Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE FARMERS ORGANIZATION SUPPORT
CENTRE IN AFRICA (FOSCA)
MID-TERM REVIEW (MTR) REPORT
September 2014
IDEA International Institute
Nairobi Regional Office, Saachi Plaza,
3rd Floor, Suite 7A,
Arwings Kodhek Road.
www.idea-international.org
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
i
Content Abbreviations and Acronyms ii
Map of FOSCA Program Areas iv
FOSCA Program at a Glance vi
Executive Summary viii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. METHODOLOGY OF THE MID TERM REVIEW 3
III. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF THE MID-TERM REVIEW 5
3.1 RELEVANCE AND PROGRESS AGAINST FOSCA OBJECTIVES 5
3.2 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM DESIGN AND DELIVERY 181
3.3 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM SUCCESS AND EFFECTIVENESS 18
3.4 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM EFFICIENCY AND VALUE FOR MONEY 24
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION 27
Appendices
Appendix 1: List of documents for the MTR 34
Appendix 2: Schedule of the MTR Activities 35
Appendix 3: MTR Criteria 36
Appendix 4: MTR Tools 37
Appendix 5: Program Timeline and Responsibilities 45
Appendix 6: FOSCA Theory of Change 51
Appendix 7a: FOSCA Country Dashboard (2011-2013) 52
Appendix 7b: FOSCA’s Achievements Data Scorecard (05-11-2014) 53
Appendix 8: Analysis of sampled projects interventions toward FOSCA's objectives 54
Appendix 9: Summary of projects reporting 85
Appendix 10: FOSCA Expenditure Report (August 2014) 86
Appendix 11: Summary of key enabling factors and constraints of projects 87
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADRA: Adventist Development Relief Agency
AGRA: Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa
AFRICRES: African Investment Climate Research
APME.2A: Agency for Promotion of Small and Medium Enterprises: Agriculture and
Crafts
BCFFO: Building the capacity of smallholder farmers and farmer organizations
BGAK: Banana growers association of Kenya
BMGF: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
CRS: Catholic Relief Service
DFAP: Digital Farmer Aggregation Platform
D-MAPS: Development of Market Access & Post Harvest Services
FGD: Focus Group Discussion
FinGRO: Financial Literacy for Grain Farmer Organizations
FO: Farmer Organization
FOSCA: Farmer Organization Support Centre
FOAVAC: Farmer Organizations in Agricultural Value Chains
FOSUP: Farmer Organization Support Program
FUM: Farmers Union of Malawi
IDEA: Institute for Development in Economics and Administration
IF: Innovative Finance
INTAPIMP: Integrated agricultural productivity improvement and marketing project
IPTT: Indicator Performance Tracking Table
IRE: Institute of Rural Economy
ISWMT: Improved soil and water management technologies
ISFM: Integrated soil fertility management
KENAFF: Kenya National Farmers Federation
M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation
MDG: Millennium Development Goal
MKT: Market Access Program
MTR: Mid-Term Review
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
iii
MIND: Market Innovations for Development
MVIWATA: Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania
NGO: Non-Governmental Organization
PACCEM: Project for Commercialization of Cereals in Mali
PASS: Program for Africa’s Seed Systems
P4P: Purchase for Progress
POs: Producer Organizations
PPP: Policy & Advocacy Program
RDO: Rwanda Development Organization
RWARRI: Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative
SACAU: Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions
SMART- BGT: Smallholder Market Access for Rural Transformation - Barue, Guru and
Tete
SWOT: Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Strengths
SHF: Small-Holder Farmer
SHP: Soil Health Program
SP: Service Providers
TCB: Tissue Culture Banana
TOT: Training of Trainers
Acknowledgment
The FOSCA Mid-Term Review was prepared by IDEA International Institute lead by Mr. Gilles Clotteau (Senior
Results-Based Management Expert and Director of Nairobi Regional Office) and Ms. Rachel Mbaria (M&E
Specialist). The review benefited from interviews and discussions with FOSCA program coordinated by Mr.
Fadel Ndiame with support from Ms. Mary Njoroge, Ms. Pauline Kamau and Mr. Samuel Sey. This assessment
significantly benefited from the input of various representatives from the array of stakeholders including:
other AGRA Program and administrative teams, FOSCA Advisory Group members, Grantees as well as the
various small-holder farmers representatives of Farmer Organizations who participated in the Focus Group
Discussions.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
iv
Map of FOSCA MTR project areas
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
v
List of Sampled Projects:
Organization Name & Country
Reference Number
Project Title
Ghana
1.
Adventist Development and Relief Agency 2012 BBTE 003 Integrated agricultural productivity improvement and marketing project (INTAPIMP) in the northern region.
2.
Concern Universal 2011 MKT 006 Development of Market Access & Post-harvest Services (D-MAPS) for Smallholder Farmers in the BrongAhafo region. Project
Burkina Faso
3.
Agence pour la Promotion de la Petite et moyenne entreprise Agriculture et Artisanat
2012 MKT 006 Mitigating Post-harvest Quantity and Quality Losses and Improving Market Access to improve smallholder farmers’ income in Burkina Faso.
Zambia
4.
Farmer Organisation Support Programme 2012 SHP 002 Improving smallholder agricultural production through improved soil and water management technologies (ISWMT) in Central Zambia.
Malawi
5.
Farmers Union of Malawi 2011 MKT 005 Linking Smallholder Farmers to Structured Markets (Lilongwe, Ntchisi, Kasungu, Dowa, and Mchinji).
Rwanda
6.
Rwanda Development Organization 2011 MKT 014 Capacity building for farmers to reduce on post-harvest losses and improvement on access to the market (Southern and Eastern Provinces).
7.
Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative 2011 MKT 009 Improving productivity and Market access among smallholder farmers in Eastern and Southern Provinces of Rwanda.
Niger
8.
Catholic Relief Services 2012 MKT 009 Strengthening Millet, Sorghum, and Cowpea Value Chains (MISOCO) - Dosso, Tahoua, and Maradi Regions.
Mali
9.
Institute of Rural Economy 2011 SHP 006 Boosting maize-based cropping system productivity in the breadbasket region of Sikasso through widespread adoption of Integrated Soil Fertility management (ISFM).
10.
Union des Professionnels Agricoles pour la Commercialisation des Céréales au Mali Faso Jigi/PACCEM
2011 MKT 018 Strengthening the post-harvest management and marketing capacity of FASO / JIGI (Ségou Region).
Kenya
11.
Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers
2012 FOSCA 001
Revitalizing the banana subsector through strengthening of the banana growers association of Kenya (BGAK) (Muranga, Embu, Kirinyaga and Meru counties).
Mozambique
12.
MICAIA Foundation 2011 MKT 002 Smallholder Market Access for Rural Transformation - Barue, Guru and Tete (SMART- BGT).
13.
SNV - Netherlands Development Organisation
2011 SHP 020 Improving food security and incomes of smallholder farmers through intensification of maize and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) production and marketing in Tete Province of Mozambique.
Tanzania
14.
Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania
2012 FOSCA 002
Enhancing the skills of Farmer Organizations (FOs) under the MVIWATA network for improved market opportunities, increased incomes and improved livelihoods (Tanzania Southern Highlands).
15.
Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions
2013 FOSCA 002
From price takers to price makers: The effectiveness of a Digital Farmer Aggregation Platform (DFAP).
Regional
16.
Africa Investment Climate Research 2013 FOSCA 001
Building Support System (Infrastructure) for Smallholder Farmers in order to Increase Incomes and food Security in Selected Countries in Sub Saharan Africa.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
vi
FOSCA Program at a glance
KEY DATES
Launch Date Mid-Term Review Duration
May 2012 May-September 2014 28 Months
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
1. Establish FOSCA to meet the needs of small-holder farmers through farmer organizations, and initiate piloted service delivery by partnering with key entities with ready demand for strong FOs, in particular WFP in P4P and School Feeding Programs, and AGRA markets.
2. Engaging farmer organizations.
3. Engaging Service Providers.
4. Matching farmer organizations with the services they need.
5. Building knowledge for better practice and policy.
PROGRAM GRANTS (at the time of the Mid-Term review)
Grantee Reference Number Project Title
Kenya National Federation of Agricultural
Producers
2012 FOSCA 001 Revitalizing the banana subsector through strengthening of
the banana growers association of Kenya (BGAK)
Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima
Tanzania
2012 FOSCA 002 Enhancing the skills of Farmer Organizations (FOs) under the
MVIWATA network for improved market opportunities,
increased incomes and improved livelihoods
Association of Church-based
Development NGOs in Northern Ghana
2012 FOSCA 003 Farmers’ Cooperative Development Project
Africa Investment Climate Research 2013 FOSCA 001 Building Support System
(Infrastructure) for Smallholder Farmers in order to Increase
Incomes and food Security in Selected Countries in Sub
Saharan Africa
Southern African Confederation of
Agricultural Unions
2013 FOSCA 002 From price takers to price makers: The effectiveness of a
Digital Farmer Aggregation Platform (DFAP)
Adventist Development and Relief Agency 2013 FOSCA 003 Strengthening the Ability of Farmer Organizations in
Zambezia Province, Mozambique to Access Formal Markets
Agric Chains Development Limited 2013 FOSCA 005 Enhancing Financial Literacy for Grain Farmer Organizations
(FinGRO)
Presbyterian Agriculture Services 2013 FOSCA 006 Farmer Organizations (FOs) in Agricultural Value Chains
(FOAVAC)
PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION (At the time of the Mid-Term Review)
Grantee Reference Number
Project Title
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
vii
MICAIA Foundation 2011 MKT 002 Smallholder Market Access for Rural Transformation - Barue,
Guru and Tete (SMART- BGT)
Farmers Union of Malawi 2011 MKT 005 Linking Smallholder Farmers to Structured Markets
Concern Universal 2011 MKT 006 Development of Market Access & Post Harvest Services for
Smallholder Farmers in BrongAhafo (D-MAPS) Project
Agência de Desenvolvimento Económico
da Provincia de Manica
2011 MKT 008 Building the capacity of smallholder farmers and SMEs to access
valuable markets and finance in Tete Province: Mozambique
Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative 2011 MKT 009 Improving productivity and Market access among smallholder
farmers in Eastern and Southern Provinces of Rwanda
Rwanda Development Organization 2011 MKT 014 Capacity building for farmers to reduce on post-harvest losses
and improvement on access to the market
Union des Professionnels Agricoles pour
la Commercialisation des Céréales au Mali
Faso Jigi/PACCEM
2011 MKT 018 Strengthening the post-harvest management and marketing
capacity of FASO / JIGI
Mission Sahel 2011 SHP 005 Program to develop and extend the network of the input
distribution system in the Sikasso region of Mali: Linking the
Sikasso input demand to the supply system in Mali
Institute of Rural Economy 2011 SHP 006 Boosting maize-based cropping system productivity in the
breadbasket region of Sikasso through widespread adoption of
Integrated Soil Fertility management (ISFM)
SNV - Netherlands Development
Organisation
2011 SHP 020 Improving food security and incomes of smallholder farmers
through intensification of maize and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan)
Farmer Organisation Support Programme 2012 SHP 002 Improving smallholder agricultural production through improved
soil and water management technologies (ISWMT) in Central
Zambia
Adventist Development and Relief Agency 2012 BBTE 003 Integrated agricultural productivity improvement and marketing
project (INTAPIMP) in the northern region
Concern Universal 2012 BBTE 005 Building the capacity of smallholder farmers and farmer
organizations (BCFFO) to engage in agricultural value chains in
Sofala and Manica provinces in Mozambique
Agence pour la Promotion de la Petite et
moyenne entreprise. Agriculture et
Artisanat
2012 MKT 006 Mitigating Post harvest Quantity and Quality Losses and
Improving Market Access to improve smallholders’ farmers
income in Burkina Faso
Ecumenical Association for Sustainable
Agricultural and Rural Development
2012 MKT 012 Market Innovations for Development (MIND)
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Farmer Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) was established by AGRA in 2010 to
strengthen the capacity of farmer organizations (FOs) so that they can offer income generating and
quality demand driven services to their members, who are mainly smallholder farmers (SHFs), by
linking them to service providers (SPs).
The objective of this FOSCA Mid-Term Review is to assess the progress of the program towards its
objectives as well as draw lessons for the best continuity of the program.
First, by addressing the key issue of developing the capacities of FOs such as weak leadership and
governance, poor business models, lack of market orientation, low representation of women and
youth, limited skills, knowledge and autonomy, as well as low levels of membership, FOSCA’s theory
of change is central to AGRA’s strategy and goals. In fact, since FOs are the connecting point between
all key players of the value creation chain and the SHFs, FOSCA’s results will strengthen the necessary
synergy between the other programs. Furthermore, FOSCA is contributing to the development of
SHFs resilience thus contributing to key Human Development factors toward a food secure future in
Africa (African Human Development Report 2012).
In terms of progress towards its objectives, the table below shows that after a needed period to
establish itself, FOSCA’s has been able to augment its performance in a sustainable manner as
illustrated by the regular increase of FOSCA’s key results indicators.
Summary table of FOSCA’s key results indicators between 2011 and 2014 (as aggregates of country
based measurements)
These results have been obtained through strong collaboration with other AGRA Programs, through
co-financing or technical support (i.e. MAP or SHP), or Departments (i.e. M&E), constructive
partnerships with key stakeholders and grantees (AFRICRES), fruitful interactions with Advisory
Groups and most importantly enthusiastic commitment of FOSCA’s team and management.
This report provides recommendations that should help enhance further FOSCA’s contribution to
AGRA’s goal from which it is important to highlight the following:
1- Since the design and preparation phase of project is key to successful implementation but more
importantly to sustainable results of the undertaken initiatives, it is proposed to phase the grants
in two (phase 1: initial preparation and phase 2: implementation). This initial preparation phase
will 1) enable FOSCA’s team and its partner to put in place the necessary foundation (procedures,
guidelines, legal and financial requirements, etc.) for efficient project implementation; 2) ensure
2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Number of FOs whose capacity performance index (CPI) scoring a CPI of 70% and above 1 0 0 145 272 417
Number of FOs with increased membership 2 0 17 274 371 662
Number of new members registered by FOs (disaggregate by gender) 3 0 4,016 19,423 20,028 43,467
Number of FOs who have set aside some slots for women in their management committees 4 0 1 29 107 137
Number of supported FOs accessing financial services for their members 5 1 115 886 375 1,377
Amount of credit in US$ 6 113,207 2,480,215 5,539,209 2,053,996 10,186,627
Number of supported FOs aggregating their produce to sell collectively 7 3 149 163 580 895
Volume of sales 8 0 67,951 121,723 71,893 261,567
Value of sales in US$ 9 0 15,561,225 29,409,666 15,915,149 60,886,039
No. of FO supported to Development of business plans 10 0 0 180 125 305
Number of service providers (SPs) registered in AGRA SPs database 11 0 105 53 114 272
Number of farmer organizations (FOs) registered in AGRA FOs database 12 9 348 1,806 705 2,868
# of FOs Trained 13 0 1,535 2,929 1,937 6,401
# of farmers trained 14 0 141,463 180,624 114,112 436,199
Number of FOs receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs 15 0 0 92 49 141
#Indicator nameAggregate
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
ix
that baseline information is thoroughly collected thus improving target setting for key indicators,
3) strengthen the leadership of the grantee, and 4) refine the approaches used (work plan) and
the assumptions to enhance results sustainability. Performed through a participatory
methodology, this process will further develop the capacities of FOs (thus contributing to the
knowledge sharing and transfer), especially in organisational and entrepreneurship skills. Of
course this approach will require additional coaching/mentorship activities from FOSCA’s team.
Furthermore, it would also be an occasion to identify “strong” FOs that could also take part in the
process and work hand-in-hand with FOSCA team, hence enhancing the recognition of highly
performing FOs and the creation of a network of excellence centers.
2- With key milestones accomplished like the profiling of Farmer organisations and Service
providers, the establishment of a database of service providers, the adoption of the Capacity
Performance Index (CPI), as well as the FO of the year award (AFOYA) program there is an
opportunity to develop a “quality label” for FOs, for example with set performance standards to
meet to be accepted as a member of a network of excellence centers. This recognition would
enhance FOs credibility notably for financial service providers and promote sustained capacity
development processes within FOs.
3- FOSCA has performed remarkably on its experience sharing and knowledge development
activities and should build on this to position itself as a platform for knowledge sharing and
dissemination to producers and other value chain players. It could take the form of a Community
of Practice (CoP) for all FO members as well as researchers, experts, specialists, etc. involved in
the development of the agricultural sector. This CoP, where documents, success stories, key
agricultural and environment information, technical (i.e. for project design) and financial support
information, etc. could be stored and communicated easily, would ensure the promotion of sound
agricultural innovative and practical practices adapted to FOs and SHFs’ context in Africa and
provide relevant technical and financial information. As a central point of this CoP, FOSCA needs
to strongly lead this initiative and involve stakeholders to ensure a high level of proactivity and
thus sustainable commitment from the community members. Furthermore, the involvement of
“strong” FOs, through the development of an excellence centres network could prove to be very
instrumental in reaching out to the “far-to-reach” and weaker FOs.
4- In terms of internal process such as M&E and communication, FOSCA has been improving on its
implementation monitoring in collaboration with AGRA’s M&E department. For example, the
introduction of the IPPT was very useful as it increased the focus on key result indicators and the
importance of reporting in time. It is however recommended incorporating indicator targets in
the datasheets and dashboards (FOSCA Country Dashboard 2011-2013 and Achievement Data
sheet 2011 - 2014) to enhance progress assessment. Ultimately a dashboard presenting the
progress, per project, toward intermediate and overall targets, using a simple semaphore
warning system, could be useful for quick identification of achievements and difficulties. In
addition, it is suggested to conduct a thorough "beneficiary satisfaction" surveys to collect and
track feedback from SHFs on the extent to which FOs are meeting their demands and to identify
remaining needs.
Finally, with its evolving and increasingly demanding role, the FOSCA team may require additional
capacities. As a matter of cat, the MTR team wishes to acknowledge the continuous improvement
culture that exists within FOSCA team as it also reflects in the clear buy in of SHFs. It should be noted
that the MTR shows that beneficiaries rated the relevance of FOSCA support extremely well as they
consider it addresses genuine and critical needs.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
1
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is a dynamic African-led organization that works
through partnerships to help raise agricultural productivity and incomes of millions of smallholder
farmers (SHFs). AGRA works through the Agricultural Value Chain and has the following six key
programs:
Program for Africa’s Seed Systems (PASS);
Soil Health Program (SHP);
Policy and Advocacy Program (PAP);
Market Access Program (MAP);
Innovative Finance (IF); and,
Farmer Organization Support Centre in Africa
(FOSCA).
In 2010, AGRA established the Farmer Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) to strengthen
the capacity of farmer organizations (FOs) so that they can offer income generating and quality
demand driven services to their members, who are mainly smallholder farmers (SHFs), by linking
them to service providers (SPs). FOSCA recognizes that SHFs require to be organized to maximize on
economies of scale in access to goods and services and for AGRA to engage the farmers on this scale
requires partnership with strong, effective farmer organizations (FOs). FOs represent millions of SHFs
in Sub-Saharan Africa and evidence demonstrates their impact in linking them to markets; catalyzing
the adoption of technologies and inputs; encouraging effective soil fertility, land, and natural
resource management; and articulating and aggregating the voice of smallholder producers in policy.
FOSCA has set to achieve the following five broad objectives1:
Objective 1 – Establish FOSCA to meet the needs of smallholder farmers through farmer
organizations, and initiate piloted service delivery by partnering with key entities with ready
demand for strong FOs, in particular WFP in P4P and School Feeding programs, and AGRA
Markets.
Objective 2 – Further engage farmer organizations to improve their ability to respond to the
agriculture-related needs of their members, specifically smallholders.
Objective 3 – Increase and improve the supply of services available to farmer organizations.
1 The objectives are stated as per the MTR Terms of Reference
AGRA goals are to:
Reduce food insecurity by 50 % in at least 20 countries
Double the income of 20 million smallholder families, and
Put at least 30 countries on track toward attaining and sustaining a uniquely African Green Revolution by 2020.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
2
Objective 4 – Link FOs with relevant and effective services that upgrade their capabilities
across all dimensions.
Objective 5 –Build a knowledge base to improve service to FOs and inform policy discussions.
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE MID-TERM REVIEW
Following FOSCA’s creation, it was planned that a Mid-Term Review will be conducted halfway
through implementation to assess the progress of the program towards its objectives as well as draw
lessons for the best continuity of the program. However, following consultations with an array of
stakeholders including the FOSCA Advisory Group (AG) it was agreed that the review would largely
focus on FOSCA’s processes, structures and overall systems including grant performance from its
commencement in mid-2011 to date. Reviewing whether FOSCA has put systems and structures in
place, established procedures and developed operating guidelines to achieve its objectives and direct
its activities. It examines the program relevance, design and delivery, effectiveness, efficiency, as well
as identifies opportunities in the New AGRA Strategy and early pointers for program sustainability.
More specifically, the review focused on the following:
Identifying progress of the programme;
Identifying changes in programme implementation environment that may have occurred and
establishing the validity of the assumptions at programme inception;
Identifying bottlenecks in the implementation process and suggest appropriate ways to adopt
actionable measures necessary to ensure successful implementation;
Identify capacity needs of FOSCA and make recommendations to AGRA on the most
appropriate interventions (institutional and human) that would enhance capacity gaps at
programme and grantee levels.
The review engaged program stakeholders including, but not limited to, AGRA Management,
Regional FOs, FOSCA Advisory Group, participants in FOSCA Forums, through interviews and focus
group discussions. This review sampled sixteen (16) projects in ten (10) countries (Burkina Faso,
Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia).
1.3 LAYOUT OF THE REPORT:
Section I outlines the objectives pursued by FOSCA, its establishment and purpose of this review. In
Section II, the report provides a summary of the review methodology in regards to the intended
outcomes of the assessment. Section III examines in detail the program relevance, program design
and delivery, success and effectiveness and FOSCA’s position in AGRA’s new strategy. This section
also reviews the program efficiency and further looks at early pointers for sustainability. Program
results with regard to the objectives of the Program, and factors that contribute to these results are
also highlighted in this third section. Section IV draws some lessons from the Program’s experience
and presents some recommendations with regards to FOSCA’s further support to FOs and SHFs,
some of which may also be of broader potential for best practices.
These four (4) sections are followed by appendices which include the documents and tools used and
studied during this review.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
3
2.1 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
The standard analytical framework for this review is the results chain presented below. The results
chain as an analytical framework addresses the assessment of progress of FOSCA at project and
program level from period of commencement to the time of the MTR based on the following criteria:
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, design and delivery and sustainability (Appendix 1 provides a
summary of each criteria dimension) and forms the foundation of the FOSCA program theory of
change.
Figure 1: Results Chain
2.2. MTR SCHEDULE AND ACTIVITIES
This review is for the program period May 2011 to September 2014. This review was performed in a
participatory manner involving key stakeholders and consisted of the following activities aiming at
analysing the levels of the results chain:
Document review (Refer to Appendix 1: List of documents reviewed),
Design of the MTR tools (Appendix 4: Grantee Questionnaire and Program Team Assessment
Grid),
Pilot testing in Kenya,
Questionnaire administration at large,
Sustainability (5)
Design and delivery (4)
Effectiveness (2)
Relevance (1)
FOSCA
Program
Overall FOSCA
objectives aligned to
AGRA strategy
Outputs
Activities
Inputs
Impact
Outcomes
Needs and intended impact
Efficiency (3)
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
4
Specific interviews and meetings,
Consolidation of information from document review and questionnaire analysis,
Data analysis,
Draft and final report.
The table in Appendix 2 is a summary of the main activities, timelines and expected deliverables of
the MTR.
2.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE REVIEW:
Although the approach of the review aimed to be as inclusive as possible, it is important to note the
following specific limitations.
Though the review was able to meet with FOs to participate in the review – it covers a
minimum significant representation of FOs in the targeted areas of the specific projects.
