators are shifted to the Specific objective level, and the Output itself is not in control of the Project, and hence removed)

~ 80 fair trade SMEs inform FTFI, fair trade intermediaries and EU buyers of the support they need to address issues around non-compliance ~ FTFI, fair trade intermediaries and EU buyers support their fair trade producers to address issues around non-compliance ~ 80 fair trade SMEs start addressing areas of non-compliance ~ 25% increase in export sales to EU for targeted fair trade SMEs ~ 25% increase in income to targeted fair trade SMEs (this relates to the Overall Objective, not at Specific objective or Output level)

~ Fair trade SME records ~ Baseline study ~ Final report


42

Annexure 5 Modified Logframe, used as basis for eva luation

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK, Fair Trade Plus, India Intervention logic Objectively verifiable indicators of

achievement Sources and means of verification Assumptions

To increase producers’ access to Fair Trade markets in Europe, and to increase the impact of fair trade on poverty in India

~ 25% increase in export sales to EU markets by target fair trade SMEs ~ 25% increase in income for targeted fair trade SMEs ~ Improved working conditions for fair trade producers ~ 10% increase in employment in fair trade SMEs ~ 15% increase in productivity for targeted fair trade SMEs ~ 30% increase in level of compliance with fair trade criteria amongst target fair trade SMEs and producers

~ Baseline study of fair trade SMEs ~ SME records ~ Final report

~ European demand for Indian fair trade products does not decline ~ Other entities like government, financial institutions provide the required to support to deal with other issues like credit, infrastructure, regulation of trade

To increase producers understanding of their roles and responsibilities in the supply chain.

~ Fair trade SMEs value the training available to them and make changes to their business practices as a result ~ 80 fair trade SMEs inform FTFI, fair trade intermediaries and EU buyers of the support they need to address issues around non-compliance ~ FTFI, fair trade intermediaries and EU buyers support their fair trade producers to address issues around non-compliance ~ 80 fair trade SMEs start addressing areas of non-compliance

~ Fair trade intermediary organisations and fair trade trainer records ~ Training records ~ Project progress reports ~ Feedback from fair trade SMEs - evaluations and interviews

~ The fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers commit the necessary time and resources ~ The fair trade trainers will perform as expected ~ The fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers continue to work with SMEs


43

Intervention logic Objectively verifiable indicators of achievement


1. A core group of trainers are trained to understand the EU market for fair trade (e.g. demands of fair trade buyers in the EU, different fair trade standards and labels, certification and consumer expectations)

~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors understand the demand for fair trade products, fair trade standards and expectations of buyers and consumers

~ Training records ~ Project progress reports

~ The fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers implement the skills, tools and knowledge provided by the project


~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors understand the rights and responsibilities of all actors in the fair trade supply chain. ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors have a better understanding of the problems facing fair trade SMEs trying to access European markets. ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors are better equipped to support fair trade SMEs access fair trade EU markets

~ Visit report ~ Fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers records ~ Feedback from fair trade intermediary organisations, trainers and SMEs - evaluations and interviews ~ Project progress reports ~ Final report

3. A core group of trainers are trained in effective training skills to enable them to transfer learning to producers

~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors are trained to deliver training on fair trade standards to fair trade SMEs and producers ~ 10 trainers trained to train other fair trade intermediary organizations ~ 10 trainers and 5 mentors are trained to deliver training on the demand for fair trade products, fair trade standards and expectations of buyers and consumers

~ Fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers records ~ Final report

~ fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers implement the skills, tools and knowledge provided by the project

4.Increased cooperation, collaboration and networking between the core group of trainers, FTF (I), Indian FTOs and fair trade intermediary organisations in the EU

~ Fair trade intermediary organisations meet their EU counterparts to share information and skills. ~ The capacity of FTFI built to enable them to encourage ongoing

~ EU visit report ~ Feedback from fair trade intermediary organisations (in India and EU) - evaluations and interviews ~ Project progress reports ~ Final report

~ fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers maintain the momentum of the training process


44

Intervention logic Objectively verifiable indicators of achievement


cooperation and collaboration between fair trade intermediary organisations, MSE and producers ~ Fair trade networks are strengthened (including building the capacity of FTFI and developing an internet platform)



~ Feedback from fair trade intermediary organisations, trainers and SMEs - evaluations and interviews ~ Fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers records ~ Fair trade SME records



~ Feedback from fair trade intermediary organisations, trainers and SMEs - evaluations and interviews ~ fair trade intermediary organisations and trainers records ~ fair trade SME records

~ The project is successful in raising awareness of the need to address fair trade compliance amongst SMEs

Documents

Fair Trade Plus, India End-of Project Evaluation · FAIR TRADE PLUS Monitoring and Evaluation October 2009 2 Introduction Fair Trade Plus is an EU funded project being implemented