The schedule of activities for the review was within a specified timeframe. In this regard, a
challenge was to organize the different missions or interviews at an appropriate time for key
stakeholders to be present. In some cases, the team had to rely on “on-line” communication
tools to gather information. To ensure an optimized discussion process IDEA ensured they
relied on convenient and reliable methods of communication, for example Skype meetings
followed by emails to ensure a more complete understanding of collected information.
In some cases, at grantee level, there was a lack of baseline and / or actual data. This was
occasioned by baseline information as not a requirement especially for the earlier grantees.
Irrefutably, an improvement was noted, as baseline information is now required for all
projects. On the other hand, the lack of actual data was occasioned due to missing data in
reports assessed during the review. Of course this highlights some areas of improvement in
terms of project design, planning and monitoring (especially capacity of the grantees to
report in a comprehensive manner) but it also limits the capacity to ascertain the complete
extent of the organization’s achievements. This report also highlights on how to generate
meaningful reference points, which will enable FOSCA and overall AGRA to interpret the
changes occurring in the different projects being funded.
In regards to sustainability, since long term results are not, by definition, visible, this MTR
has analysed early pointers/proxy such as FOs enrolment levels, as well as the current level
of satisfaction and “buy in” of SHFs which represents their commitment to the project and is
a strong sign of the durability of the implemented changes. Of course, these early
pointers/proxy will need to be confirmed in a future final or impact evaluation.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
5
Figure 2: FOSCA’s theory of change
Specifically, this section presents the results of the Mid-term review in terms of i) relevance of the
program and links with AGRA’s new strategy; ii) success & effectiveness; iii) design & delivery; and,
iv) efficiency.
3.1 RELEVANCE AND PROGRESS AGAINST FOSCA’S OBJECTIVES
To assess the relevance of FOSCA program, the review is based on determining the alignment of
program objectives and project models in response towards the achievement of AGRA goals. This
section also assesses the significance of the program theory of change to the realization of program
objectives.
3.1.1 FOSCA’S THEORY OF CHANGE AND ALIGNMENT WITH AGRA’S OBJECTIVES
Over the past decade, the importance of Agriculture for Africa’s growth has been emphasized. In fact,
as it was the case for the Green Revolution that transformed agriculture in many countries in Asia
and Latin America, AGRA has recognised the need to engage in interrelated areas, through its
combination of six (6) programs, in order to catalyse a uniquely African Green Revolution, one that
makes the most of Africa’s natural endowments and human capabilities to sustainably increase the
productivity and profitability of millions of smallholder farmers that populate the continent’s vast
rural areas and boost the sector’s contribution to economic growth and human development.
However, efforts made to increase the access and the quality of inputs, improvements in agricultural
research, improved policy making or access to financial services as well as markets or service
providers all rely on the capacity to reach Small Holder Farmers (SHFs) and their ability to fully
benefit from these enabling factors. By enabling smallholder farmers improve their buying power for
seeds and fertilizers, by increasing the number of SHFs reached by support services, by facilitating
access to financial services, by making the voice of farmers more “audible” in the policy making
process, strong Farmer Organizations (FOs) enable productivity and income gains. Therefore, FOs play
a crucial and central role for the
successful transformation of
smallholder agriculture in Africa.
By addressing key issues such as weak
leadership and governance, poor
business models, lack of market
orientation, low representation of
women and youth, limited skills,
knowledge and autonomy, as well as
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
6
low levels of membership, FOSCA’s theory of change (see figure 2) is answering one of the key
challenges of AGRA which is to ensure the required synergy between the other programs. The
central or connecting point between all
key players and the SHFs being the Farmer
Organisation, strengthening them means
creating a better enabling environment to
SHFs, as illustrated in figure 3. In fact, the
vision of becoming the backbone of an
African network of excellence centres is
also in line with a sustainable approach of
creating a conducive environment to
investments and growth in agriculture.
FOSCA is also contributing to key factors, identified in the African Human Development Report 2012
(Towards a Food Secure Future) such as developing the resilience of SHFs, through their organization
in FOs and increased capacity, increasing their voice in policy development and identifying, creating,
sharing & applying local knowledge. Furthermore, by increasing enrolment and participation of
women in FOs, it is greatly contributing to unleash the transformative power of women. The same
report cites increase in agricultural yields as key in boosting food, incomes and jobs in Africa; and
important aspects in agricultural yield increment are sustainable use of inputs and expansion of
credit and markets for produce. By strengthening FOs capacity, FOSCA is thus making a great
contribution towards food security in Africa.
In terms of AGRA’s new strategy, FOSCA’s major role in the dissemination of knowledge and
connecting FOs will be emphasized. Building capacity of FOs and at the same time SHFs, in
governance and business awareness is also increasingly critical in a context of investments of
medium scale or large private enterprises to ensure that partnership opportunities yield benefits to
SHFs. In this context, building capacities in grant or project design at FOs and SHFs levels will also
greatly contribute to the linkage of FOSCA to AGRA’s new strategy. Furthermore, the linkage relates
well to the need to develop solid aggregation platforms to facilitate the participation of SHFs in
structured markets. As well as the development of digital platforms such as DFAP contributes to the
same objective.
The review also requested grantees and their
members to assess the relevance of the project
to their needs. As presented in Figure 4, the
overall response is extremely good with a score
of 2.8 out of 3, with specific project scores
ranging between 2.6 and 3. This satisfactory
rating mainly results from the fact that FOSCA
supports projects directly addressing a genuine
agricultural need in the countries represented to
improve the income of rural farmers and food
security. This result is also interesting since it is
illustrating the level of buy-in, and thus
commitment, of supported FOs. It should be
Figure 3: Central role of FOs
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
7
noted that they consider project objectives to be aligned to their needs, clear and understood as well
as linked to outcomes.
3.1.2 KEY DEVELOPMENTS OF THE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Generally, FOSCA’s objectives have been well worked-out jointly by the various stakeholders,
especially as a result of its set-up within AGRA and through the platforms which provides sufficient
stakeholder participation.
Objective 1: Establish FOSCA to meet the needs of small-holder farmers through farmer
organizations, and initiate piloted service delivery by partnering with key entities with ready
demand for strong FOs, in particular WFP in P4P and School Feeding programs, and AGRA Markets.
FOSCA was set up to work within a partnership framework with other AGRA programs which most
had already been in place over a substantial period of time. As such, there was need to balance
between collaboration with the AGRA programs that required FOSCA interventions and,
conducting activities in relation to awareness creation. Ideally, more time should have been spent
on these activities but the need to begin the delivery platform with other AGRA programs
"overshadowed" the need to create awareness. However, it is important to acknowledge that
given the limited resources for knowledge and communication activities, FOSCA made the most of
it by contributing in events such as the IFAD’s Global Farmers’ Forum2, continuously holding side
events, preparing presentations/media briefings for FOSCA’s work in different countries (South
Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Mali, etc.), contributing in providing stories and best practices for the AGRA
Newsletter and weekly highlights and producing media clips presenting successful work with FOs
(especially the AFOYA3). Furthermore, FOSCA has continuously been engaging with its AG at least
once a year and also on a needs basis which has helped strengthen not only FOSCA’s operations
but also its positioning. These efforts greatly contributed to make FOSCA known and recognised
by AGRA’s internal and external stakeholders. However, since FOSCA wishes to establish itself as
an African Platform for Farmer Organisations Support, it is recognised that these communication
endeavours need to be sustained and further emphasized with a shift from being known and
recognised to more knowledge sharing for FOs and SHFs, again within and outside AGRA’s
environment.
FOSCA undertook some initial activities to interact with FOs, SPs and other stakeholders before its
launch in May 2012. By this time it already had engaged with a network of FOs and other
stakeholders who were already aware of FOSCA and who represented SHFs during the launch,
including WFP P4P AGRA Markets and Soil Health projects. This interaction with different
stakeholders and actors in the agricultural space substantially facilitated common understanding
of the program objectives.
FOSCA’s strategy and value proposition documents defines value chain opportunities for SHFs and
how FOs can be the spring board upon which farmers receive value and voice from the value chain
by aggregating volumes that are necessary for economies of scale thus increasing prices,
profitability and overall viability of the farmers. FOSCA recognizes the different types and layers of
2 The Farmers’ Forum, born in 2005, is an on-going, bottom-up process of consultation and dialogue among small farmers’ and
rural producers’ organizations (FOs), IFAD, and governments, focused on rural development and poverty reduction. 3 African Farmer Organization of the Year Award (AFOYA) is a yearly event organised in partnership with the AGRA and SACAU.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
8
FOs and has put in place a pragmatic working relationship with different partners (including
organizations with ready markets for FOs) to reach all the levels. The fact that FOSCA has been
successful in supporting strong FOs (for example by using methods such as the profiling tool)
should lead to further effort in reaching, supporting and developing weaker FOs.
Objective 2: Engaging farmer organizations.
FOSCA has conducted several profiling activities in different countries and the results of the
profiling work enabled FOSCA develop customized capacity building interventions implemented in
targeted countries and in different value chain (e.g. the yam value chain in Ghana and Nigeria).
FOSCA strategy emphasizes the need for FOSCA to work with other stakeholders such FAO CO-OP
Africa; regional FOs to grow its agenda and achieve its goal. In this context a number of
engagements have been made with key stakeholders and potential partners especially in the
AGRA P1 countries. FOSCA has taken time to learn from other stakeholders especially during the
initial stages. In this regard, the Lead Coordinator has made learning trips to Tanzania with CO-OP
Africa, Mali with Faso Jigi and BMGF convening in Tanzania. Key stakeholders include: BMGF,
World Food Program P4P; Network of Farmer Organizations in Tanzania (MVIWATA), NGO’s and
potential service providers, Research institutions i.e. IITA (YIIFSWA). This activity was gradually
integrated in the portfolio of the program officers. The partnership with key stakeholders is
therefore included in the country investment plan.
In regards to this objective, it is worth highlighting the fact that 662 FOs have increased their
membership (by more than 25%), 2,868 FOs are now registered in AGRA’s database and that
436,199 SHFs have benefited from capacity building interventions (Appendix 7a and 7b). Even
though partial, the indicator presenting the level of satisfaction of SHFs (Appendix 7a) is high 93 %
and in line with the observations obtained during the country missions.
To improve on profiling of FOs and SPs, FOSCA and Africa Growth Institute built on the Agriterra’s
tool to customise a self-assessment for FOs and SPs.
Objective 3: Engaging Service Providers.
FOSCA is responsible for identifying, training, negotiating contracts with, and coordinating a wide
set of country-based national and sub-national service providers working in each of the capacity
areas (especially technical and institutional/managerial). To do so, FOSCA works within AGRA’s
policy that requires competitive identification (through advertisement) of partners. Thus, FOSCA
has an array of “Concept Notes” from SPs in a number of countries. FOSCA has developed a
database of SPs and the process of identifying and tracking data on service providers will need to
be fast-tracked to ensure that info in the database is up to date and relevant for FOSCA’s use. It
includes information on the services they offer but it could go further and present information on
SPs performance.. In combination of with the code of standards developed by FOSCA, it would
help FOs in the selection of the most appropriate SP to engage with to build their capacity. FOSCA
has already contracted CADECO to undertake a profiling of SPs and FOs in four (4) countries. It
should also be noted that AFRICRES, a partner of FOSCA, has developed a profiling Report for FOs
and SPs and has established an independent database (www.afoya.org) for FOs and SPs. According
to FOSCA’s country dashboard 2011-2013 (Appendix 7a and 7b), a total of 272 SPs have been
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
9
assessed and added into AGRA’s database while 141 FOs are receiving services from FOSCA
supported SPs.
FOSCA seeks to accredit service providers and oversee an FO-feedback rating system to assist with
service provider selection. Even though SPs are present in good numbers, the quality of services
provided to FOs still needs some improvements and FOSCA is positioned to take a role in building
the capacity of service providers. The functionality of the rating system of Service Providers is
efficient, providing the relevant information required.
Objective 4: Matching farmer organizations with the services they need.
To create mechanisms to link FOs with relevant and effective services aimed at upgrading their
capabilities, facilitate access to funding for such services, and monitor their provision, objective
four is centered on the design of a sustainable mechanism to fund these demand-driven services.
FOSCA in linking SPs to FOs is in line with AGRA programming approach, that is, mainly grant
making and capacity building, knowledge generation, management and convening.
FOSCA through weighing the costs and benefits of potential mechanisms selects the most
appropriate model or combination of models that will maximize the impact of available resources
while ensuring responsiveness to FO demand. Hence, approval at program (Unit) level, AGRA level
(grants committee) and at AGRA board level (Grants Review committee) is based on the potential
of the proposals’ value for money in meeting the needs of SHFs and other targeted beneficiaries.
In terms of results, the FOSCA’s Achievements Scorecard (appendix 7b) shows that 141 FOs are
receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs.
Objective 5: Building knowledge for better practice and policy.
As mentioned before, FOSCA has organized or participated in a number of knowledge sharing
endeavours, which are captured in AGRA reports or documents such as: (i) all our Forums Reports
– IFAD FAFO FOSCA Side Event Feb 2012, FOSCA Launch Report (Accra), FOSCA 2012 FOs Forum
Report (South Africa), FOSCA AGRF side event Report (Arusha), AGRA (Markets/FOSCA) Country
Forums, (ii) documentaries, (iii) newsletters, (iv) media interviews and clips, (v) papers presented
in international forums, or (vi) FOSCA Thematic papers. Since the program commencement, this
objective has yielded high results and contributed greatly to increase its visibility but also to
establish a learning platform for FOs to share successes, lessons, best practices and challenges.
There has been positive feedback from FOs on the impact of knowledge dissemination platforms,
such as farmer forums. For instance, panelist discussions from financial institutions (banks such as
Equity Bank of Kenya and Popular Bank of Rwanda) at the forum held in Johannesburg in 2012,
resulted in an increase of access to loans by FOs4. Presentations and documentaries such as by
Becho Wolisso Cooperative (Ethiopia) have served as lessons to FOs to look deeper into farmers
needs including health issues, employment etc. These comments highlight that inviting SPs to
forums has proved to be very beneficial.
As seen AFOYA is one of the products of the knowledge function which is a unique program to
recognize, reward and celebrate the FOs who are meeting the service delivery standards and also
enabling other FOs to learn from the knowledge and innovations of the winners. The benefits are
4 Reference AFOYA report
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
10
numerous, as illustrated Faso Jigi, one of the award winners (Income diversity) who reported
increased contract for seed multiplication, increased access to credit by members and increased
volumes to supply to P4P as a result from the interaction with various banks after the Forum. This
demonstrates the uniqueness of FOSCA to recognise, reward and celebrate FOs meeting the
service delivery standards. AFOYA can therefore be seen as a “quality label” that can help FOs
reach out to SPs in order to provide services to their member. AFOYA represents also a strong
communication vehicle for FOSCA to convey specific messages to FOs and SHFs, as well as SPs.
It should be noted that these activities were performed despite a limited budget devoted to
objective 5. However, its contribution to the development of the capacities of FOs is undeniable
and essential.
Finally, knowledge transfer is also highlighted by the results in terms of capacity building activities.
By 2013 FOSCA has been able to reach 158,316 SHFs5 (Kenya, Tanzania, Mali, Rwanda, Ghana,
Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi and Burkina Faso) who benefited from least one intervention (e.g.
farmers forum, trainings etc.) since 2011 while the number of FOs supported by capacity building
activities is 3,817. Current total number by November 2014 is 186,193 SHFs as shown in the
Achievement Datasheet of the FOSCA external M&E consultant. With Ghana, Rwanda, Malawi and
Mozambique achieving a combined total of 165,457 SHFs.
5 Country Dashboard 2011-2013
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
11
3.2 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROGRAM DESIGN AND DELIVERY
This section is a review of the capability of the program processes, procedures and structures in
place in delivery of program activities and targets on schedule as well as support to program grant-
making. The section also includes identifying any changes in delivery mechanisms and their effects,
complementarities and challenges toward delivery of the program. Essential to assessing the
program design and delivery, the MTR also assessed the experiences and competencies of FOSCA
staff to ensure the program executes its mandate effectively. In this case the MTR examined the
differences in experiences within FOSCA and consistent components of the program from geographic
and organizational variations. Furthermore, the MTR examines the opportunities and challenges
AGRA’s new strategic6 priority present to FOSCA and suggests adjustments in the design and
implementation of FOSCA to ensure alignment.
3.2.1 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT
Positioned as a cross-cutting program, FOSCA is guided by a strategy document7 which highlights the
major thrust of its investments in the context of AGRA overall plan. This has facilitated in presaging
and fostering program implementation including coverage along the five program objectives. The
program strategy document has been a key achievement and over the past years has much to
commend to both program process and substance. The implementation strategy that is in three main
components has been successfully executed, with the following highlights observed by the MTR:
FOSCA activities are conducted in the context of AGRA's grant-making and capacity building
processes and procedures. This has enabled FOSCA to make grants along the lines of FOSCA’s
objectives. This approach is justified, as most farmer organisations targeted had limited requisite
capacity (management systems, governance, technical capacity, etc.) to directly qualify for AGRA
grants.
Generally, project proposal preparation and approval take a substantial great deal of time, mainly
because of the proposals having to meet the expected standards outlined in the Grants
Submission Guideline. With emphasis being on the sufficiency of proposals with strategies that
demonstrate the ability to respond to problem areas identified and to be addressed through a
well-defined project model, clarity in number of FOs and SHFs to be reached, collaborations and
partnerships. At times, the potential grantee has limited capacity to develop good proposals
which means technical assistance from AGRA programme staff was necessary. This was especially
notable with the smaller FOs. Through considerable collaborative effort within the program and
with other programs, FOSCA has been able to address the challenge of limited capacity of
developing good proposals, as a result of a well-defined proposal guidelines, internal program
capacity and combine program efforts/collaborations.
6 Meetings Africa’s Food & Nutrition in the 21
st Century. AGRA’s Evolving Strategy
7 FOSCA strategy and implementation plans, working document for discussion
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
12
FOSCA31%
MKT37%
SHP16%
Gender 2%
BMGF/RF5%
BBTE9%
Figure 4: Level of Co-funding as per the sample projects
3.2.2 ANALYSIS OF FOSCA’S PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS
Program collaboration and
partnership includes co-
funding arrangements,
financial and institutional
support to key farmer
organizations operating in
agricultural commodity value
chains, prototype
development in innovative
ventures and financing and
evaluation/impact assessment. Co-funding arrangements with other AGRA programs has been
satisfactory as a result of clear coordination roles based on the outlook of FO’s within AGRA’s
Investment Plans.
As illustrated in Figure 4, the mission found the co-funding of sampled projects was predominately
with Market Access Program (37%) and Soil Health Program (16%) while the remaining projects of
31% are fully funded by FOSCA.
The MTR highlights the following on co-funding:
Market Access Program (MAP) is already investing in a number of programs involving organizing
farmers in commodity value chains. The collaboration of FOSCA investment with markets projects
has been sufficient. This has led to deepened alignment to country’s development agenda. For all
the project proposals presented to AGRA Grants Committee (GC) and thereafter the AGRA Board,
proposals are ensured that they are aligned to Country Development Strategy such as Vision 2030 in
Kenya, Vision 2020 in Rwanda, PRSP in Mozambique, Medium Term Agriculture Sector Invested Plan
(METASIP in Ghana) etc. Moreover, they must be aligned to the Country’s Agricultural Development
Strategy. Review of project models of co-funded projects with MAPs, is conducted by a team of POs
from both programs.
Soil Health Program (SHP) being one of the large programs in AGRA, the funding available as
compared to FOSCA is much larger. When it comes to coverage within co-funded projects, funding
available for FOSCA has not been enough in-terms of the geographical coverage and target reach.
Where the opportunity to co-fund has been done, coverage has been a main challenge. Ideally, soil
health program focus on research, extension and ISFM technology thus, concentrates on technical
component of the program. The issue of organising farmers in groups becomes handy. As most of the
SHP projects are dealing with farmer organisations, much collaboration is needed within the SHP and
FOSCA program. However, the issue of limited funds within FOSCA to enable a wider reach inevitably
is a challenge. Ideally FOSCA could be allocated more funds in order to address the coverage and
target reach. Alternatively FOSCA could reduce the number of co-funded grants in order to optimise
the use of the existing funds.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
13
On extension activities for knowledge transfer and technology adoption, FOSCA and SHP program
team are adopting to move “Beyond the Demos”. This has been observed to already yielded results.
For example, FOSUP has strengthened capacity of FOs and enabled access to credit, IER has enabled
access to inputs, SNV Mozambique has mobilized formation of about 60 FOs from 2011 to 2013 and
doubled to 121 by September 2014.
Bearing in mind the large number of FOs the program targets, it is a challenge to detect whether
farmers have done better with co-funding, as compared to FOs that receive support predominately
from FOSCA (given that SHP begun in 2008 and FOSCA around 2010). This may be an important area
to examine during the evaluation.
Program for Africa Seed Systems (PASS) offers several opportunities to link farmer organizations to
input/output markets of improved seeds, through a decentralized network of agro-dealers and
partnerships with emerging seed producing companies. FOSCA has been instrumental in
collaborations with PASS for this purpose, and should participate with PASS team in supporting new
areas related to soil health, and value addition through crop processing and marketing8.
Collaboration with PASS program has also yielded results. For example, support to FOs on multiply
seeds for the agro-dealers as well as partners with PASS supported agro-dealers to supply seeds to
farmers on credit and in close location, reducing transport cost.
In the Policy work, the approved policy hubs/nodes involve FOs in national policy dialogues. The
Policy Action Areas: Farm input policies; Markets and trade policies; Land and property right policies.
These have created an enabling environment for SHFs to engage. In case of Policy and FOSCA
program partnership some of the FOSCA supported FOs are members of the country/regional policy
nodes that advocate for SHFs issues.
The Breadbasket Approach introduced approximately six years ago, offers new perspectives and
opportunities to build a decentralized network of smallholder support facilities and mechanisms,
aimed at improving their productivity, and linking them to new commodity value chains. In this
context of place-based programming, FOSCA has heavily invested in the BB areas. The MTR sees
FOSCA positioned as a program contributing to the facilitation of localized partnerships with a
potential of bringing into greater alignment the work and investments of interested development
partners. The approach of an overarching focus on partnerships with grantees of an apex/umbrella
composition of regional or national outfit, such as PGAF, FUM, KENFAP, Faso Jigi, MVIWATA and
FOSUP are some practicable attempts to enable FOSCA expand beyond initial work with AGRA and
BMGF/RF grantees as well as accelerate collaboration with development partners and broad
spectrum of FOs. In this view, it is evident that FOSCA is aligned with the breadbasket approach
sufficiently.
A demonstration of successful expansion of FOSCA collaboration highlighted by the MTR includes:
The support to AFRICRES, which is providing smallholder farmers’ capacity building support
system, by implementing a comprehensive capacity development initiative for FOs in eight (8)
countries in Eastern, Southern and Western Africa (includes PI and P2 countries of AGRA projects)
targeting an average of 10 Apex FOs in each of the countries. Though the countries targeted were
scaled down from the initial 12 to 8 during the Board approval process. This approach has led to
88
Malawi AGRA-PASS MTR, June 2010, p.g. 6
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
14
more efficient and effective partnerships that are strategic in achieving the outlined program
investment plan.
In addition, FOSCA has been leveraging on initial activities by other programs in its work,
especially P4P, to strengthen the capacity of FOs in management systems, governance and
accountability, and aggregation of produce and input requirements. Some of these FOs have
negotiated and signed MOUs with P4P and other buyers including government and millers who
purchase from them against specified quality and quantities such as, MICAIA Foundation.
3.2.3 PROGRAM STRUCTURE
From the initial proposed program organizational structure to comprise of FOSCA Lead, Program
coordinator, Coordinator focused on knowledge development and M&E and Executive Assistant, the
MTR observes the current FOSCA program organizational structure (Figure 5 below) to have
accommodated the intended structure but with some alteration.
Figure 5: FOSCA program structure
Legend:
: Internal relationship
: External relationship Adopted from the AGRA Data Quality Review (2014)
9
According to the initial proposed program structure, the current program structure comprises of
FOSCA Lead Coordinator, two (2) Program Officers, one M&E and Knowledge Management officer
and one (1) Program Assistant.
In regards, to two roles, outlined in the initial program structure, i.e. coordination of partners to
develop ‘curriculum’ to deliver trainings to SPs including best practice ‘curriculum’ and the
overseeing of FOSCA data base systems. The first role was imbedded in the AFRICRES project, a
deliberate decision to decentralize and compose with the limited human resources within FOSCA.
The database of FOs and SPs is in place accessible through www.afoya.org and serves a wide range of
stakeholders. Furthermore, given that the existing SPs that can be funded without the need for
9 Data Quality Review was conducted by IDEA International in 4 countries, sampling over 20 projects supported by
AGRA programs. The review was aimed at improving AGRAs on-going data collection and reporting efforts along with
promoting future data gathering approaches and methodologies that ensured data quality.
Lead Coordinator
Grantees
Farmer Organizations
Service Providers
Program Officers (2) and
Consultant (1)
M&E and Knowledge
Management Officer (1)
Program Assistant (1)
AGRA M&E Unit
AGRA Board
MKT, PASS, SHP,
Policy and IF
FOSCA Advisory Committee
President
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
15
training, emphasis should be in the use of the developed Code of Standards which SPs should meet
in order for FOSCA to use them and/or include them in the SPs database.
As illustrated in the organizational structure of FOSCA above, the MTR highlights the following:
Coordination with grantees, the first contact is the program officers including co-funded projects),
Program Directors/Leads, Grants Units, AGRA M&E Unit depending on the area/issue of reporting.
The consultants (such as consultant based in Accra) provide specific technical support primarily on
program delivery for Francophone Africa and Yam Improvement for Income and Food Security in
West Africa (YIIFSWA). The Grants Unit is responsible for initiating payment disbursement to the
grantee for the subsequent period, after different documents are approved by the relevant staff.
For example financial reports are only approved by the Grants Unit, narrative reports and IPTTs
are approved by the PO but IPTT has also to be reviewed and given a nod by the M&E officer
before PO approves. In parallel, the program progress reports (Narrative and IPTT) are also shared
with the POs of co-funded programs for inputs. The responsible PO compiles a response for the
project to prepare the final reports. The final narrative is submitted to the grants unit while the
final IPTT is submitted to the M&E officer for inclusion in the FOSCA scorecard and Dashboard
Reports.
The Advisory Group (AG) has been instrumental in providing strategic direction on strengthening
linkage of top and lower level FOs. This review held interviews face-to-face and virtually
depending on the most suitable medium on dimensions of program design and delivery. The
Advisory Group is composed of members from international agricultural institutions as well as
Apex FOs (Ghana and Tanzania). Members highlighted the need to engage more often, as this has
reduced over time, and especially enhance engagements at the lower level (i.e. with FOs). A
thorough review on the role of the AG to assess its composition and how this affects consultations
with FOSCA will enhance the AG work in FOSCA.
Given that the internal capacity of grantees was rated 2 out of 3 in the grantee questionnaire and
accompanying feedbacks (high staff turn-over, limited support to human resources in terms of
remuneration and skills development as well as limited field officers) compelled the program
team to conduct significant hand-holding especially at the initial stages of some projects to
prepare and the less experienced grantees to receive and manage grants
3.2.3 REPORTING FRAMEWORK
The MTR observes reporting guidelines that are similar across all 16 sampled projects assessed that
creates synergy between programs. In fact, all grantees are well aware on the reporting tools i.e.
narrative, financial and IPTT, as well as clear on the reporting timelines. Project monitoring is done by
the POs (at least twice every year) and this has been running well since each PO is in charge of their
calendars. Although the reporting framework is clear, and the letter of grant agreement includes
specific dates for reporting, the actual reporting cut-off dates are not similar across projects. This
occurrence is nonetheless revised accordingly with the relevant grantee. Most of the reports or the
sampled projects were observed to be well-detailed and provided substantial information. However,
some of the narrative reports received by the MTR were not up to date. This poses a challenge during
reviewing and synthesis of information. This is also demonstrated on Figure 3.3 below.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
16
31%
88%
50%
69%
13%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Technical/NarrativeReports
IPTT Financial Reports
Timely Not Timely
Figure 6 is an extract of a summary of Appendix 9 of status of projects reports of the sampled
projects of this review. The MTR reviewed the sampled project reporting documents and notes that
project reporting has been a major challenge, with timeliness and accuracy topping the chart. In this
case, this MTR refers a timely report, as reports received by the FOSCA team that contains up to date
information. As observed, the reports that are predominately not timely are narrative reports yet
these are mandatory and contain both qualitative and quantitative information regarding project
performance. Furthermore, late reporting impairs FOSCA’s ability to: (i) respond in time to
issues/challenges; (ii) have a holistic and realistic view of the program progress; and, (iii) analyse and
present up to date results.
Figure 6: Level of reporting of narrative, IPTT and Financial Reports
Another challenge highlighted during
interviews with the project team is
difficulties in relating reports to the
proposal Results and Monitoring
Framework (RMF), KPI tables and IPTT.
However, there has been notable
improvement in the alignment of RMFs,
KPIs and IPTTs that has emerged from
the technical assistance and trainings
provided by AGRA.
Technical reports are reviewed by
program teams while financial reports by the grants unit, this poses a challenge in timely feedback
and approval of project reports, thus the variance in the reporting timeliness of the technical and
financial reports as observed in figure 3. Given the need for more verification of the
technical/narrative reports, a higher percentage of 69% was noted as not being timely. On the other
hand, financial reports are 50% of timely and 50% untimely. This was observed by the MTR team as
mainly due to the administrative capacity and variation of fund absorption by the projects. Though
ideally, all reports are to be submitted to AGRA at the same time, this was mostly not the case.
Nonetheless, there has been a great improvement completion and timely reporting of IPTT due to
the trainings conducted by the program team jointly with the M&E unit. However, further
conversations are underway to streamline the reporting, by ensuring that the program officers are
the final point of all approved reports.
The same challenge is observed on data quality. The Data Quality Review10 noted indicators are
defined at the project proposal stage with support from specific program staff. However, some
indicators were not being adequately monitored because of lack of measurability, incorrect
formulation of indicators (output rather than outcome), lack of or absence of indicator definitions
which affects understanding of the type of meta data required, and some indicators would measure
similar results, with minimal distinction. One reason for this challenge is time period of project
design, for instance, since FOSCA staff were not in place in 2011, projects that were designed in
2011, the dimensions of FOSCA program were not well articulated in the project design including the
10
AGRA Data Quality Review (DQR) for Performance Indicators (2014)
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
17
indicators. Efforts to retrofit the projects with FOSCA indicators have greatly improved the reporting
of FOSCA indicators based on FOSCA objectives. Notably, this challenges varies from project to
project, this issue is further discussed in this review report in section 3.3 on Program Effectiveness.
3.2.4 MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM
The revision of indicators as from 2012 through the facilitation of the AGRA M&E Directorate in
collaboration with the program teams, evidently improved the data quality of indicators at both
project and program level. This deliberate effort to reviewing indicators provided the programs with
an opportunity to enhance achievement of results. Where appropriate KPIs were formulated in
regards to the objectives of the projects.
Evidently grantees are committed to achieving results to ensure adequate response to results. To
achieve this, some grantees have stepped up their M&E system by adopting M&E systems that
respond to the agreed indicators attributed from the various trainings and tools introduced by
AGRA.
Result frameworks for all project interventions have been developed, along with monitoring plans
that included assessments to measure achievements. The MTR feedback from interviews with AGRA
program staff captures the concern of some narrative and IPTT reports being processed-based rather
than result-focused; this was highly dependent on the formulation and definition of specific
indicators. Following the trainings undertaken by AGRA especially on the IPTT, there has been a great
improvement. However, the capturing of result-oriented information/reporting are still affected by
project staff turnover, M&E systems and data quality at the FO level. For these reasons, the MTR
believes that more skills are necessary especially to assist with data management and result-
oriented-reporting at all levels to focus and maintain the adoption of “SMART”11 targets and
“CREAM+” indicators. Data management is a key function that needs to be better internalised within
the program. In this view, capacity enhancement in the form of an additional staff (rather than a
external consult) to adequately organize, supervise and coordinate data management of the program
is pertinent. This program enhancement of the internal capacity will require a review of FOSCA
functions and roles so as to relate the capacity strengthening to staff job descriptions and identified
gaps such as data management.
11
SMART indicators are explicit targets that are Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic and Time-bound this
overlaps with the concept of CREAM+ indicators which are Clear, Relevant, Economic, Assignable, Monitorable and +
(the indicator brings additional significant value for the comprehension of the situation.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
18
3.3 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM SUCCESS AND EFFECTIVENESS
Effectiveness implies assessing the achievement of performance indicators targets as determined in
FOSCA M&E plan to reflect any difference in achievement rate over time. The review is based on data
from progress reports as per, overall project targets and annual work plans for which regular
monitoring is conducted. For activities that are not monitored on a regular basis, an estimation of
effectiveness is obtained by information from interviews with relevant stakeholders.
3.3.1 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTIVENESS AT PROGRAM LEVEL
This review provides an inward scan and rationale to achieving what was pitched and determines
whether the current (remaining) program investment will provide the desired results. The following
are findings from the analysis of pertinent reports as well as discussions with relevant AGRA staff.
Results chains for the program and all active interventions have been developed, along with a
comprehensive monitoring plan that includes assessments to measure changes up the levels
of the results chains as they are expected to occur for each intervention. A system of tracking
results is in place.
AGRA’s Evolving Strategy is audibly strong on shifting from focusing on outputs to outcomes12.
There are challenges of linking such changes to AGRA grant making and to the growing
number of public/private partnerships. Thus FOSCA, as other AGRA programs, is strengthening
its tracking of high level results notably through enhanced collaboration between the M&E
unit and the program team. It will also require strengthening at grantee level as they are more
inclined toward output monitoring.
This will also call for enhanced collaboration in streamlining FOSCA activities with reference to
the baseline study (conducted by the M&E unit) on the State of Agricultural Development in
16 Sub-Saharan African countries (AGRA’s Evolving Strategy: Meeting Africa’s Food & Nutrition
Needs in the 21st Century) which brings together macro-level socioeconomic data with micro-
level (country specific) agricultural data and information.
Most small FOs supported by grantees still have weak record keeping systems such as
membership registration records and contributions. This creates a challenge on establishing
the capacity of the FOs (for example
mechanism to adequately track membership
contribution on a timely basis). Though this is
due to limited resources, most FOs have
largely benefited from capacity building
initiatives that have improved the managerial
aspects of the farmer groups such as
Associação Samora Machel in Guro Region
Mozambique.
FOSCA is benefiting from the high level of confidence existing at project level which translates
in constructive relations with the program team. This enables the program to propose
12
“To successfully gauge the effectiveness of AGRA’s investments and success in catalysing transformational change in African
agriculture, we must begin measuring progress in terms of outcomes, such as, change in malnourished people and underweight
children, trends in food prices and reduction in the number of people living in poverty”. Meeting Africa’s Food & Nutrition Needs in
the 21st Century. AGRA’s Evolving Strategy
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
19
improvements to the M&E system with high level of buy in and low resistance from FOs.
Equally, the MTR recognizes the efforts made by FOSCA in developing program datasheet and
dashboard (excel format) to capture progress of program achievements. However, there is
need to incorporate targets in the FOSCA datasheets and dashboards, to facilitate the
rationalisation of progress while comparing targets to the actual results.
3.3.1.1 Summary of Progress on FOSCA indicators as per the five subprogram levels.
1. FOs delivering improved service to members
Indicator Cumulative
Target
Year 1
2011
Year 2
2012
Year 3
2013
Year 4
2014
Number of FOs whose capacity performance index (CPI) for supporting
SHFs has improved
102 0 0 145 272
Percentage of SHFs who are satisfied with the services offered by their FO 70 0 0 93
The baseline of the indicator on number of FOs whose CPI for supporting SHFs has improved, was
derived from 2013 results with the rolling out of the CPI in 2013. Nonetheless an achievement of
142.15% has been reached. However, information was only available from Ghana and Kenya only.
In 2014, the increase is even more remarkable as it reaches an aggregated total of 417 (appendix
7b)
In 2013, a vast majority (93%) of SHFs declared their satisfaction with the services offered by their
FO. However, this level of satisfaction would be strengthened with the use of a comprehensive
satisfaction survey tool. It should also be noted that information was only received from Ghana
and SSA, a more comprehensive satisfaction should be undertaken to determine the realistic level
of satisfaction in comparison to the target of 70%.
2. Enhance capacity of FOs to access credit for SHF
Indicator Cumul.
Target
Year 1
2011
Year 2
2012
Year 3
2013
Year 4
2014
Number of supported FOs accessing financial services for their members 1 115 886 375
Amount of credit in US$ 113,207 2,480,215 5,539,209 2,053,996
At this level the performance has been steadily increasing. We can see an increase of close to the
double between 2013 and 2012 in the amount of credit and the number of supported FOs accessing
financial services for their members has been multiplied by almost 8 over the same period.
3. Improve the capacity of FOs to access markets for their members
Indicator Cumul
Target
Year 1
2011
Year 2
2012
Year 3
2013
Year 4
2014
Number of supported FOs aggregating their produce to sell collectively 3 149 163 580
Volume of sales 0 67,951 121,723 71,893
Value of sales in US$ 0 15,561,225 29,409,666 15,915,149
Number of FOs who have established new markets for their members 44 110 172 N/A
Number of FO supported to development of business plans 0 0 180 125
Even though projects that started in 2011 were using SPs, this disposition in engaging service
providers really started to materialise in Year 2 and 3.
There is evidence of project scaling up good models in 2013 and 2014 such as RWARRI (Rwanda)
that is using ICT platform or the establishment of warranty funds as a security for members to
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
20
borrow from banks as well as models under DFAP and YIIFSWA. However, this indicator was not
reported yet in the FOSCA Country Dashboard 2011-2013 (Appendix 7).
Interestingly, the progress on scaling up business models is low. This is an area FOSCA should
enhance emphasis in the remaining program period. This will entail a seamless linkage between
investment partnerships and identified successful project models. One such area will involve
scaling up on best practices - identifying opportunities through a holistic approach, involving
several actors at different points in both the financing and product value chain. For example
AGRA’s ‘breadbasket strategy’ allows AGRA to focus a large portion of resources in just a few
promising locations. By undertaking this approach FOSCA will be able to achieve rapid progress in
these areas and in so doing, demonstrate the positive potential of new technologies and
approaches. Steps to achieve this are underway as FOSCA is supporting several projects that falls
within the breadbasket program with focus on Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania and Ghana.
4. Improve managerial and institutional capacity of FOs
Indicator Cumul
target
Year 1
2011
Year 2
2012
Year 3
2013
Year 4
2014
Number of FOs supported by capacity building support (specify type
of support)
0 37,627 106,263
Number of SHFs supported through capacity building interventions 0 16,066 30,930
Number of farmers trained as per FOSCA’s Achievements Scorecard
(appendix 7b)
141,463 180,624 114,112
Although there are no specific targets there has been good progress since 2011. This is attributed
to the various capacity building activities conducted for FOs.
The review elevates the resourceful addition to the achievements, the specific capacity building
initiatives undertaken by FOs. This way, other programs and partners can follow-up on project
specific capacity building initiatives. In addition, project team interviewees raised the need to
improve effectiveness of capacity building initiatives especially trainings by developing a global
ToT module (with some flexibility to allow for country differences) that FOs can adopt accordingly.
This will enhance consistency and quality of training content. Furthermore, a global module will
combine efforts and resources which will subsequently speak to efficiency.
5. Membership of FOs increases
Indicator Cumul
Target
Year 1
2011
Year 2
2012
Year 3
2013
Year 4
2014
Number of FOs with increased membership 0 17 274 371
Number of FOs whose women membership has increased 0 0 7,075
Number of FOs who have set aside some slots for women in their
management committees
0 1 29 107
Number of new members registered by FOs 0 4,016 19,423 20,028
A database for FOs and SPs established 1 3 12
Number of service providers (SPs) registered in AGRA SPs database 0 105 53 114
Number of farmer organizations (FOs) registered in AGRA FOs database 9 348 1,806 705
Number of FOs receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs 0 0 92 49
Number of FOs trained (specify training) 0 1,535 2,929 1,937
Total number of knowledge products/items in the FOSCA knowledge base 0 0 4
Number of enquiries made to FOSCA by FOs and other stakeholders on
relevant issues
0 0 0
Number of people who have accessed FOSCA knowledge base 0 0 0
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
21
Number of media engagements by FOSCA staff and grantees 0 2 79
Number of FOs members who have participated in knowledge sharing and
learning forums
2 18 103
Number of best practices documented and shared 0 1 1
The indicator targets are lacking. Assessment of progress for this subprogram is thus ambiguous.
Furthermore, some of the indicators seem duplicated in subprogram 4, such as, Number of FOs
trained (specify training). The SP and FO database plays an important aspect in determining the
progress of this subprogram.
Evidence gathered during meetings and analysis of documents show that values presented in the
FOSCA Country Dashboard 2011-2013 (Appendix 7a) for some of these indicators are also under
evaluated but since then updated in the FOSCA’s Achievements Scorecard (appendix 7b). This is
particularly evident for the increase in membership level as well as the number of FO members who
participated in knowledge sharing and learning forums (The Banana Conference in October 2013 had
over 200 people; The AFOYA Conference had over 100 people; The AFOYA Gala had over 250 people;
The Farmers Forum in 2012 had over 80 participants, IFAD side event had about 30; etc.).
3.3.3.2 Gender and Youth Dimensions
FOSCA’s objective 4 prioritizes services for gender inclusive FOs, which also entails projects adopting
a 30% women membership’s composition in FOs. FOSCAs program dimensions on gender findings are
as follows:
The review of FOSCA’s indicators in early 2014 saw a refinement of gender related indicators of
the program e.g. Number of new members registered by FOs (disaggregate by gender).
Though projects are reporting on progress of FO membership which is already disaggregate,
problem areas that may impend sufficient information is the inadequacy of project datasheet
records of memberships and especially data on administrative positions held by women within
the FOs.
In addition, there seems to be incoherent data of FOs based on gender disaggregation at
program level. This may be due to the large number of FOs as well as reports are received at
different times, making updating of the data difficult. For example indicator the indicator,
“New member registered by FOs (disaggregated by gender)”, in the dashboard the indicator is
not disaggregated even though its statement mentions the disaggregation of the data.
Overall the progress in increasing women membership in FOs has been satisfactory. The MTR
discussed with FOs on how they adopted the 30% gender composition, FOs that have
undertaken adequate gender sensitive capacity assessment of their groups/organizations,
significantly had better defined goals targeting gender issues and enabled them identify and
address gender gaps within the context of their specific project models. For instance, MISOCO
project in Niger introduced a new approach for resource mobilization at the local level
(through the Savings and Internal Lending Community (SILC) approach) for the development of
income-generating activities for women in rural areas to increases their financial capital.
Equally, despite being the more educated and more dynamic segment of rural societies, youth tend
to benefit less from current farming activities. The program engagement on youth is observed as:
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
22
There is no specific strategy, performance indicators especially at program level. Noticeably, youth
tend to be subsumed together with gender and somewhat overlooked during monitoring. As
much as it is evident that project interventions also target youth, the MTR observes that the
youth are not vastly active, within the farmer organization as members, but are somewhat
participative in aspects of value addition as highlighted by BGAK and AFRICRES projects.
3.3.2 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTIVENESS AT PROJECT LEVEL
Effectiveness at project level has a great impact on the achievement of FOSCA’s targets. The analysis
of progress of project specific indicator results is presented in Appendix 8. As one can see, close to
half of the indicators showed a level of target achievement of over 90 %. This is a very promising
result. There is some variance between projects, for example the 2 projects in Rwanda, as well as
AFRICRES or FOSUP in Zambia present remarkable results compared to others. It is also important to
notice that some indicators are not informed while others present level of achievements extremely
high (Farmers Union of Malawi with 209.5 % of achievement for number of SHF trained). Many
reasons can explain such discrepancies such as an implementation of activities faster than planned,
underestimation of the target, change in the method of calculation, etc. Of course, this stresses the
difficulty in designing and planning projects in the most realistic manner.
Target setting was also noted as area that required more strengthening. As noted in the analysis
below, some of the projects lacked targets for specific indicators. A major reason was the
introduction of indicators midway implementation of the project, which then resulted to challenges
of determining the targets.
Overall effectiveness assessed by grantees was scored 2.1 out of 3 in the responses (appendix 4). The
responses are based on indicative questions on effectiveness (appendix 4). In this regard, an
estimation of effectiveness is obtained through the responses of the 16 sampled projects. The
analysis is further supported with findings from FOs, SHFs and SPs to compare the extensity of the
responses of each project.
Given the ratings above, the following is a summary of the findings on responses from the
FOs/grantees:
The program backstops internal capacity that is satisfactorily sufficient. The various capacity
building programs for the project staff provided a platform for additional skills, setting up
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
23
and equipping the FOs. The program support has also enabled project teams with better
approach to analyse the situation of FOs, putting into consideration the different aspects as
well as identifying gaps and developing action plans to improve the FO’s capacity to
perform basic functions.
The formulation of realistic objectives was satisfactory, as the project objectives are
consistent with the needs and expectations of beneficiaries. However, there is some
variance between FOs in their project management capacity, particularly in project design
and planning.
Unforeseen events that would have affected target achievement especially in terms of FO
activities was minimised by the project design and experiences gained. Potential risks have
been largely negated by the projects commitments to addressing the unforeseen events
along the risk and mitigation plans in the project proposal. For example the case for BGAK,
as a precautionary measure against damage by drought, the project ensured that Tissue
Culture Banana (TCB) seedlings are availed to farmers during rainy seasons.
3.3.2.1 Analysis on Project Commencement:
Delay in project commencement is a major factor
in project effectiveness and success. Figure 6
below illustrates the level of delay in project
commencement. Ideally, starting period of the
project is determined by the letter of agreement,
while considering the graph above, it is important
to note that projects commenced on receiving the
funds. Judging from the assessment of timeliness
of project commencement, this is satisfactory as
majority of the project begun within the first
month of signing the letter of agreement.
The MTR observed the following:
Notably, the main contributing factors to delay is the logistical process of signing the project
agreement, delay in administrative setup of the project team due to recruitment of relevant staff,
especially project manager.
Another aspect of delay is on start-up grantees having challenges in opening a bank account .g.
Mali and Mozambique (other countries mentioned by the Finance unit are Ethiopia, Burkina,
Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria) can take up-to a month. As a requirement for grantees to open
a separate bank account, some of the projects in this countries start-up period may be longer. This
has been addressed by communicating the requirements to the grantee early, however this has
been hampered by the nature of the institution e.g. some grantees are NGOs, and others are
learning institutions which have specific legal/formal procedures of opening bank accounts.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
24
3.4 ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM EFFICIENCY AND VALUE FOR MONEY
To measure efficiency and value for money of the program, the review addresses the program
financing, the primary drivers that shape the budget and dynamics of cost flows in the budget.
3.4.1 Program Financing
FOSCA expenditure report as at 31 August 2014 - Estimated (appendix 10) illustrates FOSCA’s
program financing. Funding allocation to sub-grants was envisaged to be constrained on an overall
target budget of ~$8M required for FOSCA to fulfill its coordinating, knowledge-building and
disseminating role. Table 1 below illustrates the program financiers at the time of the review of the
total current fund is USD14.5Million from which BMGF 67.1%, RF 2.9%, IITA 9.7%, Sweden (UF 2010)
2.9%, Sweden (UF 2011) 2.6% and Sweden (UF 2012) 14.9%. As indicated in AGRA FOSCA proposal
2010, FOSCA activities imply a greater cost base than that of typical grant-making organizations; the
program anticipated distributing roughly half of its budget (~$4M) to sub-grants13.
Table 1: Total programme cost by financier
Financier
USD
Millions %
BMGF 9,693,938.00 67.0%
RF 424,654.00 2.9%
IITA 1,400,000.00 9.7%
SWEDEN (UF 2010) 415,481.00 2.9%
SWEDEN (UF 2011) 375,000.00 2.6%
SWEDEN (UF 2012) 2,150,341.00 14.9%
Total 14,459,414.00 100 %
There are two major costs that drive the FOSCA budget, sub-grants which primarily fund the
provision of services to farmer organizations and personnel and fringe benefits costs for FOSCA’s
fulltime staff, plus payment to AGRA for 1/3 of the time of one staff member to cover its support in
M&E and managing the sub-grants. Of total budget the review reports allocation of 46.7% on grants
and 26.3% on personnel. These two areas were intended to represent over 80% of the total FOSCA
budget, but represented 73.1% instead. The remaining areas: consulting and contracted services is
allocated 6.6%, utilized by FOSCA to remain a lean hub; and travel 4.4%, which will primarily be
required for outreach to farmer organizations and interactions with services providers, and indirect
costs 11.6%, which in this case includes any supplies and equipment needed by FOSCA. In addition
the budget also allocated 4.2% for other direct costs.
The program agreement that outlines the program delivery is primarily with AGRA and not directly
with the programs. Donors extend funds according to programs and countries. In this regard, FOSCA
was developed with a fair degree of participation from all stakeholders, as reflected for example in
agreements reached on indicators used to monitor the progress in implementing the farmer
organization support program, to coordinate activities along the lines of the program goals. In
addition to aligning FOSCA program activities along the lines of partnership agreement. Some donors
may target specific needs along the value chain such as access to finance. This may be limiting 13
AGRA FOSCA Proposal, 2010. P.g. 37
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
25
especially because the SHF needs cut across the entire value chain, creating program delivery
challenges to FOSCA which is cross-cutting.
3.4.2 Primary drivers that shape the budget
The MTR presents the primary drivers that shape the budget in regards to the investment plan.
Programs present budget grants administered in the month of November for the Board to
review and approve the budget for the next year in the month of December. There is a huge
opportunity in regards to improving this process to ensure program budgets are anchored
on the investment plan for grants and based on funds available. Notably during the MTR
year, the situation has been that the budget approved by the Board was as per an expected
estimation vis-à-vis available funds.
From interviews with AGRA staff, funding source of specific activities was not always clear,
given that AGRA projects/programs are funded by different donors, thus during
implementation some activities are charged to the incorrect donor. However, the same year
of this MTR AGRA is undertaking a review of the tools used to capture costs. This will
enhance adequate allocation of costing as per the relevant donor, such that, relevant
reports have minimal adjustments.
There is need for clarity on resource mobilization strategy for the program. This needs to be
institutionalised. Nonetheless, there is a resource mobilisation unit responsible for resource
mobilization, however, from discussion with the financial staff, it was suggested that
programs should have their specific resource mobilization strategy that would answer
identified gaps in resources and work together with the resource mobilization team, thus
complement the overall resource mobilization strategy.
FOSCA has various donors for which each has specific reporting formats that programs have
to comply. This is a challenge, so far this has been adequately managed with coordination
by finance department and the required formats have been adopted.
In addition, integrating grants system with accounting system (Navision) which has an
award management system is underway. The Navision system will enable AGRA track any
award from donor such that they are not exceeded as well as track grantee awards. Finance
department at AGRA is in the process of discussing solutions with the service provider and
grants unit to enable programs improve financial reporting, this is alongside with the
review of the workflow process to identify areas that can be reorganised to be more
efficient and less time consuming. This is intended to be achieved by end of the year 2014,
and this will include a comparison of GIFTs to Navision system in regards to determine
adequacy of their capacity i.e. reduce reconciliation and data entry. The superior system
will be adopted, and will be accessible to both grants unit and finance department at point
of input. Furthermore, currently the finance department is working with the grants team to
shorten processes that do not require policy change such as the disbursement process -
which is intended to be reduced from 30 days to 5 days, this greatly impact the program
efficiency.
Issues of delay also are a result of weak financial reporting as this takes some time before
the financial report gaps are addressed - this is 30 % of the reporting while the technical
reporting takes the other load. Financial reports are reviewed by the Grants Unit while
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
26
technical reports (narrative and IPTT) are reviewed by relevant POs, to endorse compliance.
Normally there is some back-and-forth experienced primarily during review of the technical
report – disbursement is based on approval of both narrative and financial reports.
3.4.3 Dynamics of cost flows in the budget
In regards to expenditure an overall status of expenditure at the time of the review is at 17.4%.
Table 2 below, indicates budget for grants committed is -6.6% meaning that there has been an over
expenditure of the budget. In addition, 3 of the Budget funds are above 95% of absorption
(expenditure).
Table 2: FOSCA Expenditure/Budget ratio per source of Funds and per budget line (see appendix
10)
Source of funds % Budget
Expense
BMGF 95.2 %
RF 96.9 %
IITA 41.1 %
SWEDEN (UF 2010) 100 %
SWEDEN (UF 2011) 104.3 %
SWEDEN (UF 2012) 42.7 %
Factors that determine the cash flow in the
budgets includes:
Generally disbursements are on course – disbursements of funds to projects are done quarterly
for each specific project which is dependent on adequate reporting to facilitate better quality
control. This then addresses risk mitigation of funds - risk will be at least by a quarter. The grant
committee and the project teams are both involved with the review of proposals from the initial
stages, given the number of proposals received, it will be important to ensure adequate
coordination and at the same time manage grantee expectations in regards to actual time of
receiving funds. This is mainly in the communication of the approval process to the grantee to
help them understand the process involved.
Coordination needs to be enhanced. Finance needs to be able to access information easily from
the different programs in order to respond to project issues. A good lesson to learn in this regard
is the adoption of a centralised database system by soil health program.
It is recommended for future consideration to have at least a 2 month window in the project plan
to put in place relevant management systems required by AGRA before starting the actual project.
Financial reporting templates are well formulated, however it was noted that not all projects
adhered to the required financial reporting templates. This is because grantees have their own in
addition to AGRA’s financial reporting template. This sometimes becomes a challenge to the
grantee, where grantees revert to reporting using their own financial formats. In this case, FOSCA
internally transpose the financial report to the AGRA format to avoid the back-and-forth and any
delays (e.g. Faso Jigi PACCEM). This however, creates additional work for the program staff.
Budget Line % Budget
Expense
Grants Committed -6.6%
Personnel 70.2%
Travel 49.0%
Consultants 82.5%
Other Direct Costs 31.6%
Indirect Costs 61.8%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
27
The five objectives through which FOSCA plans to support farmer organizations have been
designed to prioritize scalability and sustainability. As a “lean hub,” FOSCA will leverage the
knowledge, expertise and capacity of existing organizations and service providers to meet the
needs of farmer organizations. Purposely limiting its own size ensures that scalability through
partnerships is central to FOSCA’s approach from the outset, working both on the demand side,
with farmer organizations, and the supply side, equipping service providers.
1.1 Program Relevance as per FOSCA program Objectives
1.1.1 FOSCA has been implemented in 2010, after the launch of AGRA’S other main programs.
Therefore, its first objective was initially concerned with its establishment as a formal
programme within AGRA and then evolved to clarify its role. Of course, when analysing
different documents created other this period, one can observe some level of
inconsistency in objective formulation. For instance objective one in the proposal is stated
as “Establishing the FOSCA hub”14 while in the FOSCA’s M&E Strategy it is indicated as
“Establishment of FOSCA by AGRA to meet the needs of smallholder farmers through
farmer organizations, and initiate piloted service delivery by partnering with key entities
with ready demand for strong FOs, in particular WFP in P4P and School Feeding programs,
and AGRA Markets”. Furthermore, the same objective one is stated as “Increase capacity
of FOs to assist smallholders to add value to and market produce” in the Theory of Change
within the M&E Strategy document. In this case the inconsistency of objective inscriptions
may cause some level of misrepresentation especially when examining progress. As
discussed this relative inconsistency in objective formulation is due to the normal
evolution of the program but it will be important to have consistent and updated program
objectives (that reflect this evolution) across board especially in the working documents
that facilitate reporting (such as, country dashboard, revised M&E strategy etc.). All the
same, the program team is clear on the expected deliverables and definition of each
objective.
1.1.2 Progress has been made in the establishment of the database of service providers
following the profiling of Farmer organisations and Service providers. Data is updated
continually as new FOs are profiled. This is an ongoing process as new projects that will
need to be profiled are added to the database. The adoption of the Capacity Performance
Index (CPI) tool will be a pertinent instrument to improve the capacity to assess the needs
of FOs and link them to the SPs able to adequately address group specific capacity gaps.
14
AGRA FOSCA Proposal, 2010. P.g. 18
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
28
1.1.3 CPI is a diagnostic tool. It is used to identify capacity gaps. Once FOs/SPs have decided on
and implemented a targeted capacity building initiative, it can also be used to assess if the
gaps have been answered and thus if FOs/SPs are improving the services they are offering
to the SHFs.
1.1.4 Substantive progress has been made in the achievement of the program objective on
matching FOs with services they need. An underlying factor to the progress is the program
strategy which is in line with AGRA programming approach, mainly through grant making,
knowledge generation and management and convening, with higher progress on capacity
building.
1.1.5 Clear progress has been made against the program objective of building knowledge for
better practice and policy. The code of practice has been established through the
AFRICRES project. It should be used to identify the best SPs for capacity building activities
1.1.6 Evaluation of the "customer satisfaction" surveys to collect and track feedback from SHFs
on the degree to which FOs are meeting their needs is one of the performance indicators
tracked by some of the FOSCA partners. This is assessed through farmer forums,
documentaries, radio programs where farmers discuss on support received by the FOs. It is
important to note that FOSCA partners do not necessarily use evaluations to measure
satisfaction of farmers. As mentioned earlier, it would be advisable to conduct a more
thorough satisfaction survey using internationally recognised methods, in order to
corroborate the information currently collected.
1.2 Program Delivery and Design
1.2.1 FOSCA staff undertakes a great deal of hand holding to prepare smaller and less
experienced grantees to receive and manage grants. The solution to this initial capacity
challenge as suggested during interviews with other program staff within AGRA is to
propose a two (2) phases grants (or an initial preparation grant) that entails a smaller
amounts of money for the initial design of the project with the grantee. This initial
preparation phase will allow for more thorough design of the grant. It would thus consist
of a pilot phase to refine assumptions and approaches to be implemented, as well as to
gather baseline information. This would also be the occasion to strengthen the
governance and project management skills and abilities of grantees, thus further
contributing to the objectives of FOSCA and AGRA’s goals. This process will however,
require more time in implementation of projects. Furthermore, it may require additional
capacities (in project design and appraisal skills as well as staff) for the FOSCA team to
allow for support and coaching of the Grantee teams.
1.2.2 For a larger outreach to SHFs, FOSCA may also consider supporting stronger FOs to be
coaches for the newer, upcoming FOs. This can be achieved through capacity building in
coaching skills to have FOs with larger capacities train smaller/weaker FOs; an aspect that
will further contribute to the sustainability of FOSCA objectives. For example, the case of
KENFFAP implementing a project to strengthen the capacity of BGAK.
1.2.3 Given the comparative advantages that AGRA’s strategic interventions present, FOSCA can
further enhance its strategic niche within the AGRA spectrum in supporting farmers who
face competitive challenges including continuing to invest in breadbasket areas that AGRA
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
29
targets which will be more than the four (P1) countries. This is based on the achievements
FOSCA has made in the BB areas such as Ghana, 2012 BBTE 003 – INTAPIMP project results
are positive. For instance, level of achievement at the time of the MTR (calculated as
percentage cumulative actual value divided by cumulative target) on “Quality of inputs
accessed by farmers/FBOs: Seed (maize, rice, soy-bean) in tonnes” is at 96.4%. This result
indicates the success of this approach and can thus be scaled up to additional countries.
1.2.4 The partnerships with AGRA programs have been substantively grounded. Notably
achievement on partnerships of FOSCA with private sector has been positive. Moving
forward especially in the context of AGRA's new strategy, could therefore, be a priority
area for FOSCA. AGRA is also well placed to act as an honest broker to bring many public
and private sector stakeholders together in order to spark new initiatives and
partnerships, as well as improve coordination among diverse groups. This positions FOSCA
in fledging agri-businesses. For instance, an area that is generating a lot of interest is the
Digital Farmer Aggregation Platforms implemented by SACAU which are driven by private
investors thus the need to scale up these initiatives that provide FOs with innovative
solutions through partnerships with the private actors/sector.
1.2.5 The narrative (technical) reports scrutinized were noted providing flexibility in terms of
outline and content, in line with the program narrative report format. This enables
grantees to have the freedom to format the reports as per the information they intended
to produce. Consequently, the varied formats and content creates difficulties in reviewing
and analysing information due to the variations. It is recommended that FOSCA will need
to strengthen the narrative reports with data and stories, as well as refine the narrative
using feedback in collaboration with the Grants unit.
1.2.6 The updating of FOSCA performance indicators in April 2014 notably enabled the program
to introduce common indicators on efficiency and effectiveness in the projects to improve
the appreciation of performance. By introducing this measure at the project level,
grantees are effectively able to assess their working procedures and reflect on how to
improve service delivery to their beneficiaries. AGRA provides M&E support to all AGRA
grants including FOSCA initiatives, as well as leveraging its existing processes in these
areas.
1.2.7 To strengthen joint programming, it will be important to have robust resource mobilization
planning that clarifies each programs contribution. It also entails review of the program
break down structure to decompose the whole program by clarifying specific outcomes,
outputs as well as responsibilities to elaborate more on the activity levels. Progress has
been made on this aspect as the program continuously reviews its Value proposition as
well as to ensure the program is addressing the intended objectives through program
meetings, field visits, forums and management level discussions.
1.2.8 Establishment of FO of the year award (AFOYA) program is an initiative where FOs meeting
set performance standards for service delivery to their members are recognized. This has
been observed as a niche for FOSCA to enable FOs share practices that will raise the
standards of services to members. In order to help FOs reach out better to SPs, a quality
label linked to the AFOYA award could be developed. This recognition of the quality of the
FOs would enhance their credibility notably for financial service providers.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
30
1.2.9 With the evolving role of FOSCA, the importance of strong knowledge management will
increase. FOSCA team may require additional capacities, maybe via additional staff or a
revision of the role of the team members (especially the M&E and Knowledge
Management Officer), in this area of expertise to ensure that knowledge gathering and
transfer are strengthened. Also consider aligning FOSCA’s Knowledge management
function to AGRA’s knowledge Management Unit. In fact, it is probably advisable to have
two different professionals to take on these two demanding roles. Especially when
considering the increased importance of supporting FOs with the perspective of creating a
network of excellence centers. This may also require the development of a comprehensive
communication strategy that will make the most efficient usage of the different media
used in order to convey strategic messages to FOs and their members and thus contribute
to building their capacities in the most effective manner.
1.3 Effectiveness and Success
1.3.1 It is recommended incorporating relevant indicator targets in the datasheets and
dashboards (FOSCA Country Dashboard 2011-2013 and Achievement Data sheet 2011 -
2014), to facilitate the rationalisation of progress while comparing targets to the actual
results. Ultimately a dashboard presenting the progress, per project, toward intermediate
and overall targets, using a simple semaphore warning system, could be useful for quick
identification of achievements and difficulties.
1.3.2 FOSCA should work more closely with the resource mobilization unit, as well as country
officers in each of the countries targeted in the Breadbasket strategy as well as donors
such as USAID, World Bank to provide input to the breadbasket strategy based on
tightening innovative models, which can be further linked to adequate investment plan
along the breadbasket strategy.
1.3.3 FOSCA’s collaboration with the Gender Unit is a deliberate approach to strengthen the
gender dimension in program design and implementation. Strengthening of gender
related KPIs especially at project level will require the relevant indicators to be formulated
clearly to ensure adequate disaggregation of data collected.
1.3.4 Projects manage to put in place relatively adequate staffing to provide regular training to
FO leadership (via the field officers), but not to support the whole process from group
development and strengthening up to legalisation and performance. Emphasis on a
prioritization and mapping plan for the projects will substantially address internal capacity
issues.
1.3.5 Notably, the main contributing factors to delay are the logistical process of signing the
project agreement and delay in administrative setup of the project. It is recommended, to
ensure the expected agreement administrative requirements are communicated to
grantees well in advance.
1.4 Efficiency and Value for Money
1.4.1 There is need to have clarity on resource mobilization strategy for the program. This
needs to be institutionalised. Nonetheless, there is a resource mobilisation unit
responsible for resource mobilization. However, it is felt that programs should have their
specific resource mobilization strategy that outlines the program specific identified gaps
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
31
in resources. This information should then be discussed together with the resource
mobilization unit, and thus complement the overall resource mobilization strategy.
1.4.2 Capacity building at project level should consider looking at the reporting gaps of specific
projects – i.e. their capacity to report on a timely basis. FOSCA has been very supportive in
roll-out of the grants unit support supervision – mentorship of grantees. In addition,
training on relevant management and administrative procedures to manage program
resources at inception for every project before roll out has been effective, but continuous
mentorship/support to the grantee is required.
1.4.3 Lack of a central point of information for finance to access information from different
AGRA programs was highlighted as a challenge. A good lesson to learn in this regard is the
adoption of a database system such as the system implemented by soil health program to
enable a centralized information base.
1.4.4 It is recommended for future consideration to have at least a 2 month window for project
set up. This will enable the project put in place relevant management systems required by
AGRA before sending the funds as this will avoid delays of project commencement. In
regards, to no-cost extensions, out of the 16 projects sampled only two indicated the
need for a no cost extension. This is a good indication that most projects were on course.
It is recommended that ensuring that projects have the adequate project structures (bank
accounts, project team, etc.) and project procedures in regards to requirements for
disbursements are communicated and in place at the initial stage, then delays will be
minimal.
1.4.5 The integration of FOSCA's investments in the context of the integrated AGRA country
programs has been categorical for FOSCA to situate the organizational development
activities within other productivity and income enhancing interventions by other program
and units. The review endorses integrations and collaborations of FOSCA with other AGRA
programs. There is a need to increase the program capacity in terms of review of grantee
report, monitoring and timely management of the communication with existing and new
grantees. As the grant portfolio becomes larger and more diversified, there is an even
greater need to engage with grantees and to provide them with ongoing support and
feedback, to enable them to make the adjustments needed in the implementation of their
programs. With this in mind, FOSCA will need to better clarify its unique attributes and
value proposition within the AGRA investment framework.
1.5 Early pointers for Sustainability
1.5.1 FOSCA’s ability to sustain its achievements will depend on how the program will continue
to leverage on resources internally and externally. FOSCA will need to anchor its
leveraging on AGRA’s comparative advantage and notable partnership success, including
most recently joining with the AU Commission. FOSCA will need to intensify the efforts to
build the capacity and competitiveness of farmers. Farmers have made it clear they want
to learn about new technologies to increase their productivity and about markets to
improve their incomes, capitalise on the use of new information and communication
technologies and better reorganise themselves to enhance their participation in input and
output markets. For instance the DFAP and KENFAPP projects enabled SHFs to create and
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
32
capture more value in the agricultural value chain. Furthermore, the close ties to
smallholder farmers across the continent and the intimate understanding of African
agriculture makes the program a valuable partner, one that can strengthen and leverage
efforts to improve the lives and livelihoods of all Africans.
1.5.2 One of the major threats towards sustaining the FOSCA initiatives was cited to be poor
leadership skills and power struggles within the FOs. This threat/challenge highlighted by
6 out of the 16 projects assessed included feedback such as: “FO poor governance” (2011
MKT 018 - Mali), “mistrust among farmers because of incompetency and transparency
from its local leadership” (2011 MKT 002 - Mozambique), “internal power struggles and
other governance problems within FO” (2011 MKT 006 - Ghana), “leadership wrangles
among FOs that may derail the sustainability of the results achieved” (2012 FOSCA 001 -
Kenya), “leaders with low skills” (2011 MKT 014 - Rwanda), and “misunderstanding by
farmers on the issue of prices risk of probable disinterest if contracts to improve prices
are not found” (2012 MKT 006 - Burkina Faso). This is an area of concern as many of the
FOs consisted of farmer groups that are formed within specific needs of a community and
depend on adequate leadership to transform the agriculture sector especially at the local
level. Various leadership trainings have been widely conducted by most grantees but an
additional effort would be to have sensitization training to the members, not in the
leadership helm, to help them appreciate the importance of leadership and also to work
more closely with the more popular and trusted leaders within the FO in project delivery
to increase chances of sustaining activities after the project; as farmers will listen and
follow the leader they trust. Furthermore, there is need to ensure that the strong
foundation that constitutes legal registration of FOs as well as written procedural
documents such as guidelines, procedures, meetings minutes and attendance sheets are
strongly implemented and understood by all registered members. This can be done
through additional sensitization campaign or through a strong “monitoring” push, a bit
like the effort that was displayed to implement the IPPT (via a thorough and continuous
request for all the indicators pertaining to this aspect). The continuous monitoring of CPI
indicator could also be used as a mean to sensitize FOs on the importance of these strong
foundations.
1.5.3 In terms, of sustainability, the team is also strongly advocating that FOSCA undergoes a
systematic “satisfaction survey” that will first help assess the level of buy in of the
member-farmers but will also serve as an awareness tool (with questions pertaining to
the benefits of being a registered member). Especially, if the results are then
communicated to all members of FOs with a strong focus on the key advantages of being
a registered member.
1.5.4 Another challenge being faced is difficulty for farmers to adjust to changing climatic
conditions. Farmers need to have awareness forums on the changing weather patterns so
as to adjust their farming calendars appropriately and reduce risk of losing crop. Losing
crop can cause farmers to be discouraged and start looking into other means of
generating income to a point of nullifying efforts made by FOSCA initiatives.
1.5.5 Position FOSCA as a platform to provide financial and technical information to producers
and other value chain players. It could take the form of a Community of Practice (CoP) for
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
33
all FO members as well as researchers, experts, specialists, etc. involved in the
development of the agricultural sector. This CoP would ensure the promotion of sound
agricultural innovative and practical practices adapted to FOs and SHFs’ context in Africa.
In fact this CoP would greatly enhance the knowledge sharing and transfer role of FOSCA
and further strengthen its contribution to AGRA’s goals. A community of Practice is
formed by a group of people engaged in a process of collective learning in a shared
domain and who interact regularly. It is built around the following four (4) pillars:
The domain: A community of practice is not just a network of connections between people. It has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest. Membership therefore implies a commitment to the domain, and therefore a shared competence that distinguishes members from other people.
The practice: A community of practice is not just a community of interest. Members of a community of practice are practitioners. They develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring problems—in short a shared practice. This takes time and sustained interaction.
The community: In pursuing their interest in their domain, members engage in joint activities and discussions, help each other, and share information. A website in itself is not a community of practice. Having the same job or the same title does not make for a community of practice unless members interact and learn together. Therefore, the level of interaction is an essential component of a community of practice.
The organisation: In order to ensure its sustainability, a structure needs to be put in place so that members of the community share a common mechanism and platform to enable them to participate efficiently in the development of their shared domain of expertise.
In terms of its “organisation”, a strong structure is essential to ensure efficient
management and sustainability of the CoP. There is need for example to gather and
disseminate stories and cases studies, to organize knowledge sharing or learning activities
and provide discussions forum to practitioners. There is also a need to take into account
existing constraints such as distances between the member, access to communication
channels such as internet, etc. As a central point of this CoP, FOSCA needs to strongly lead
this initiative and involve stakeholders to ensure a high level of proactivity and thus
sustainable commitment from the community members. Furthermore, the involvement of
“strong” FOs, through the development of an excellence centres network could prove to
be very instrumental in reaching out to the “far-to-reach” and weaker FOs. Therefore, the
structure implemented by FOSCA will need to build up on its already remarkable efforts of
ongoing experience sharing and knowledge development activities and provide a platform
where documents, success stories, key agricultural and environment information,
technical (i.e. for project design) and financial support information, etc. could be stored
and communicated easily.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
34
Appendix 1: List of documents for review
Documents
AGRA Strategy;
FOSCA Program documents (i.e. Proposal, and Implementation Strategy);
FOSCA Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy;
FOSCA Annual progress reports;
Project documents (i.e. proposals, Grants Memos and grants agreements; and
Projects progress reports (i.e. narrative reports, and IPTT)
Any other Reports: Forum/Workshop Reports
FOSCA country dashboard 2011-2013
Achievement datasheet 2011-2014
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
35
Appendix 2: Schedule of the review activities, timelines and deliverables
Activity Timeline
1. Submission of final inception report 19th
May 2014
2. Meeting with FOSCA programme team 23rd
May 2014
3. Review of MTR Tools Week of 26th
May
4. Pre-test of tools and interview guides (Kenya Project) Week of 2nd
June
5. Finalization of MTR Tools Week of 2nd
June
6. Training of field assistance Week of 2nd
June
7. Country field visits – site visits and FGDs (Regional FOs,
Beneficiaries, FGDs)
Week of 9th –
30th
June
8. Meeting with FOSCA Advisory Group, FOSCA team, AGRA
program coordinators
Week of 9th June
9. Results Analysis Week of 30th
June – 25th
July
10. Submission of draft report
11. Submission of final report
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
36
Appendix 3: MTR Criteria
15
FOSCA’s theory of change is based on the prediction that effective and efficient farmer organizations lead to increased incomes
and improved livelihoods of individual small holder farmers.
MTR Criteria Review Operational Procedure
1. Relevance: The analysis of the relevance of FOSCA program focused on assessing how the program’s objectives are
aligned to the AGRA strategy. The review asked questions to be answered through interviews and focus
group discussions with project implementation staff and beneficiaries. Each listed question was outline in a
subset of questions discussed with key respondents. Furthermore, a document analysis verified the
alignment between the different strategy documents of AGRA and FOSCA objectives.
2. Effectiveness Effectiveness implies assessing the achievement of targets of performance indicators as determined in
FOSCA M&E plan so as to reflect any difference in achievement rate over time. It refers to evaluating
whether FOSCA has achieved its objectives. This review will be based on administrative data (activities,
outputs and specific objectives). Ideally, the review was based on activities that have annual work plans and
for which regular monitoring was conducted. For activities that are not monitored on a regular basis, an
estimation of effectiveness will be obtained by interviewing stakeholders on their perception of
effectiveness of the program.
3. Efficiency Efficiency means assessing whether obtained results would have been achieved using fewer resources
(comparison between results achieved and real direct and indirect costs with targets over a specific time).
Here again administrative data, both technical and financial, was used. Under this mid-term review
efficiency measured outputs in relation to inputs. The review will determine whether FOSCA make use of
the most effective resources possible to achieve expected results (outputs).
The MTR assessed FOSCA’s theory of change15
by determining the extent of program “Value for money”.
4. Design and
Delivery
The methodology used to analyse program management is based on SWOT analysis (Strength, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats). This was conducted in a participative manner. The SWOT analysis will involve
the following actors:
• For the FOSCA program (Management body of FOSCA, and Directors of other programs in AGRA)
• For each project under FOSCA (Coordinators for each project, top management of implementing
entities (grantee if applicable), focal points for M&E in each grantee.
In addition to the SWOT analysis, administrative data was assessed to verify if there are any duplication with
other AGRA programs and whether any change to the FOSCA implementation strategy could have been
made during the past three years.
The review also assessed the extent of the program’s implementation on AGRA’s New Strategy by
addressing the following questions?
• What opportunities and challenges does AGRA’s new strategic priority present to FOSCA?
• Does the new strategy suggest adjustments in the design and implementation of FOSCA to ensure
alignment?
5. Sustainability: The viability of FOSCA projects at the end of its funding is an important criterion to assess during this mid-
term review. Review of program sustainability aims at measuring if benefits of the interventions are
susceptible to continue after its end. Assess early pointers of the projects sustainability – create condition
for sustainable. E.g. FO membership, are the FOs having regular meetings etc. – membership is evolving
overtime. This analysis will be based on information obtained from interviews and focus groups discussions.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
37
Appendix 4: MTR Tools 4.1 Assessment Grid
MTR Assessment Grid
Responds Program:
Date of Review:
Questions Answer Codes: * Yes - completely * Partly * No - not at all * N/A
Please justify your rating
1. Relevance
1.1 Objective 1: Establish FOSCA to meet the needs of smallholder farmers through farmer organizations, and initiate piloted service delivery by partnering with key entities with ready demand for strong FOs, in particular WFP in P4P and School Feeding programs, and AGRA Markets.
1.1.1 Was the FOSCA initial outreach activities adequate for the launch of the program in raising awareness of FOSCA while at the same time developing further FOSCA's understanding of the needs of FOs, the challenges of SPs and the work and interests of development partners?
1.1.2 In the rollout of FOSCA, was the pilot approach sufficient (i.e. initial priority countries, grantees, projects etc.)?
1.1.3 Is FOSCA's Advisory Board as a strategic advisory structure, championing FOSCA and working in the interests of FOSCA's primary clients, farmer organizations and other key actors in the network of support to FOs sufficiently responsive in their role?
1.1.4 Has FOSCAs program design leveraged work by other development partners in order to scale successfully?
1.1.5 Has FOSCA developed a business plan that defines opportunities and trade-offs for investment in different types of FOs and for the different range of services?
If yes, determine the effectiveness of the business plan.
1.2 Objective 2: Further engage Farmer Organizations to improve their ability to respond to the agriculture-related needs of their members, specifically smallholders.
1.2.1 In the mapping of FOs, has the needs assessment by Partner/Grantees fully identified the key technical and institutional/managerial capacity needs through an in-depth and collaborative needs assessment?
1.2.2 Has FOSCA rated and compared FOs from data collected from grantees/partners?
1.2.3 Has FOSCA developed a centralised, accessible source of data of FOs in sub-Saharan Africa from knowledge accumulated by FOSCA and leveraged from other partners?
If yes, determine how data has influenced FOSCA program, and its role in supporting FOs to improves their ability to respond to the agriculture-related needs of their members, specifically smallholders?
1.2.4 Is a "profiling-type" assessment of the FO institutional/managerial capacities always used in the identification of the organizational constraints?
If no, determine how this might have affected FOSCA program, and its role in the FOs needs assessment?
1.3 Objective 3: Increase and improve the supply of services available to farmer organizations.
1.3.1 Has FOSCA implemented a process of identifying and tracking data of service providers?
1.3.2 Has FOSCA put in place FO - feedback rating system to assist with service providers’ selection?
1.3.3 Has FOSCA built a database of potential service providers accessible to other stakeholders?
If yes, what important aspects have been tracked (i.e. geographical scope of the organizations etc.)?
1.3.4 Does FOSCA's have specific approaches to linking SPs with other potential partners to increase the supply of services available to farmer organization?
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
38
If yes, list the major approaches FOSCA has used to link to SPs to potential partners?
1.3.5 Is the functionality of the rating system of Service Providers efficient?
1.3.6 Which has been the most effective approach(s) of training SPs such as: peer group, participatory needs assessment, formal institutions etc. and why?
1.4 Objective 4: Link FOs with relevant and effective services that upgrade their capabilities across all dimensions.
1.4.1 Has the service credit as a potential model for funding/delivery to FOs ensured that services are sufficiently meeting the demands of the primary beneficiaries?
1.4.2 Are grantees adequately capable of undertaking matching of scale and access of service provision by SPs with FO type/needs at the outset to create a conducive environment for the FOs to make full or partial contribution to the cost of services?
If No, why and how has this affected the FOSCA program?
1.5 Objective 5: Build a knowledge base to improve service to FOs and inform policy discussions.
1.5.1 Has FOSCA generated codes of practices for AGRA and BMGF grantees and other development partners interested in working with farmer organizations?
1.5.2 Is there a central and accessible point to all stakeholders of all compiled evidence of identified and measured impact of FOs on the livelihoods of their members?
1.5.3 Have FOSCA partners been able to execute adequate evaluation on "customer satisfaction" surveys to collect and track feedback by smallholder farmers on the degree to which FOs are meeting their needs?
If yes, how were the evaluations undertaken by FOSCA partners and is the data adequate?
2. Program design and delivery
2.1 Is AGRA's program recruitment process enabling the program deliver its activities on target and schedule?
2.2 Is the effort (i.e. time taken and number of staff involved) on grant identification process enabling FOSCA deliver its program activities on target and schedule?
2.3 Is the partnership/collaboration with other AGRA programs structure enabling FOSCA deliver its program outcomes on target and schedule?
2.4 Is the donor agreement in place for the FOSCA program enabling FOSCA deliver its program outcomes on target and schedule?
2.5 Are there any delays experienced on completion of FOSCA projects?
On average, how would you rate the delays in %?
2.6 Are the FOSCA projects targets achievable?
On average, what would be the % of target completion of FOSCA projects?
2.7 Are there delays in FOSCA funds disbursements to grantees?
If yes, on average (in days/weeks), what is the delay in funds disbursement? And what are the main reasons for the delays?
2.8 Are there any delays experienced with reporting by projects?
If yes, on average (days/weeks), what is the delay in reporting by projects? And what are the main reasons for the delays?
2.9 How does the delay in reporting by grantees affect progress towards FOSCA program KPIs?
2.1 Are the available resources (human) sufficient to enable the FOSCA program in achieving its set targets?
List the additional human resources needed to ensure efficient FOSCA program delivery
2.4 Have there been changes in the delivery mechanisms of FOSCA program since its inception?
If yes how have they affected the program?
3. Effectiveness
3.1 Are AGRA programs closely connected and complementarity achieved?
3.2 Has duplication been avoided between FOSCA program initiatives and other AGRA programs?
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
39
3.3 Are there any proposals to increase internal program capacity of FOSCA?
3.4 Are the underlying assumptions in the logic model of intervention for FOSCA program still valid?
If No, determine how this will affect FOSCA program and its role in the AGRA strategy?
3.5 Are the capacities of FOSCA staff in working with grantees in different countries and with different types of grantees (especially market access and soil health) adequate enough? (This will examine the differences in experiences with FOSCA and consistent components of the FOSCA program from geographic and organizational variations).
4. AGRA New Strategy
4.1 Is the hosting of FOSCA within AGRA well understood by relevant stakeholders? (i.e. other AGRA management and program staff, FOSCA advisory committee and partners e.g. BMGF)
4.2 Are there any disadvantages/cons of FOSCA being hosted within AGRA?
List the disadvantages/cons if any and how it has affected FOSCA program implementation?
4.3 Are there opportunities that AGRA’s New Strategic priorities present to FOSCA program intervention?
4.4 In regards to FOSCA's Theory of Change in initiating partnerships with other organizations that have experience in policy and advocacy to train FOs, engage governments and relevant departments on marketing policies and taxation issues, are the FOSCA initiatives aligned to AGRA's Strategy to achieve this?
4.5 Does the new AGRA strategy suggest adjustments in the design and implementation of FOSCA to ensure alignment?
5. Value for Money
5.1 Are there more effective ways for FOSCA to invest, through co-funding with other programs, directly with FOs or through SPs? Which are they?
5.2 Will FOSCA’s operating processes require any change in light of the revised AGRA strategy? What are they?
5.3 Will FOSCA's operating processes require any change in light of strengthening the performance monitoring systems? What are they?
5.4 Is FOSCA's logic of the results chain in regards to management organization, implementation approaches and technical design ensure that inputs are being used to achieve envisaged outputs as efficiently as possible?
6. Program Success
6.1 Is FOSCA M&E strategy in regards to the quality of data from the indicators (i.e. definition of indicators, data collection, data storage and data usage) satisfactory to track progress?
If No, determine which areas will require further strengthening?
6.2 Are the FOSCA activities and key milestones clearly specified, and plausibly linked to outcomes?
If No, determine which outcomes will require further review?
6.3 Are the reporting tools by grantees on progress of project activities, outputs and outcomes well understood and presented to enable FOSCA track progress of each project?
6.4 Are the data generated by grantees on FOs comprehensive and coherent to ease tracking of database of FOs supported by FOSCA?
6.5 Is the management of field monitoring activities by FOSCA staff satisfactory? Is there need for further support and in which specific areas?
6.6 In regards to the risk and mitigation plan in the FOSCA M&E strategy are there emerging risks since program inception that will/may affect the achievement of the program?
6.7 To what extent would you say that the following conception of FOSCA is well understood by the stakeholders (partners, grantees and other AGRA programs)? “FOSCA will be an Africa-based and led hub that links farmer organizations with service providers that provide demand-driven services”.
6.8 FOSCA has in place an exit strategy that is well understood by all stakeholders to ensure sustainability of all project interventions?
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
40
4.2 Grantee Questionnaire
FOSCA MID TERM REVIEW (MTR)
Introduction
The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) is a dynamic African-led organization that works through partnerships to help raise agricultural
productivity and incomes of millions of smallholder farmers (SHFs). With support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), AGRA in
2010 established the Farmer Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) to increase smallholder incomes and livelihoods through effective FOs
capable of delivering on the needs of their members. IDEA International Institute was contracted undertake a Mid-Term Review (MTR) of FOSCA
program. The objective of the MTR is to assess the extent the FOSCA program objectives are aligned to the overall AGRA strategy and whether they
are being achieved as planned.
Instructions
1. This questionnaire includes two (2) kinds of questions:
(1) Scoring questions, whereby you are asked to evaluate on an ordinal scale of 0 (worst rate) – 3 (best rate),
(2) Questions to provide explanations or further explanation on the rating given,
2. The underlying methodological approach used in this questionnaire is (1) evidence-based (2) executive oriented and, (3) emphasising formative assessment (i.e. focusing on recommendations for improvement).
3. Please ensure the questionnaire is fully completed.
4. This questionnaire is advised to be filled with consultation of other relevant institutions, departments, officers.
5. Yours responses to this questionnaire will be kept confidential by the MTR team and only provided to AGRA globally.
IDENTIFICATION:
Grantee/Organization: Grant Number:
Last name First name
Title Email
Additional names of participants that participated in the completion of this questionnaire (if any)
1. Last name First name
Title Email
2. Last name First name
Title Email
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
41
I - RELEVANCE OF THE PROJECT (Assessing alignment of project objectives to AGRA strategy) Score
(0-3)
1. Is AGRA supported project addressing a genuine agricultural need in your country to improve the income of rural farmers
and food security?
(0= Not at all 1=very little 2=reasonably 3=absolutely)
2. How well is AGRA providing an effective response to the agricultural needs of the Farmer Organizations (FOs)?
(0=Not at all 1= moderately effectively 2=satisfactory effectively 3=very effectively)
3. Is the AGRA-funded project sufficiently linking FOs to Service Providers (SPs)? (0=Not at all 1= moderately sufficient 2=satisfactory sufficiently 3=very sufficiently)
4. Is the AGRA-funded project objectives clearly understood by the project team? (0=Not at all 1=slightly understood 2=moderately understood 3=fully understood)
5. Are the project activities clearly specified and reasonably linked to outcomes? (0=Not at all 1=very little 2=reasonably 3=absolutely)
6. Additional explanations to expound your ratings on relevance of the project above
7. Suggestions to make AGRA FOSCA interventions more relevant
II - EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT (Achievement of targets) Score
(0-3)
1. To what extent has the internal capacity of the grantee improved through the AGRA funded project to provide the needed support systems that will enhance the role of FOs in improving incomes of rural farmers and food security?
Please select score : 0= Not at all, 1=very little , 2=moderately, 3=highly
Please justify your rating above:
2. Are the internal resources (financial and human) for the project sufficient to ensure the targeted project groups are reached?
Please select score 0=Poorly sufficient, 1= moderately sufficient, 2=satisfactory sufficient, 3=very sufficient
Please justify your rating above:
3. To what extent have the overall output (deliverables) targets being achieved?
Please select score 0=0-25%, 1=26- 50%, 2= 51-75%, 3=76-100%
Please justify your rating above:
4. To what extent has the project reached FOs as per the expected target?
Please select score 0=0-25%, 1=26- 50%, 2= 51-75%, 3=76-100%
Please justify your rating above:
5. To what extent are services by FOs supported by the grant (effects of outputs on outcomes) meeting the SHFs needs?
Please select score 0=0-25%, 1=26- 50%, 2= 51-75%, 3=76-100%
Please justify your rating above:
6. To what extent is the target setting realistic as set in the project proposal?
Please select score 0=Poor, 1=moderately satisfactory, 2=Satisfactory, 3=More than satisfactory
Please justify your rating above:
7. To what extent are unforeseen events affecting target achievement?
Please select score : 0= to very high extent, 1=to a significant extent, 2=hardly, 3= Not at all
Please justify your rating above:
8. To what extent are mitigation measures contributing to target achievement?
Please select score : 0= Not at all, 1=hardly , 2= moderately, 3=highly
Please justify your rating above:
9. To what extent are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) linked to the IPTT?
Please select score : 0=0-25%, 1=26- 50%, 2= 51-75%, 3=76-100%
Please justify your rating above:
10. To what extent was the project delayed to commence?
Please select score : 0=less than 1 month, 1=2 to 3 months 2= 4 to 5 months, 3=over 6 months
Please justify your rating above:
III - EFFICIENCY OF PROJECT (Comparison between results achieved and real direct and indirect costs with targets over time) Score
0-3
1. To what extent is the total budget adequate for the planned project activities? Please select score 0=0-25%, 1=26- 50%, 2= 51-75%, 3=76-100%
Please justify your rating above:
2. To what extent are disbursed funds executed as planned?
Please select score 0=0-25%, 1=26- 50%, 2= 51-75%, 3=76-100%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
42
Please justify your rating above:
3. What is the absorption rate of the funds received up to date (i.e. comparison between total funds received against the expenditure up to date)?
Please select score 0=0-25%, 1=26- 50%, 2= 51-75%, 3=76-100%
Please justify your rating above:
4. To what extent does the project experience delay in disbursement of tranches? Please select score 0=76-100%, 1= 51-75%, 2= 26- 50% , 3=0-25%
Please justify your rating above:
5. Rate the disbursement process/procedures of AGRA?
Please select score: 0=Below satisfactory, 1= moderately satisfactory, 2=satisfactory, 3=very satisfactory
6. What are the effects of disbursement delays to the project results?
1.
2.
3.
7. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Budget
Please select score 0=very high, 1=high, 2= moderate, 3=low
8. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Duration
Please select score 0=very high, 1=high, 2= moderate, 3=low
9. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Output quality
Please select score 0=very high, 1=high, 2= moderate, 3=low
10. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Outcome quality
Please select score 0=very high, 1=high, 2= moderate, 3=low
Please justify your ratings above:
11. Given your knowledge and implementation of similar projects, what is your rating of AGRAs grant/project management
procedures and processes?
Please select score: 0=Below satisfactory, 1= moderately satisfactory, 2=satisfactory, 3=very satisfactory
Please justify your rating above:
12. Given your knowledge and implementation of similar projects, is the AGRA funded project having the most cost effective
way to achieve the planned results?
Please select score: 0=Poorly effective, 1= moderately effective, 2=satisfactory effective, 3=very effective
Please justify your rating above:
13. What is your rating on the effectiveness of AGRA staff on technical assistance/support?
Please select score: 0=Poorly effective, 1= moderately effective, 2=satisfactory effective, 3=very effective
Please justify your rating above:
14. How responsive is AGRA in project budget reviews (reallocation of budgets)?
Please select score: 0=Poorly responsive, 1= moderately responsive, 2=satisfactory responsive, 3=very responsive
Please justify your rating above:
15. How responsive is AGRA in addressing financial reporting?
Please select score: 0=Poorly responsive, 1= moderately responsive, 2=satisfactory responsive, 3=very responsive
Please justify your rating above:
IV - SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROJECT RESULTS
(Where possible please indicate the numbers)
1. List 3 enabling factors that have an impact on sustainability of the project results (once AGRA funds comes to an end)
1.
2.
3.
2. List 3 internal constraints/risks that have an impact on sustainability of the project results?
1.
2.
3.
3. List up-to 3 external constraints/risks that have an impact on sustainability of the project results?
1.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
43
2.
3.
4. What has been put in place in the project to ensure sustainability of results achieved? Do you have any other suggestion to improve
sustainability of the project?
Thank you for your contribution
End
*********************************************************************
4.3 Overall Analysis of Grantee Questionnaire
V – KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (Assess the extent of generating, disseminating and using knowledge to improve
performance)
Score
0-3
1. Has your project participated in any AGRA/FOSCA knowledge sharing platforms? Please select score 0=Not at all, 1=once, 2=twice 3=severally
Give an illustration of any:
2. Has knowledge from the AGRA/FOSCA platform (lessons learnt, innovations, and success stories, etc.) been used in the project?
Please select score 0=Not at all, 1=very little, 2=reasonably, 3=absolutely
Give an illustration of any:
3. Is the project benefiting from knowledge generated by other AGRA supported grantees/projects? Please select score 0=Not at all, 1=very little, 2=reasonably, 3=absolutely
Please specify:
4. To what extent is knowledge generated by the project communicated to FOs and SHFs? Please select score 0=Not at all, 1=very little, 2=reasonably, 3=absolutely
Please specify:
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
44
Relevance Average
per question
1. Is AGRA supported project addressing a genuine agricultural need in your country to improve the income of rural farmers and food security
3.0
2. How well is AGRA providing an effective response to the agricultural needs of the Farmer Organizations (FOs)? 2.3
3. Is the AGRA-funded project sufficiently linking FOs to Service Providers (SPs)? 2.7
4. Is the AGRA-funded project objectives clearly understood by the project team? 3.0
5. Are the project activities clearly specified and reasonably linked to outcomes? 2.9
Total 2.8
Effectiveness Average
per question
1. To what extent has the internal capacity of the grantee improved through the AGRA funded project to provide the needed support systems that will enhance the role of FOs in improving incomes of rural farmers and food security?
2.5
2. Are the internal resources (financial and human) for the project sufficient to ensure the targeted project groups are reached?
2.0
3. To what extent have the overall output (deliverables) targets being achieved? 2.4
4. To what extent has the project reached FOs as per the expected target? 2.6
5. To what extent are services by FOs supported by the grant (effects of outputs on outcomes) meeting the SHFs needs? 2.4
6. To what extent is the target setting realistic as set in the project proposal? 2.2
7. To what extent are unforeseen events affecting target achievement? 1.5
8. To what extent are mitigation measures contributing to target achievement? 2.1
9. To what extent are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) linked to the IPTT? 2.6
10. To what extent was the project delayed to commence? 1.8
Total 2.2
Efficiency Average
per question
1. To what extent is the total budget adequate for the planned project activities? 2.7
2. To what extent are disbursed funds executed as planned? 2.6
3. What is the absorption rate of the funds received up to date (i.e. comparison between total funds received against the expenditure up to date)?
2.6
4. To what extent does the project experience delay in disbursement of tranches? 1.6
5. Rate the disbursement process/procedures of AGRA? 2.5
6. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Budget 1.8
7. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Duration 2.0
8. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Output quality 1.4
9. What is the impact of the AGRA grant disbursement procedures on the project in terms of: Outcome quality 1.4
10. Given your knowledge and implementation of similar projects, what is your rating of AGRAs grant/project management procedures and processes?
2.7
11. Given your knowledge and implementation of similar projects, is the AGRA funded project having the most cost effective way to achieve the planned results?
2.4
12. What is your rating on the effectiveness of AGRA staff on technical assistance/support? 2.7
13. How responsive is AGRA in project budget reviews (reallocation of budgets)? 2.3
14. How responsive is AGRA in addressing financial reporting? 2.7
Total 2.1
Knowledge management Average
per question
Has your project participated in any AGRA/FOSCA knowledge sharing platforms? 2.5
Has knowledge from the AGRA/FOSCA platform (lessons learnt, innovations, and success stories, etc.) been used in the project?
2.3
Is the project benefiting from knowledge generated by other AGRA supported grantees/projects? 2.3
To what extent is knowledge generated by the project communicated to FOs and SHFs? 2.5
Total 2.4
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
45
Appendix 5: Program timeline and Responsibilities
Appendix B: Timeline and Responsibilities16
The following table presents a sample set of implementation steps and organizational responsibilities to be monitored as FOSCA operationalizes it strategy.
Activities Ordered implementation steps to track Responsibility Outputs Outcomes Outcome Indicators
Objective 1. Plan and launch FOSCA to meet the needs of smallholder farmers through farmer organizations
1.1 Set up and operationalize FOSCA
TOR for project task team developed
Team assembled and tasked
Positions in FOSCA advertised
Recruitment panel commissioned
Recruitment conducted
AGRA & Partners
A project Task Team formed at AGRA
FOSCA Advisory Board formed and convened
FOSCA lead and main staff contracted
Service provider contracted to support AGRA in establishing FOSCA
FOSCA established and key staff in position
Initiative fully defined in form and content, including the relevant operational and functional processes within AGRA
TOR for support SP developed
SP identified and hired
FOSCA
Joint plan of action developed FOSCA & SP
1.2 Develop FOSCA strategy, business plan and M&E matrix
Implementation strategy for objective(2-5) development process commissioned and accomplished
Results based monitoring matrix development process initiated and accomplished
TOR for mid-term review developed
FOSCA & SP Implementation strategy and business plan for objectives 2-5 developed and approved
A time-bound results-based monitoring matrix to track implementation of activities developed and approved
Fully operational FOSCA in place
FOSCA operations reflect needs of farmer organizations
Responsibilities efficiently shared between FOSCA and partners
Review at 18-months confirms successful launch, operationalize-action, and positioning for scaling up
Review team identified, notified and commissioned
AGRA & Partners
1.3 Implement the strategy and business plan
Partners identified
Negotiations proceed
Contractual agreements drawn
AGRA, FOSCA, SP Potential partners engaged to support implementation of the strategy
Advisory Board meetings held regularly
Extensive participatory consultations conducted with stakeholders on FOSCA objectives, e.g. FOs, service providers, donors organizations,
Selection & commissioning criteria developed and approved
Criteria used to identify and bring on board FO leaders
FOSCA & SP
Sensitization strategy unveiled
Strategy used to reach out for the stakeholders
FOSCA
16 Farmer Organization Support Centre in Africa, Project proposal, 2010
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
46
etc.
1.1 Test initial service delivery model with P4P and AGRA Markets
Agreements reached with WFP P4P and other immediate partners
Institutional involvement of AGRA Markets in FOSCA strategy development
Identification of target FOs to receive services linked to P4P and AGRA Markets
FOSCA, P4P, AGRA mgmt. FOSCA, P4P, AGRA Markets FOSCA, P4P, AGRA Markets
5-7 target FOs receiving FOSCA resources will source 8-10 tons of cereals to P4P in Mali and Tanzania
FOSCA will facilitate service delivery for 3 FOs working with AGRA markets grantees
FOSCA will identify initial strength and constraints to model
Strong partnerships with key partners
FOs served sourcing to P4P
Tons procured by P4P from improved FOs
Smallholder income improvement in FOs
Strengthened capacities of target FOs
Objective 2. Engage farmer organizations to improve their ability to respond to the needs of smallholder
2.1 Build FO awareness of FOSCA
Communication/outreach materials designed and produced
Stakeholders identified and contacts made
Strategy for effective FO outreach developed to ensure equity
FO sensitization workshops planned and notifications issued
FOSCA
FOSCA communication/outreach materials for FOs developed
Stakeholder meetings held based on FOSCA’s implementation plan
FOSCA organized FO sensitization workshops conducted for various FO levels
Above outreach conducted in Kenya and Malawi
FOSCA known and perceived as a leading resource for technical, managerial, and institutional services to FOs to meet needs of smallholder members
Number of enquiries made to FOSCA by FOs on the available products and services
Outreach conducted at various levels FOSCA & National FOs
2.2 Map and register potential beneficiary FOs
Indicative Data on FOs at each level assembled
Decision on FO number at each level made
Various FOs contacted for engagement
Appropriate FO mapping proceeded
FOSCA Partnership on FO data mapping established and operationalized
Existing farmers' organizations in target geography mapped (incorporating existing maps)
Process in place for ongoing maintenance and updating of database
Consolidated database of regional, national, sub-national & local FOs in use
Geographies, beneficiaries, and membership represented farmer organizations mapped
Database usage statistics
2.3 Select FOs eligible and interested to partner with FOSCA
FO selection criteria finalized and adopted
Multi-level based categories documented
Decision on proportion per category made
FOSCA & SP
Selection criteria established
Initial selection completed, targeting BMGF and AGRA grantees at first
All interested FOs (among those selected) engaged as “participants” (=interested + eligible FOs)
Set of farmer organizations representing diversity of size/level/geography and gender actively engaged with FOSCA
Participating FOs represent 3 million farmers, by year 4
Selection commenced and proceeded FOSCA, SP & National level FOs
2.4 Need assessment tool finalized and FOSCA & SP Need assessment tools Needs assessments At least 2/3 of the
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
47
Identify individual needs of participating FOs based on consultative and participatory needs assessments
adopted developed
Qualified partners and/or SPs to support needs assessments identified and engaged
Process in place whereby FOSCA and FO understanding of individual FO needs is updated on ongoing basis
complete for 100% of participating FOs
Comprehensive FOs needs are translated into actual demands to FOSCA
identified FOs demands are captured for action within 2 years after launch
Partnerships on need redressing concretized
FOSCA & Partners
Mechanism for progressive need identification and updating developed and adopted
FOSCA & SP
Needs identified and updated progressively
FOSCA
Objective 3. Increase and improve the supply of services available to farmer organizations
3.1 Build SP awareness of FOSCA
Communication/outreach materials designed and produced
SPs and contacts made
Strategy for effective SP outreach developed to ensure equity
SPs sensitization workshops planned and notifications issued
FOSCA FOSCA communication/outreach plan to service providers developed
FOSCA known and perceived as an that strengthens service providers, and facilitates service provision to FOs
Number of expressions of interest by SPs in target countries
Outreach conducted at various levels FOSCA & National FOs
3.2 Create database of potential service providers, including FOs
Indicative Data on SPs at each level assembled
Decision on SP number at each level made
Various SPs contacted for engagement
Appropriate SP/FO mapping proceeded
FOSCA
Potential providers mapped, by (a) areas of expertise (b) geographic focus (c) location
Functions of intranet/extranet defined
Process in place for database maintenance
A comprehensive, interactive online SP database created and in use
Increasing trajectory of database usage
Functional SP/FO data management system activated
FOSCA & SP
3.3 Rate service providers and identify shortlist of preferred SPs
Criteria for SP rating finalized and adopted FOSCA & SP Rating criteria developed
Initial evaluation completed
SPs rated and short list created according to the set criteria
Rosters of highly rated service providers in various categories capable and willing to serve FOs
Lists of SPs in order of preferences for various levels of services
Pre-testing of the criteria conducted for functional assurance
Criteria used for SP selection process
SP data stored in an easily retrievable form
FOSCA
3.4 Develop capacity of service providers in line with the code of practice
Area specific service provision models developed and adopted
FOSCA & FOs Effective models of service provision to FOs identified, created or adapted, for 3 mains areas: institutional, management and technical
Partners and SPs identified to
Standard capabilities of SPs overcome the existing gaps between the demand of FOs and the SPs’ ability to deliver
Scalable training
Progressive reduction of gaps between available capacity and FOs demands
Shared learning between different
Gap between demanded services identified and quantified per service model in view of available SPs
Content focusing on identified gaps
FOSCA, SPs & FOs
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
48
developed and approved develop content and conduct training
materials/toolkits for SPs created or adapted
regions on thematic lines SPs trained in their areas of inability FOSCA & SPs
Objective 4. Link FOs with relevant and effective services that upgrade their capabilities across all dimensions.
4.1 Link FOs with available services based on their preferences.
Multi-level packs of the requested services per country developed
Reciprocal SP packs identified and mapped onto the demands
FOSCA & SP
Specific individual FOs’ request for services received.
FOs demands aggregated and clustered (by geography, service, or stage of development)
Clusters of service providers proactively identified, and contacted to deliver services, by cluster where possible
Service provider offering matching FO needs presented to all participating FOs accomplished
Service providers contracted by FOs
90% of participating FOs report satisfaction with services received
Formal notifications of available SPs issued to FOs for decision
FOSCA
SPs and FOs matched and formally introduced to start working
FOSCA & National FOs
Mechanisms for tracking progress concretized and commissioned
FOSCA & SP
4.2 Facilitate FOs access to funding for services
Criteria for funding developed and approved
Accountability provision defined and concretized
All participating FOs and SPs acquainted with both
FOSCA & SP
Criteria/mechanism for funding developed and approved (including accountability provisions)
FOs demands for funding prioritized based on criteria
100% of budgeted sub-grants awarded
FOs receiving needed support through a simple, transparent and efficient process
FOs report that funding enabled them to obtain a service impossible otherwise
FO demand priority listings finalized FOSCA & SPs
Flow of funds from FOSCA to FO then SP enhanced and sustained
FOSCA & FOs
4.3 Prioritize services for gender inclusive FOs
Coordinate with new AGRA Gender PO
Develop targeted strategy for the integration of gender across FOSCA’s implementation
AGRA mgmt.& FOSCA
Tailor criteria for resourcing FOs with high representation of women membership and leadership
Incentivize FOs to expand membership of women smallholders
Provide some targeted service credits to women’s FOs
FOs increase membership of women smallholders
Robust criteria for resourcing FOs
Women membership in FOs
# of women’s groups receiving services
Livelihood impact on women smallholders
Objective 5. Build a knowledge base to improve service to FOs and inform policy discussions
5.1 Compile and create evidence on the impact of FOs on farmers’ livelihoods
Initial priority listing of FO specific information/technological needs completed and approved
Available technologies/information quantified and matched onto the demand
FOs, FOSCA, SPs & Partners
Criteria for qualifying cases set and approved
Partners or SPs identified and contracted to compile existing evidence
Articles on declared thematic areas of the year received at FOSCA progressively
Compelling cases for FO
Appropriate measures including submissions to existing journals and publications to be
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
49
lists Initial store of evidence developed, and informed by FOSCA’s experience/M&E
Materials that incorporate evidence into policy perspective created and distributed to all relevant stakeholders
importance being actively incorporated in the follow-up development planning
defined by Task Team
Existing gaps clearly quantified
Criteria for solicitation of the knowledge and information developed and approved
FOSCA & SPs
Criteria used to generate the needed knowledge and information
FOSCA
Mechanism for tracking and responding to upcoming demands developed and utilized
FOSCA & SP
5.2 Compile pool of learning on best practices in service provision to FOs
Mechanism to call for research proposals developed and adopted
FOSCA & SP
Partners or SPs identified to research on existing best practices along specified dimensions
Code of practice on how development partners can best engage with FOs
Pool of learning developed on service provision to FOs, and process in place to update knowledge based of FOSCA’s experience
Curriculum/toolkits developed based on the learning
Comprehensive set of best practice actively in use
At least 5 best practices identified and up scaled every year
Mechanism/criteria used to secure the existing best practices
FOSCA
FOs engagement codes of practice developed and adopted
FOSCA & SP
Curricula and thematic FO packs developed and distributed amongst the participating FOs
FOSCA
5.3 Monitor FOs (ongoing) to track improved outcomes for farmers, e.g. application and sustained adoption
FO evaluation criteria developed FOSCA & SP
Evaluation partner identified
Evaluation approach determined to ensure a representative samples of farmers and intervention types, and right “n”
Criteria identified along which farmers evaluate FOs
Mechanisms for farmer feedback and other means of evaluation designed:
o surveys of farmers o use of mobile technology
Feedback gathered, synthesized and analyzed
Report card and metrics developed to measure the
Smallholder farmers in every participating FO given a voice in the performance of their organizations
An improving trajectory of feedback from smallholders indicating that their FOs are becoming more effective and member-driven
Partners identified and commissioned FOSCA
An all partner feedback mechanisms developed and communicated
FOSCA & SP
Feedback gathering and synthesis process instituted at FOSCA
Formats and matrices for reporting developed and distributed for use by participating target groups
FOSCA
Feedback analyses procedure developed and applied
FOSCA & SP
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
50
improvement or “upgrading” of FO capabilities
Results of feedback analysis reported and compiled
5.4 Monitor provision of services to FOs
Indicators for FOs performance and impact developed
FOSCA & SP Criteria for FOs evaluation of SPs identified
Mechanism for FO feedback on SPs defined, e.g. post-engagement feedback on SPs (appropriate partner engaged)
Feedback gathered, synthesized and analyzed
Results of feedback analysis compiled into SP report card
Mechanism established for verification of successful and sustained FO application of new capacities (received through SPs)
Every participating FO given a voice in the performance of service providers
An improving trajectory of feedback from FOs indicating that SPs are becoming increasingly “customer oriented”
FO Reporting /feedback mechanisms developed and distributed
FO/SP operations regularly monitored for effective management
New competencies noted and evaluated for up/out scaling
FOSCA
5.5 Monitor the activities of FOSCA through an organized process
Align FOSCA’s implementation tracking guidelines with the M&E of AGRA
Monitor regularly the progress within FOSCA in line with AGRA’s activities roll out
FOSCA & AGRA FOSCA and AGRA M&E approach aligned
Periodic checks on the implementation of the activities conducted regularly
Monitoring matrix actively used to guide implementation of activities
Quantity and quality of evidence on FOSCA impact
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
51
Appendix 6: FOSCA Theory of Change
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
52
Appendix 7a: FOSCA Country Dashboard (2011 – 2013)
Sub-Program Indicator Definition 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013
FOs delivering improved
service to members
Number of FOs whose capacity
performance index (CPI) for supporting
SHFs has improved
Number of target FOs whose CPI has
increased from the baseline 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145
Percentage of SHFs who are satisfied with
the services offered by their FO
Percentage of FO members who score their
FO above 70% in the delivery of services0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 93
Enhance capacity of FOs to
access credit for SHFs
Number of supported FOs accessing
financial services for their members
Number of supported FOs accessing credit
for their members from at least once source 0 0 0 12 0 5 72 103 0 39 387 0 0 0 4 111 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 115 623
Amount of credit in US$ Loan amount borrowed in US$ 0 0 1,900,000 1,190,000 0 47,146 400,000 1,366,917 0 122,000 222,500 0 23,700 0 58,215 151,007 113,207 0 119,000 0 0 0 0 113,207 2,480,215 3,120,270
Improve the capaciy of FOs to
access markets for their
members
Number of supported FOs aggregating their
produce to sell collectively
Number count of FOSCA supported FOs who
are aggregating their members produce for
sell ing to bulk buyers
0 0 0 0 0 0 55 39 0 0 20 0 0 3 30 52 0 64 24 0 0 0 0 3 149 135
Value of sales in US$ Value of aggregated produce by FO 0 170,250 0 0 0 1,981,086 6,058,929 7,431,867 0 104,532 187,409 0 0 0 3,150,461 6,078,856 0 2,515,596 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 11,829,517 15,852,468
Volume of sales Volume (MT) of aggregated produce by FO's 0 950 0 0 0 3,744 15,511 25,998 0 530 1,193 0 0 0 10,201 20,203 0 4,809 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,051 52,089
Number of FOs who have established new
markets for their members
Number of supported FOs who have
established at least two new markets for
their members in the last two years
0 0 40 85 0 0 60 46 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 44 10 28 0 0 0 0 44 110 172
Improve managerial and
institutional capacity of FOs
Number of FOs supported by capacity
building support (specify type of support)
Number of FOs who have been reached by at
least one of capacity building intervention
supported by FOSCA
0 1 0 0 138 244 341 244 0 94 771 0 214 0 706 789 0 0 0 0 0 0 275 0 1,279 2,538
Number of SHFs supported through
capacity building interventions
Number of SHFs reached by at least one
capacity building intervention supported by
FOSCA
0 3,800 846 1,050 340 0 31,394 20,832 0 3,261 12,604 0 8,213 0 15,108 17,538 0 12,373 26,590 0 0 0 4,367 0 63,322 94,994
Membership of FOs
increases
Number of FOs with increased
membership
Number count of FOs targeted by FOSCA
whose membership has increased between
25 and 50%.
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86
Number of FOs whose women membership
has increased
Number count of supported FOs who whose
women membership is greater than 30% of
the total membership
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136
Number of FOs who have set aside some
slots for women in their management
committees
Number of supported FOs who have set
aside at least 2 slots for women in their
management committees
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Number of service providers (SPs)
registered in AGRA SPs database
Number of SPs whose capacity has been
assessed and added into the AGRA SPs
database
0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 158
Number of farmer organizations (FOs)
registered in AGRA FOs database
Number of FOs whose capacity has been
assessed and added into the AGRA FOs
database
0 0 0 254 0 150 147 24 0 0 589 0 143 0 0 314 9 12 21 0 154 189 411 9 348 2,060
Number of FOs receiving services from
FOSCA supported SPs
Number count of FOs receiving at least one
service from FOSCA supported SPs0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85
Total number of knowledge products/items
in the FOSCA knowledge base
Number of newsletters, flyers, thematic
papers, development papers, articles posted
in the AGRA website
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Number of media engagements by FOSCA
staff and grantees
Number of times FOSCA staff and grantees
have engaged the media (mention the media
house and type of enggaement e.g media
brief, meeting coverage etc.)
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79
Number of FOs members who have
participated in knowledge sharing and
learning forums
Number count of stakeholders participating
in FOSCA supported forums0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 5 2 17 5 0 42 0 0 2 18 103
Sub-Sahara AfricaTanzania Zambia Burkina FassoYear GhanaKenya MalawiMali MozambiqueRwanda
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
53
Appendix 7b: FOSCA’s Achievements Data Scorecard (05-11-2014)
2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Number of FOs whose capacity performance index (CPI) scoring a CPI of 70% and above 1 0 0 145 272 417
Number of FOs with increased membership 2 0 17 274 371 662
Number of new members registered by FOs (disaggregate by gender) 3 0 4,016 19,423 20,028 43,467
Number of FOs who have set aside some slots for women in their management committees 4 0 1 29 107 137
Number of supported FOs accessing financial services for their members 5 1 115 886 375 1,377
Amount of credit in US$ 6 113,207 2,480,215 5,539,209 2,053,996 10,186,627
Number of supported FOs aggregating their produce to sell collectively 7 3 149 163 580 895
Volume of sales 8 0 67,951 121,723 71,893 261,567
Value of sales in US$ 9 0 15,561,225 29,409,666 15,915,149 60,886,039
No. of FO supported to Development of business plans 10 0 0 180 125 305
Number of service providers (SPs) registered in AGRA SPs database 11 0 105 53 114 272
Number of farmer organizations (FOs) registered in AGRA FOs database 12 9 348 1,806 705 2,868
# of FOs Trained 13 0 1,535 2,929 1,937 6,401
# of farmers trained 14 0 141,463 180,624 114,112 436,199
Number of FOs receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs 15 0 0 92 49 141
#Indicator nameAggregate
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
54
APPENDIX 8: ANALYSIS OF PROJECT INTERVENTIONS TOWARD ACHIEVEMENT OF FOSCA OBJECTIVES
This appendix presents provides an analysis of each sampled project. Project purpose and objectives
were examined for their alignment with FOSCA’s and AGRA’s objectives, level of achievement of
targets were assessed while grantees were invited to evaluate and comment on relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, knowledge transfer and sustainability of their project.
A summary table of each project is presented and a colour code is associated to the assessment of
the level of achievement toward its target of each indicator.
Agence pour la Promotion de la Petite et Moyenne Entreprise. Agriculture et
Artisanat (APME.2A) (2012 MKT 006) Burkina Faso
The purpose of APME is to increase yields and farmers’ revenue through
adoption of the Fertilizer Microdose Technology. Support from AGRA has
enabled acquisition of post-harvest equipment hence strengthened links
between the suppliers and FBOs; and trainings have strengthened governance
and transparency in the management of FBOs.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
Training sessions were developed to also benefit leaders of local authorities and agents of
Provincial Directorates of Agriculture and Food Security (DPASA) in all intervention for grip
training modules. This arrangement notably allowed a close support and sustainable produce.
The self-assessment of the grantee showed that from the capacity assessment of the selected 600
FOs, 453 FOs were reached; 1,797 members of the Executive Board including 543 women were
trained, 906 members oversight committees including 278 women, 1,278 committee members
marketing FOs were trained including 557 women; 96 members of the management committees
of aggregation centers including 32 women were trained. MTR observed that it was difficult to
determine the specific areas of training for each group.
FOSCA should review with the project on addressing study tours as the level of achievement at
the time of the review was below satisfactory i.e. 50% for the number of study tours and 38% for
number of participants in the study tours.
Farmer groups visited by the MTR in Central West Region - Province of ZIRO - Common Sapouy -
Sector 4 and Sector and Central Plateau - Province Oubritenga - Common LOMBILA and
DAPELOGO showed need for strengthening linkages of Farmer Groups and Service Providers.
As presented in the following table, out of 31 indicators, 14 (45 %) show a level of achievement
above 90 %, while 13 (42 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents
24.7 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
55
Aug 1st 2012 Planned Budget: (USD) MKT $650,000 FOSCA $100,000 GENDER $67,870July 31st 2015 Actual disbursement:(USD)Aug 1st 2012 Remaining disbursement:(USD)
Budget Spent:(USD)
Cumulative
Target (at
end of
project)
Cumulated
Target (at the
time of review)
Cumulative
Actual Value
A B C
1 0.9 0.3 0.1 23.3% 7.8%
2 650
3 5
4 10
5 600 150 152 101.3% 25.3%
6 3,000 1,000 169 16.9% 5.6%
7 10,000 3,000 169 5.6% 1.7%
8 13,000 2,000 899 44.9% 6.9%
9 10 5 10 200.0% 100.0%
1011 13,000 8,000 7,366 92.1% 56.7%
12 600 350 207 59.1% 34.5%
13 13,000 10,236 5,835 57.0% 44.9%
14 150 100 100 100.0% 66.7%
15 50 30 6 20.0% 12.0%
16 50 30 20 66.7% 40.0%
17 60,000 36,000 - 0.0% 0.0%
18 50 30 37 123.3% 74.0%
19 12 6 - 0.0% 0.0%
20 52,000 31,000 - 0.0% 0.0%
21 600 600 600 100.0% 100.0%
22 600 600 600 100.0% 100.0%
23 600 600 600 100.0% 100.0%
24 1,500 900 2,314 257.1% 154.3%
25 3 2 1 50.0% 33.3%
26 150 100 38 38.0% 25.3%
27 600 400 600 150.0% 100.0%
28 50 45 33 73.3% 66.0%
29 50 30 41 136.7% 82.0%
30 9 6 9 150.0% 100.0%
31 9 6 8 133.3% 88.9%
32 1,200 800 1,359 169.9% 113.3%
Project Timeliness Project Budget
Planned Start Date (PSD):Planned Finish Date: 311,011.08
Actual Start Date (ASD): 506,858.92 202,301.40
Progress Achieved:
Number of smallholder farmer groups accessing financial services from financial institutions
Indicators Level of
achievement at
the time of review
(%) (C/B*100%)
Colour code: Total level of
achievement
(C/A*100%)
Change in market sales per household (volume in MT)
% change in post harvest losses in storage - cereals% change in post harvest losses in storage - cowpeaNumber of FBOs with functional marketing committees
Average income of smallholer farmers' incomes
Output IndicatorsNumber of farmers trained on post harvest technologies and post harvest handling
Number of farmers using trading facilities (warehouse receipt systems, contracts)Volume of commodities sold through aggregation (MT)Price spreads between farm gate an the market (%)
Number of FBOs for which the capacity assessment is completed
Number of post harvest technology trainings conductedNumber of farmers trained on quality standardsNumber of demonstartions conducted on postharvest best practicesNumber of FBOs trained on the use and management of postharvest equipmentNumber of matching grants made to FBOs to access post harvest equipmentTotal value of matching grants made to FBOsNumber of private service providers trained in business managementNumber of matching grants made to private service rpovidersTotal value of matching grants made to FBOsNumber of FBOs profiledNumber of FBOs geo-referenced
Number of aggregation centers provided with equipmentNumber of market prospection events organizedNumber of negotiation meetings organizedNumber of marketing committee members trained
Number of executive members trained in governance, leadership & financial management
Number of study tours organizedNumber of participants to the study tourNumber of marketing committees establishedNumber of aggregation centers established
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
56
Concern Universal (2011 MKT 006) Ghana
Concern Universal focuses on low existence of FBOs and strengthening the existing FBOs.
An underlying challenge has been weak linkage between Ministry of Food and
Agriculture and apex farmer associations which precludes an effective consensus for
developing strong FBOs, enhancement of access to quality, demand-driven and income-
enhancing services by small holder farmers.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
The self-assessment of the grantee indicated exceeding the target for beneficiaries mobilized by
20% and achieved approximately 85% of activities and outputs as per the project implementation
plan.
Primarily access to post-harvest services and collective marketing facilitated by the FOs are
meeting the needs of the smallholder farmers. However, these services were indicated as still
inadequate due to further need for aggregation for the groups.
The project targeted to increase (or not reduced in the past 2 years) the membership of 140 FBOs
however this has not been adequately captured in the IPTT. Discussions with smallholder farmers
in Techiman Region (Fiaso Community, Apemkrom, Amoma Nkwanta, and Boasu Farmer Group)
showed that the project has been effective in strengthening Farmer groups however, some groups
especially those in remote areas required more “hand-holding”. For the remaining period Concern
Universal indicated that they will work with the groups especially in the open market.
As presented in the following table, out of 15 indicators, 7 (46.6 %) show a level of achievement
above 90 %, while 5 (33.3 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents
66.2 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
57
Project Budget USD
01/10/2011 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)30/9/2013 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) 519, 710.9101/10/2011 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) 180, 227.09
Budget spent:(USD) 463, 167.37
Planned Target
(at end of project)
Planned
Cummulated
Target (at the time
of review)
Cumulative
Actual value at
time of review
% of
Achievment
at the time
of review
Colour code: % Total
Level of
Achievment
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 200 200 513 256.5% 256.5%
2 10,000 10,000 12,028 120.3% 120.3%
3 70% 70% 75% 107.1% 107.1%
4 70% 70% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
5 30 30 22.5 75.0% 75.0%
6 1,000 1,000 2,003 200.3% 200.3%
7 200 200 463 231.5% 231.5%
8 10,000 10,000 8,840 88.4% 88.4%
9 10 10 13 130.0% 130.0%
10 10,000 10,000 8709 87.1% 87.1%
11 140 140 0 0.0% 0.0%
12 140 140 0 0.0% 0.0%
13 1,785,714.27 1,785,714.27 351,674.85 19.7% 19.7%
14 165 165 198 120.0% 120.0%
15 581,590 581,590 344,500 59.2% 59.2%
BMGF/ RF: $499,938 ; FOSCA: $200,000
Progress Achieved:
Indicators:
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):
Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Date (ASD):
Number of FBOs whose membership has increasedNumber of FBOs whose membership has not reduced in the past 2 years (85% threshold) Value of maize sold collectively by all FBOsNumber of FBOs accessing finance for their membersAmount of credit received by FBOs
Quantity of maize sold collectively by all FBOsNumber of FBOs trained in organizational managementNumber of farmers trained in good post harvest practices Number of storage facilities refurbished and/or equiped Number of farmer trained in marketing and collective action
Total number of FBOs Total membership of all FBOsReduction in Percentage post-harvest losses in maizePercentage of smallholder farmers accessing post harvest servicesPrice per kg received by farmers for produce sold collectivley as percentage of price on open market
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
58
Adventist Development Relief Agency (ADRA) (2012 BBTE 003) Ghana
The Adventist Development Relief Agency INTAPIMP’s intervention model target
strategy is based on development of existing groups and nurturing infant FBOs,
through sensitization and group dynamics. Service providers provide services such as;
tractor services, agro-chemicals, mobile information and financial services to provide
insurance to farmers especially on risk from drought.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
The targeted 200 communities, 196 (98%) communities have been covered by the
second year of the project. The project targeted to work with 400 FBOs and has registered and
worked with 389 (97.25%) FOs made up of 11,404 (114.04%) farmers from the 10,000 (100%)
farmers targeted.
Subsequently, from the ADRA project, 3,000 farmers were receiving direct inputs and
services support through starter support package through an input credit provider. The rest of the
farmers were being linked to agro-input dealers and tractor service provider. The FOs have also
been linked to financial institutions e.g. a tractor service provider linked to Sinappi Aba (Financial
Institution) to access GH¢27,000 to purchase a tractor to service farmers in Central Gonja district
of the project area.
The extent of the target setting was considered to be moderately satisfactory, this is
because the coverage of the targeted group is indicated as being overambitious, but this is being
addressed through collaborations, partnerships and internships programs.
Discussions with SHFs in Tamale Region showed some FBOs still had challenges in
governance structures.
As presented in the following table, out of 41 indicators, 15 (36.6 %) show a level of achievement
above 90 %, while 21 (51.2 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents
3.2 % of the total budget. However, the disbursement represents 69.1 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
59
1st Oct. 2012 Planned Budget: (USD)
30th Sep. 2015 Actual disbursement:(USD)
Dec. 2012 Remaining disbursement:(USD)
Budget Spent:(USD)
Cumulative
Target (at
end of
project)
Cummulated
Target (at the
time of
review)
Cumulative
Actual Value
A B C
150 75 39 52.0% 26.0%
10,000 5,000 5,106 102.1% 51.1%
150 353 235.3%
1 1 170.0%
5,000 4,382 87.6%
400 200 - 0.0% 0.0%
10,000 5,000 10,085 201.7% 100.9%
10,000 200 212 106.0% 2.1%
3,000 2,891 96.4%
84 29 35.1%
300 200 132 66.0% 44.0%
10,000 5,000 10,085 201.7% 100.9%
2,000 1,405 70.3% 3,000 2,891 96.4%
84 10 12.1%
688 319 46.5%
84,400 19,097 22.6%
375,500 163,225 43.5%
400 200 178 89.0% 44.5%
3,000 - 0.0%
5,000 3,099 62.0%
10 5 3 60.0% 30.0%
200 193 96.5%
280 50 24 48.0% 8.6%
300 15 5 33.3% 1.7%
56,042 6,780 - 0.0% 0.0%
10,000 3,000 1,916 63.9% 19.2%
7,500 2,500 3,592 143.7% 47.9%
500 100 23 23.0% 4.6%
50 - 0.0%
100 - 0.0%
5,000 3,099 62.0%
150 - 0.0%
180 - 2 1.1%
400 50 237 474.0% 59.3%
300 100 106 106.0% 35.3%
350 100 148 148.0% 42.3%
400 100 234 234.0% 58.5%
400 100 178 178.0% 44.5%
3,000 2,019 67.3% 400 353 88.3%
Total level of
achievement
(C/A*100%)
Colour code: Level of
achievement
at the time of
review (%)
(C/B*100%)
Number of FBOs benefiting from agricultural extension services
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):
Planned Finish Date:
Actual Start Date (ASD):
Project Budget
BBTE $949,764 FOSCA $100,000
$725,530 (as at 31st March, 2013)
$324,234 (as at 31st March, 2013)
$33,413 (as at 31st March, 2013)
Progress Achieved:
INDICATORS
Number of farmers provided with agro input starter packs
Number of on-farm demonstration plots established
Number of farmers trained in soil health management practices
Number of lead farmers trained in ISFM
% of farmers aware of ISFM technologies
Number of farmers trained in technical BDS
Number of Volunteers Extension Workers trained to backstop the FBOs
Number of farmers selected and organized into FBOs
Number of FBOs trained in group dynamics
Number of farmers using improved seeds
Quantity of improved seeds accessed by farmers
Value of agro-inputs sold by agro input dealers fertilizers
Number of FBOs organized for joint input procurement
Number of storage facilities constructed/rehabilitated
Number of farmers with access to land preparation services
Number of hectares ploughed
Number of farmers accessing agro-inputsQuantity of inputs accessed by farmers / FBOs: Seeds (maize, rice, soybean) in tonnes
Quantity of inputs accessed by farmers / FBOs: Fertilizers in tonnes
Volume of produce processed by FBOs/SMEs (in tons)
Number of farmers linked to processing facilities
Number of farmers accessing harvesting and processing equipment
Number of SMEs /Agro-dealers trained
Number of Community artisans trained in the construction and rehabilitation of storage facilities
Value of agro-inputs sold by agro input dealers seeds (maize, rice, soybean)
Number of FBOs with business plans developed
Number of smallholder farmers with access to storage and processing services
Number of farmers trained in primary processing
Number of Micro-processors and SMEs receiving mentorship
Number of SMEs investing in up-scaling value addition
Number of FBOs linked to aggregators/warehouse operators
Number of new agricultural sector related jobs created
Number of FBOs with skills in credit and financial management
Number of FBOs regularly monitoring their activities to track progress
Number of FBOs that have simple business plans
Number of farmers trained in pre- and post-harvest technologies
Number of SMEs trained in post-harvest handling and grain storage
Number of agro-dealers /SMEs accessing credit
Number of FBOs with access to financing
Number of FBOs with contract and procurement arrangements
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
60
Kenya National Farmers Federation (KENAFF) (2012 FOSCA 001) Kenya
Kenya National Farmers Federation banana project aims at improving income of
Smallholder Banana Growers in Kenya by strengthening the Banana Growers
Association in Kenya (BGAK). BGAK stands as a comparative advantage to the project
as a result of its support from KENFAP. BGAK has revolutionized banana farming with
farmers shifting from coffee farming. Farmers highlighted the marginal involvement
of youth in banana growing as an investment, but are more involved in value addition such as wine
and crisps production.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
The MTR analysis of the IPTT, noted that the planned cumulated target at the time of the review
was missing, thus determining the achievement level is unattainable. Regardless of the planned
target for the entire project is satisfactorily realistic, some of the targets set at the onset of the
project had to be reviewed during the project implementation phase.
Some indicators were added during implementation of the project e.g. % of women in the groups,
which has been difficult to track.
Though the project set up a functional Secretariat, the funding provided for implementing some
of the project activities were underestimated hence limiting the number of beneficiaries. The
setting up of 4 Market Service Centres (MSCs) is one such example where the budget allocated
was not enough to set up even one MSC.
With the limited budget allocated to some of the project activities; it could have been prudent for
the project to focus on lesser number of project areas and beneficiaries to ensure that the
capacities of the SHFs are adequately developed for sustainability purposes.
Membership in the 4 project counties is 88 FOs representing 6,896 smallholder farmers out of the
project target of 8,000 members. The MTR discussions with Cooperatives (Lamina Banana
Growers, Kariga Banana Growers Muyu Banana Growers, Satellite Banana Growers, Kiangugi
Banana Growers and Marketers, Vision Banana Growers and Kiparara Banana Growers and Self
Help Group) indicated the need to improve women participation as well as youth.
For this project, data only enabled the possibility to assess the level of achievement toward the final
target. We therefore considered the two following level of achievement: equal or above 70 % and
below 70 %. Out of 22 indicators, 13 (59 %) show a level of achievement above or equal to 70 %,
while 9 (41 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents 45.6 % of the
total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
61
Project Budget USD
07/01/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)30/6/2014 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) 176,755.00
01/10/2012 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) 123,165.00
Budget spent:(USD) 136,770.00
Planned Target (at
end of project)
Planned
Cummulated
Target (at the time
of review)
Cumulative Actual
value at time of
review
% of Achievment
at the time of
review
Colour code: % Total Level of
Achievment
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 20,012,689.10 16,707,073.10 83.5%
2 119,348.40 91,332.00 76.5%
3 30 22 73.3%
4 800 360 45.0%
5 8 4 50.0%
6 8 4 50.0%
7 800 360 45.0%
8 16 8 50.0%
9 4,500 1,600 35.6%
10 100% 71% 71.0%
11 1 1 100.0%
12 4 4 100.0%
13 5,853 4,865.20 83.1%
14 100% 100% 100.0%
15 1 0 0.0%
16 100 120 120.0%
17 20 20 100.0%
18 5,000 3,445 68.9%
19 8,000 6,896 86.2%
20 1 1 100.0%
21 Number of products BGAK produces targeting members 5,000 4,000 80.0%
22 Number of resource centres established 10 6 60.0%
Number of positions recommended in the BGAK SecretariatNumber of operations covered by the management systems in placeValue of funds mobilized by BGAK in US$A revised BGAK constitutionRevised and re-launched strategic planNumber of leaders trained on leadership and governanceNumber of outreach activities undertaken to increase membership baseNumber of BGAK sub FOs which have at least a third women membershipNumber of new members joining BGAKA database of FOs established
% of target BGAK members reporting improvement in services offered by BGAK
Progress Achieved:
Indicators:
Change in value of sale of bananas by participating FOs Change in volume or quantity of bananas sold through participating FOs bananas in MTNumber of new markets established for BGAK members in target counties.Number of TOTs trained on quality control, packaging, branding and pricingNumber of hardening nurseries establishedNumber of demonstration plots establishedTOTs trained in orchard managementNumber of field days held on appropriate planting materialsNumber of farmers trained on appropriate planting material
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):
Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Date (ASD):
Markets: $299, 920; FOSCA: Technical support
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
62
Institute of Rural Economy (IRE) (2011 SHP 006), Mali
The Institute of Rural Economy targets improvement of productivity of maize-based cropping
systems. The project’s development of loan guarantee scheme with financial institutions, fertilizers
and seed suppliers, and the markets in a strong organized farmer’ clusters has been a positive boost
in adoption of the maize/cowpea cropping system.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
The approach of IRE selection of a specific region establishes the importance of target setting to
ensure sufficient reach of the target group of the project. From a scrutiny of the IPTTs and
technical report by the MTR it is difficult to establish the level of achievement as it seems IRE has
not adequately completed the IPTT. Despite this IRE an increase of market access and better
management of FOs had been observed.
Significant progress was made in production of maize and cowpeas, with an increase of producers
from 656 in 2012 to 3,200 in 2013 and 5,300 in 2014.
As presented in the following table, out of 27 indicators, 7 (25.9 %) show a level of achievement
above 90 %, while 14 (51.9 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents
3.2 % of the total budget. However, the disbursement represents 36.8 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
63
Project Budget USD01/02/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)31/01/2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD)01/06/2012 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD)
Budget spent:(USD)
Planned Target
(at end of
project)
Planned
Cummulated
Target (at the
time of
review)
Cumulative
Actual value
at time of
review
% of
Achievment
at the time
of review
Colour code: % Total
Level of
Achievme
nt
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 70 50 32 64.0% 45.7%
2 50 66 132.0%
3 100 100 100.0%
4 3.125 3 2.23 74.3% 71.4%
5 0.75 0.8 0.33 41.3% 44.0%
67 70 70 28 40.0% 40.0%
8 100
9 160
1011 1875
12 30000 30000 20149 67.2% 67.2%
13 10000 10000 20149 201.5% 201.5%
14 90 90 45 50.0% 50.0%
15 90 90 45 50.0% 50.0%
16 90 90 45 50.0% 50.0%
17 35000 35000 3200 9.1% 9.1%
18 20 20 118 590.0% 590.0%
19 90 90 45 50.0% 50.0%
20 10000 10000 10 0.1% 0.1%
21 3400 3400 4759 140.0% 140.0%
22 3 3 6 200.0% 200.0%
23 30 30 15 50.0% 50.0%
24 60 60 10 16.7% 16.7%
25 40 40 228 570.0% 570.0%
26 3 3 1 33.3% 33.3%
27 40 40 0 0.0% 0.0%
Number of farmer groups/production clusters establishedNumber of lead farmer trained in group dynamics, financial and general managementNumber of lead farmer trained on ISFMNumber of farmers trained on the use of ISFM technologies
Number of meeting held
Progress Achieved:
Indicators:
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Date (ASD):
SHP 749,049, FOSCA 300,000385736 (as at June 2012)
33556 (as at June 2012)
1049049 (as at June 2012)
Number of meetings of farmers and financial institution heldNumber of farmers groups accessing credit from financial institutions
Number of community seed producer trained
Cow-peas grain yield (T/ha)Cow-peas forage yield (T/ha)Percentage of farmers using improved varieties Amount of NPK use per unit area (Kg/Ha)Amount of Urea use per unit area (Kg/Ha) hybrib
Number of Sensitization meetings held on the importance of farmer aggregationNumber of farmer groups/production clusters receiving KIPNumber of leaflets on ISFM technologies distributedNumber of demonstration plots establishedNumber of radio programs on ISFM producedNumber of exchange visits organized
Amount of NPK use per unit area (Kg/Ha) hybribAmount of Organic manurre use per unit area (Kg/Ha)Number of farmers sensitizedNumber of farmers reached with community based awareness meetings
Proportion of farmers using ISFM technologies (%)Number of villages using ISFM technologiesNumber of extension districts using ISFM technologies Maize yield (T/ha)
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
64
Union des Professionnels Agricoles pour la Commercialisation des Céréales au
Mali (Faso Jigi/Projet d’Appui à la Commercialisation des céréales au Mali
(PACCEM) (2011 MKT 018)
Mali
Union des Professionnels Agricoles pour la Commercialisation des Céréales au
Mali is a union of FOs set up as a collective marketing system to partially address
the marketing issues faced by members. However, farmers are still faced with some
challenges in accessing post-harvest management and processing services for the
grains and shallots. Market demand has become more specific in terms of produce quality and
conditions of delivery but efforts of the project are attracting new clients to the union through visits
and participation in regional events such as fairs.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
The MTR notes the outcome target indicators are understated, this may give an erroneous
achievement at the end of the project, a revision is thus pertinent.
Visits and participation in regional events such as fairs was planned to attract new clients to the
union. However, the progress of field trips was low.
During the interview with the project team, it was stated that in order to track the impact of the
organization’s activities on farmers, a participatory monitoring and evaluation system will be
developed and embedded both at cooperatives and union levels. On-going training of
cooperatives (monitoring) (follow-up and coaching of cooperatives) is performed by field staff
throughout the year.
In order to track the impact of the organization’s activities on farmers, a participatory monitoring
and evaluation system was developed and embedded both at cooperative and union levels. It is
pertinent during project evaluation that the effectiveness of the M&E system is conducted to
determine the impact of the farmer’s organizations primarily on SMFs.
As presented in the following table, out of 36 indicators, 4 (11.1 %) show a level of achievement
above 90 %, while 26 (72.2 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents
37.6 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
65
Project Budget USD04/01/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD) MKT (BMGF/ RF): $ 359, 368; FOSCA (BMGF): $ 150,000
31/3/2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) $ 254, 674Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) $ 254, 694Budget spent:(USD) $ 191, 480.54
Planned
Target (at
end of
project)
Planned
Cummulated
Target (at the
time of
review)
Cumulative
Actual value
at time of
review
% of
Achievment
at the time
of review
Colour code: % Total Level
of
Achievment
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 5%
2 5% 18 16.78 93.2% 33560.0%
3 5% 19 8.62 45.4% 17240.0%
4 5% 19 1.17 6.2% 2340.0%
5 5% 7 5.27 75.3% 10540.0%
6 30% 0.0%
7 3,400 1900 1,019.20 53.6% 30.0%
8 600 350 153.1 43.7% 25.5%
9 12,000 7,000 5,906.80 84.4% 49.2%
10 500 200 0 0.0% 0.0%
11 75% 0 0.0%
12 140 85 20 23.5% 14.3%
13 124 69 20 29.0% 16.1%
14 37 22 13 59.1% 35.1%
15 50 25 5 20.0% 10.0%
16 37 22 2 9.1% 5.4%
17 21 12 0 0.0% 0.0%
18 21 12 0 0.0% 0.0%
19 21 12 0 0.0% 0.0%
20 664 372 80 21.5% 12.0%
21 Le nombre de membres formés sur la gestion des opérations post-récolte 5,600 3,400 1,858 54.6% 33.2%
22 5,277 3,130 1,745 55.8% 33.1%
23 323 270 113 41.9% 35.0%
24 Le nombre de productrices formées sur les techniques de conservation et de transformation de l'échalote 840 420 0 0.0% 0.0%
25 30 18 0 0.0% 0.0%
26 810 408 0 0.0% 0.0%
27 36 24 12 50.0% 33.3%
28 30 20 12 60.0% 40.0%
29 103 53 18 34.0% 17.5%
30 5 3 0 0.0% 0.0%
31 500 250 80 32.0% 16.0%
32 29 29 32 110.3% 110.3%
33 1,826 1,023 270 26.4% 14.8%
34 26 26 20 76.9% 76.9%
35 2,686 2,686 2,018 75.1% 75.1%
36 206 206 215 104.4% 104.4%
Number of members of the management committees trained on their roles and responsibilities
Le nombre d'élus et de personnel formés sur la loi de l'OHADA
Number of members of the management committees trained in management tools for monitoring and evaluation system
Le nombre de formation donné
Le nombre de membre formé
le nombre de coopérative formé
Number of contract signed with customers at regional level
Le nombre de coopérative échalote dotées en équipemnt de transformationLe nombre de découpeuses d’échalote remisLe nombre de séchoirs d’échalote remisLe nombre de membre des comités de gestion formés
HommesFemmes
Hommes
Femmes
Number of technical staff and the marketing committees trained on the trade legislations at UEMOA and ECOWAS level
Number of technical staff and marketing committees trained in regional trade financing tools
Number of cooperatives trained in contracting and negotiation with financial institutions
Le nombre de décortiqueuses de riz remis
Grain Impurity rate at cooperative level - MaizeGrain Impurity rate at cooperative level - % of shallots processed Quantity of produce sold (MT) by the union per year - MilletQuantity of produce sold (MT) by the union per year - SorghumQuantity of produce sold (MT) by the union per year - RiceQuantity of produce sold (MT) by the union per year - Shallot% of committee members using M&E data for decision making Le nombre de comités de gestion mis en placeLe nombre de coopératives céréales dotées en équipements post-récolteLe nombre de batteuse de riz remisLe nombre de batteuse de mil remis
Grain Impurity rate at cooperative level - Sorghum
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Date (ASD):
Progress Achieved:
Indicators:
% of post-haverst losses at storageGrain Impurity rate at cooperative level - RiceGrain Impurity rate at cooperative level - Millet
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
66
Farmers Union of Malawi (FUM) (2011 MKT 005 Malawi
The Farmers Union of Malawi (FUM) (2011 MKT 005) is building the capacity of
farmers through FOs to participate in structured markets. The project highlights
that the need for market infrastructure development is not yet being adequately addressed but has
supported rehabilitation of existing warehousing facilities for farmers and has ensured that SHFs are
organized in FOs for members to effectively engage with other value chain players.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
The project intervention facilitated highly in the rise of the number of members. For instance
Kumbukani has 3,619 members; 2,150 women and 1,469 men with majority is age group
between 30 -50. The main reason for this increase of membership was that opportunity opened
up for farmers to focus on other commodities besides Tobacco.
The IPTT was introduced later in the project lifespan and FUM had to perform some alignments,
thus some indicators lack targets.
As presented in the following table, out of 29 indicators, 6 (20.7 %) show a level of achievement
above 90 %, while 7 (24.1 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents
72.1 % of the total budget.
Project Budget USD
Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) 600,000.00 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) -
Budget spent:(USD) 432,693.00
Planned Target
(at end of
project)
Planned
Cummulated
Target (at the
time of
review)
Cumulative
Actual value
at time of
review
% of
Achievment at
the time of
review
Colour code: % Total Level
of Achievment
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 60 10 21 210.0% 35.0%
2 300 100 57 57.0% 19.0%
3 22,500 7,000 7,815 111.6% 34.7%
4 260 100 0 0.0% 0.0%
5 22,500 7,000 6,145 87.8% 27.3%
6 5
7 0
8 24
9 0
10 0
11 10 3 30.0%
12 40 11 27.5%
13 20 101 505.0%
14 50 15 16 106.7% 32.0%
15 18,000 6,000 28 0.5% 0.2%
16 260 100 47 47.0% 18.1%
17 22,500 7,000 14,665 209.5% 65.2%
18 11 4 5 125.0% 45.5%
19 119,000
20 24
21 3,000
2223
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD): July 1 2011
Planned Finish Date: June 30 2014Actual Start Date (ASD):
Markets $500,00.00, FOSCA & 100,000.00
No. of SHFs selling to structured markets
Progress Achieved:
Indicators:
No. of FO members who have participated in knowledge sharing and learning forumsProportion of Maize lost during pre and post harvesting No. Of Aggregation centres practicing storage techniques to minimize post harvest lossesNo. Of Stores Assessed No. Of Aggregation Centers established
No. Of Staff members/FO leaders trained No. Of Aggregation centres inspected No. Of FOs linked to grain buyers
No. of Fos aggregating
No. Of stores Rehabilitated and Equiped
Value of aggregated commodities sold
No. Of FOs assessed No. Of ToTs Trained No. of Smallholder Farmers Trained No. Of ToTs Trained No. Of Smallholder Farmers Trained
Volume of grains sold through the aggregation centers owned by smallholder farmersNo. Of ToTs trained No. Of smallholder farmers trained No. Of FOs linked to Financial Institutions Amount of funds borrowed (USD)
Volume of grains sold through the aggregation centers owned by smallholder farmers
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
67
MICAIA Foundation (2011 MKT 002) Mozambique
MICAIA Foundation through Eco-MICAIA Limited, extends its activities to provide support to farmer groups and local NGOs. The project principally focuses on maize and legumes, though the private partner is also interested in volumes of other crops including sorghum. The project also works closely with V&M Grain, a leading private company working in the grain trade, engaging with WFP P4P program and other private buyers. The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
On the effectiveness front, MICAIA conducted a capacity needs assessment highlighting the main weaknesses of the FOs as lack of visionary leadership, internal conflicts, weak management, weak culture of collective action, over-dependence on external support (NGO), lack of warehousing facilities, unstructured producer clubs and weak member participation.
While the project was able to report reaching 7,500 farmers out of 14,000 farmers targeted. MICAIA target setting was weak, as they are overestimated with a target of 400 FOs in Manica Province, yet that number of FOs in the region does not exist. Initially, the project started with 3 districts in Manica Province (Manica, Guro and Barue), the targeted FOs was later realised to be unrealistic and an additional province – Sussundanja was included.
To meet the intended achievement the FOs will need to be assisted with approaches that strengthen business negations between buyers and farmers.
As presented in the following table, out of 27 indicators, 3 (11.1 %) show a level of achievement above 90 %, while 13 (48.1 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents 38.4 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
68
Project Budget USD01/06/2011 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)31/05/2014 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD)01/12/2011 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD)
Budget spent:(USD)
Planned
Target (at
end of
project)
Planned
Cummulated
Target (at the
time of
review)
Cumulative
Actual value
at time of
review
% of
Achievment
at the time of
review
Colour code: % Total Level
of
Achievment
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 21,000 10,500 69 0.7% 0.0%
2 4,200 2,100 0 0.0% 0.0%
3 2,400 1,000 0 0.0% 0.0%
4 1,800 800 0 0.0% 0.0%
5 1,400 7,000 269 3.8% 0.0%
6 1,400 75% 4,752 0.0%
7 400 60% 6,061 0.0%
8 400 200 3 1.5% 0.0%
9 120 80 6 7.5% 0.1%
10 27,600
11 2
12 33
13 5
14 4
15 3
16 0.2 0.05 25.0%
17 0.6 0.03 5.0%
18 60% men 45%
women #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
19 0.6 40 6666.7%
20 300 150 50.0%
2114,000
households
supported and
develop family
farm Business
Plan 14 #VALUE! #VALUE!
22 400 100 14 14.0% 0.0%
23 400 100 150 150.0% 0.4%
24 6 1 3 300.0% 50.0%
25 400 400 150 37.5% 0.1%
26 6 1 3 300.0% 50.0%
27 25 25 13 52.0% 2.1%Number of group leaders trained in warehouse systems
Number of Farmer groups trained in family farm business planning by FBFs with support from PEOs
Number of farmer groups and key officials trained in group management Number of groups develop governance structures and tools Number of area cooperatives registered Number of farmer groups trained in postharvest handlingNumber of aggregation centres established with storage equipment
Number of Fos members who have participated in knowledge sharing and learning forumsPercentage change in reported post-harvest losses in storageProportion of farmers using on-farm improved storage systems Proportion of men and women using aggregation centres
Volume of produce sold through aggregation centresNumber of FBF trained
Number of supported Fos aggregating their members produce to sell collectivelyValue of produce soldNumber of supported Fos accessing financial services for their membersAmount of funds US$ borrowedNumber of Fos who have established new markets for their membersNumber of Fos with increased membership (baseline and at the end of the project
Volumes of grains marketed through commercial buyers - BeansVolumes of grains marketed through commercial buyers - G. Nut
Number of households selling grains to commercial buyersProportion of men and proportion of women farmers selling surlpus cropsProportion of men and women farmers participating in group activitiesNumber of groups sign and sell grains though supply contracts
Volumes of grains marketed through commercial buyers - Soy Beans
311,336.43
Progress Achieved:
Indicators:
Volumes of grains marketed through commercial buyers - Maize
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD): Markets 661,763; FOSCA 150,000
Planned Finish Date: 660,330.00
Actual Start Date (ASD): 288,993.57
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
69
SNV (Netherlands Development Organization) (2011 SHP 020) Mozambique
progress on linkages to markets has been slow because of low prices and weak
demand. In addition, the selected project areas, have few existing functioning FOs
- the project has had to start from zero with regards to FO strengthening. There
were few service providers for agricultural extension for food crops. The companies providing
extension services for cash crops were not inclined to consider food crops, as it was considered to be
competing with their main interest.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
Achievement on overall output of the project was to reach 10,000 farmers on ISFM
technology, either rotation or intercropping pigeon pea and maize and supply of pigeon pea (PP)
seed - 7,223 farmers reached in 2 years. The PP marketing season in the target region which was
yet to begin in Tete Province will be a yardstick to evaluate the success of the market linkages
component.
At the start of the project SNV was able to identify 18 FOs in the project area. After
further analysis, it was found that only 7 of the 18 FOs analysed had sufficient potential to
improve.
A major challenge indicated by the grantees in regards to “Associativismo”
(cooperatives) poor popularity with the population of Tete province, because of past experiences
with forced collectivism and as a result individualism and mistrust are high. So far 141 groups
were formed and are in the process of training (of 200 planned; 70 %) with 3,377 members (of
total participants of 4,695; 72%). Looking forward, FOSCA may reconsider focusing on addressing
policies governing “Associativismo” (cooperatives) in Mozambique in order to address strengthen
FOs in Mozambique, this will involve engaging the Policy and Advocacy Program at a more
heightened level to build a strong national policy support system in Mozambique to drive
accelerated and sustained national strengthening FOs. Recommendation ?
The project was supposed to facilitate the access to credit to buy imputes through
Standard Bank (which operates an AGRA backed loan guarantee scheme). In practice, this never
worked as interest rates are prohibitive and collateral requirements high.
The target on maize marketing was dropped as only relatively few farmers would sell
any maize at all. On the other hand, SNV monitored the production of maize, by supervised
harvesting of sampled farmers’ fields (5% of all participating farmers.)
The organisation level of FOs differs substantially between the three target districts.
Angonia has prime agricultural conditions and therefore much more choices of crops available,
while Moatize and parts of Tsangano are more arid and depend on very few cash crops, including
pigeon pea (and cotton). Therefore, the focus of the project is on the latter two districts, while
farmers in Angonia are usually better organised, because they have an economic incentive to do
so. This has heavily influenced the work of organising the FOs.
As presented in the following table, out of 25 indicators, 3 (12 %) show a level of achievement above
90 %, while 10 (40 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents 48.1 %
of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
70
Project Budget USD
01/04/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)31/03/2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) 581,566 (as at 12/11/2013)01/04/2012 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD)
Budget spent:(USD)
Planned
Target (at
end of
project)
Planned
Cummulated
Target (at the
time of
review)
Cumulative
Actual value
at time of
review
% of
Achievment
at the time of
review
Colour code: % Total Level
of
Achievment
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 1
2 20,000 14,400 17202 119.5% 86.0%
3 10,000 7,200 4695 65.2% 47.0%
4 132
5 18 18 25 138.9% 138.9%
6 100,000 72,000 25,310 35.2% 25.3%
789
10 200 60 28 46.7% 14.0%
11 90 60 31 51.7% 34.4%
12 20000 14400 17202 119.5% 86.0%
13 10000 7200 4695 65.2% 47.0%
14 3600 2085 57.9%
15 100 50 0.0% 0.0%
16 15 20 10 50.0% 66.7%
17 7.5 3.75 0.0% 0.0%
18 10000 7200 3377 46.9% 33.8%
19202122232425 Annual rate of lab utilization
218,434 (as at 12/11/2013)
384624.54 (as at 12/11/2013)
Number of soil and plant laboratory technicians trained in soil testing and analysis.How many students have started on their research work? (MSc or PhD)Science knowledge generation (What science related knowledge is being generated from the students’ research work?)Annual amount (kg) of inoculum produced for commercial purposes.Number of MSc. students enrolled in ISFM with AGRA support.Number of PhD students enrolled in ISFM with AGRA support (50% should be female).
Number of target farmers using ISFM practices in their fieldsArea (ha) under Legume Effects of legume-cereal rotations on increasing crop yields Quantity (tones) of legume seed distributed to farmersQuantity of cereal seed (by crop) distributed to farmers Proportion of target farmers belonging to farmer organizations/ cooperatives
Volume of fertilizers sold to farmers in the SHP project areas by A-DYield increases realised from the use of fertilisers sold by A-DImpact of enhanced fertiliser use on incomesNumber of farmer associations trained in use of inorganic fertilizers.Number of farm level demonstrations in ISFM established.Number of farmers (M/F) who attend farm level demonstrations, training sessions and field days on ISFM.
Number of farmers (M/F) trained in the use of inorganic fertilizer.Number of farmers (F/M)using inorganic fertilizersNumber of farmers (F/M)using organic fertilizersNumber of extension workers trained.Quantity (tons) of fertilizers distributed to farmers (through demos)
Progress Achieved:
Indicators:
Number of agro-dealer shops established.
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD): SHP 600,000; FOSCA 200,000
Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Date (ASD):
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
71
Catholic Relief Service (CRS) (2012 MKT 009) Niger
Catholic Relief Service is implementing MISOCO project aimed at
strengthening the service provision capacity of POs, to reduce
post-harvest losses of SHFs through improved post-harvest
management and improved marketing of agricultural goods. Recruiting staff workshop,
internalization and guidance was organized by CRS at the location of the project staff leading to a
better understanding of the project objectives, and continuous learning during implementation.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
A close supervision of project beneficiaries was performed through the recruitment and allocation
of land agents at each joint target MISOCO project. There was also regular field monitoring of the
activities by the project team. Partnerships (INRAN, Purdue, federations and technical services) to
implement certain activities on the ground and holding quarterly meetings to share results of the
project also enhanced the reach of FOs.
The formulation of MISOCO project objectives is satisfactory and focused on addressing the
difficulties faced by small producers of FOs in Niger such as low/lack of FO structures, low level of
knowledge on technical post-harvest storage and marketing of agricultural products. In addition,
the joint process of AGRA, CRS and INRAN, facilitated reframing some indicators in the IPTT table
to be more result focused.
The project did not foresee the realization of seed distributions, aggregating groups for FO stock
centers or post-harvest mechanization (introduction of harvesters and mechanical hulling), which
affected MISOCO project in achieving some targets.
Availability of trainers for the planned timeframe was a major challenge for MISOCO.
As presented in the following table, out of 44 indicators, 18 (40.1 %) show a level of achievement
above 90 %, while 25 (56.8 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents
38.4 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
72
Project Timeliness Project Budget USD
Planned Start Date (PSD): October 1, 2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)
Planned Finish Date: September 30, 2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) $619,720
Actual Start Date (ASD): 01/02/2013 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) $244,613
Budget spent:(USD) $331,750
Progress Achieved:
Indicators: Planned Target (at
end of project)
Planned
Cummulated Target
(at the time of
review)
Cumulative
Actual value at
time of review
% of Achievment
at the time of
review
Colour code: % Total Level of
Achievment
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 Number of partner coordination mtgs held 12 8 4 50.0% 33.3%
2 Number of POs created and/or supported 150 150 150 100.0% 100.0%
3 Number of PO members 7,500 7,500 7,944 105.9% 105.9%
4 Number of female members in the PO 3,750 3,750 2,619 69.8% 69.8%
5 Number of POs trained in group dynamics, leadership and good governance 150 150 150 100.0% 100.0%
6 Number of POs member trained in group dynamics, leadership and good governance 600 600 300 50.0% 50.0%
7 Number of female PO members trained in group dynamics, leadership and good governance 120 120 100 83.3% 83.3%
8 Number of male PO members trained in group dynamics, leadership and good governance 180 180 200 111.1% 111.1%
9 Number of PO members who received "restitution" training in group dynamics, leadership and good governance 5,000 5,000 1,341 26.8% 26.8%
10 Number of unions created 30 30 13 43.3% 43.3%
11 Number of staff and partners trained 25 25 - 0.0% 0.0%
12 Number of farmers who attended fairs 162 108 - 0.0% 0.0%
13 Number of community mtgs held 400 300 - 0.0% 0.0%
14 Number of staff and partners trained 26 26 25 96.2% 96.2%
15 Number of female Savings and Internal Lending Community (SILC) groups supported 300 300 143 47.7% 47.7%
16 Number of females accessing savings & loans services through SILC 7,500 7,500 2,903 38.7% 38.7%
17 Number of male farmers accessing savings & loans services through SILC 2,500 1,000 43 4.3% 1.7%
18 Number of POs with business plans 150 150 - 0.0% 0.0%
19 Number of demos conducted 300 250 94 37.6% 31.3%
20 Number of members of OPs reached during the demonstration sessions 15,000 12,000 2,022 16.9% 13.5%
21 Number of members (female) of POs reached during the demonstration sessions 3,900 3,900 583 14.9% 14.9%
22 Number of members (male) of POs reached during the demonstration sessions 8,100 8,100 1,439 17.8% 17.8%
23 Number of POs representatives trained on post-harvest technologies 300 300 300 100.0% 100.0%
24 Number of POs representatives (female) trained on post-harvest technologies 90 90 81 90.0% 90.0%
25 Number of POs representatives (male) trained on post-harvest technologies 210 210 279 132.9% 132.9%
26 Number of partner staff who attend trainings 25 25 20 80.0% 80.0%
27 Number of individual grants disbursed 4,200 2,800 6,812 243.3% 162.2%
28 Number of individual grants disbursed to women 700 700 2,044 292.0% 292.0%
29 Number of institutional grants disbursed 120 80 - 0.0% 0.0%
30 Number of mtgs held between farmers and vendors 6 6 6 100.0% 100.0%
31 Number of women trained in processing technologies for millet and cowpea 300 300 - 0.0% 0.0%
32 Number of commercialization committees (CC) created 150 150 150 100.0% 100.0%
33 Number of POs trained in agricultural marketing 150 150 150 100.0% 100.0%
34 Number of male PO members trained in agricultural marketing 600 600 300 50.0% 50.0%
35 Number of female PO members trained in agricultural marketing 90 90 81 90.0% 90.0%
36 Number of meetings
between POs , IMFs, grain
traders, institutions like 24 16 2 12.5% 8.3%
37 Number of contracts signed 15 7 1 14.3% 6.7%
outcomes43 % of PO that follow at least 3 rules of management 1 1 1 132.9% 116.3%
44 % of POs with access to at
3 basic services (extension,
private sector, community 1 1 1 115.7% 101.3%
45 Number of PO producers
who have access to credit 15,000 3,500 2,160 61.7% 14.4%
46 Average ( %) post harvest
losses 0 0 0 68.0% 56.7%
47 % of PO members who report having used improved post-harvest technologies 1 1 0 41.3% 34.4%
48 % farmers selling produce collectively 0 0
49 % increase in selling price due to higher quality produce (millet, sorghum, cowpea) 0 0.0%
MKT: $ 650,000; FOSCA $100,000, GENDER: $114,333
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
73
Rwanda Development Organization (RDO) (2011 MKT 014) Rwanda
Rwanda Development Organization partnership with Hand in Hand (HH) targets
farmer to increase productivity, improve post-harvest management and
consolidate their marketable commodities to collectively connect with valuable
markets.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
A profiling of 147 cooperatives undertaken considered 113 cooperatives. On the second year, an
update of this profile was conducted and 9 new cooperatives were incorporated into the project
resulting to an overall output achievement of 90% at the time of the review. RDO has reached 122
FOs of the 100 FOs targeted.
A review of the interim reports showed an increase of total membership reaching a number of
21,480 farmers i.e. through 122 farmer organisations.
Some targets especially output targets were underestimated. The underestimation may be related
to the activities under training, in this case was observed to exceed the target, as more
Cooperatives and farmers were trained as compared to the planned number, with limited but with
no effect to the planned budget.
As presented in the following table, out of 38 indicators, 31 (81.6 %) show a level of achievement
above 90 %, while 3 (7.9 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents
66.4 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
74
Project Budget
Dec 1st 2011 Planned Budget: (USD)
Nov 30th 2014 Actual disbursement:(USD)
Remaining disbursement :(USD)
Budget Spent:(USD)
Cumulative
Target (at
end of
project)
Cumulated
Target (at
the time of
review)
Cumulative
Actual Value
A B C
1 50 29 54 186.2 108.02 24,000 16,000 18,180 113.6 75.83 5,955,314 4 30 20 24 120.0 80.05 1 1 2 200.0 200.06 100 100 122 122.0 122.07 20,000 15,000 20,528 136.9 102.68 100 100 122 122.0 122.09 300 300 460 153.3 153.310 100 100 122 122.0 122.011 20,000 12,500 16,548 132.4 82.712 30 20 24 120.0 80.013 4 1 4 400.0 100.014 50 30 55 183.3 110.015 1,398,917 16 7 7 100.017 3 3 100.018 15,000 9,000 21,458 238.4 143.119 20,000 12,500 21,480 171.8 107.420 120 80 475 593.8 395.821 9 6 16 266.7 177.822 28 0 0.42324 1 1 1 100.0 100.025 20,000 15,000 21,408 142.7 107.026 12 8 18 225.0 150.031 20 20 9 45.0 45.032 8 8 9 112.5 112.533 6 6 6 100.0 100.034 16 16 12 75.0 75.035 20 20 20 100.0 100.036 4 4 4 100.0 100.037 50 27 54 200.0 108.038 24,000 16,000 18,180 113.6 75.839 3 2 1 50.0 33.340 6 6 5 83.3 83.341 1 1 1 100.0 100.042 5 2 3 150.0 60.043 1 1 1 100.0 100.0
Number of aggregation centers established
Volume of credits received $Average yield of maize achieved by cooperatives (T)Average yield of beans achieved by cooperatives (T)Number of farmers accessing agricultural inputs
Number of Demonstration Plots establishedNumber of farmer field days conducted on district levelChange in postharvest lossProportion change in annual income from crop salesAssessment on postharvest and storage conditionNumber of farmers trained in PHH
20 small stores rehabilitated
Number of cooperatives selling commodities through aggregation centersAverage volume (MT) of produce collectively sold by cooperativesValue of produce sold (US$)Number of coops accessing funds through warrantageCoop. Profile and UpdateNumber of cooperatives trained in Leadership and Group ManagementNumber of farmers trained in LeadershipNumber of Cooperatives trained in Business Plan and Financial MgtNumber of farmers trained in Business Plan and Financial MgtNumber of Cooperatives trained in Business skills Number of farmers trained in Business skills Number of Coop Linked to financial institutions/warrantageNumber of farmer platforms strengthened Number of FOs accessing credits from banks
Number of farmers trained in ISFM
Number of HH staff involved full time in project management
6 drying yards are rehabilitatedNumber of scales distributedNumber of moisture meters distributedNumber of tarpaulins distributedNumber of coops selling together
Project assistant recruited and manage activities in Nyanza district for HH
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):
Planned Finish Date:
Actual Start Date (ASD):
Progress Achieved:
Output Indicators:
8 big stores rehabilitated
Volume of grain sold jointly by coops (MT)Number of new projects for HH Number of directors trained in management and financial systemsFinancial software installed for HH computers
Colour code: Total level of
achievement
(C/A*100%)
Level of
achievement
at the time of
review (%)
(C/B*100%)
Markets $405,000 FOSCA $52,192 SHP $43,333
424,765 (as at 31st May 2012)
75,760 (as at 31st May 2012)
332,493 (as at 31st May 2012)
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
75
Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative (RWARRI) (2011 MKT 009) Rwanda
RWARRI is focused on building the capacity of cooperatives to increase income through increased production and access to the high value markets. Study tours facilitated by the project enabled cooperative heads engage with policy makers, FIs and other SHFs. Meetings showed that farmers learned from their peers about accessing financial resources to increase production and add value to their produce. Furthermore, the use of TOTs is a very important tool for dissemination of skills and knowledge among big farmer groups. The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
It is observed that the achievement of RWARRI is satisfactory with expected outcomes achieved within the budget and planned target. However, the level of achievement at the time of review for the outcome, % change in household income from crop sales ($) is 47%.
The number of ToTs conducted was highlighted as being smaller in comparison to the large number of cooperative members.
As presented in the following table, out of 26 indicators, 18 (69.2 %) show a level of achievement above 90 %, while 2 (11.1 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents 75.3 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
76
Project Budget1st Dec 2011 Planned Budget: (USD)30th Nov 2014 Actual disbursement:(USD)
Remaining Budget :(USD) Budget Spent:(USD)
Cumulative
Target (at end of
project)
Cumulated
Target (at the
time of review)
Cumulative
Actual Value
A B C
1 3 3 3 120.0% 100.0%
2 2 1 1 100.0% 60.0%
3 70 40 42 105.0% 60.0%
4 37,500 25,000 34,022 136.1% 90.7%
5 5 5 9 180.0% 180.0%
6 70 58 64 110.3% 91.4%
7 728 1,350 642 47.6% 88.2%
8
9 120 90 90 100.0% 75.0%
10 180 180 258 143.3% 143.3%
11 18,000 13,500 19,292 142.9% 107.2%
12 20
13 24
14 38 28 29 103.6% 76.3%
15
16 180 180 193 107.2% 107.2%
17 18,000 13,500 19,292 142.9% 107.2%
18 90 54 60.0%
19 180 180 373 207.2% 207.2%
20 83 83 100.0%
21 20 15 64 426.7% 320.0%
22
23 18,000 13,500 14,614 108.3% 81.2%
24 180 180 283 157.2% 157.2%
25 32 22 5 22.7% 15.6%
26 36 36 55 152.8% 152.8%
27 18,000 13,500 19,292 142.9% 107.2%
Yield per hectare at farm level (Maize) - ha
Proportion/Percentage of farmers using improved seed
Quantity (MT) of grain collectively sold by cooperatives through aggregation centers
% change in postharvest losses
Level of
achievement at the
time of review (%)
(C/B*100%)
Indicators
Yield per hectare at farm level (Beans) - ha
Number of cooperatives collectively selling commodities through aggregation centers
% change in household income from crop sales($)
Colour code:
383931 (as at 30th Nov 2013)79617 (as at 30th Nov 2013)430383 (as at 30th Nov 2013)
Progress Achieved:
Total level of
achievement
(C/A*100%)
Basic quality management equipment (moisture meters, scales) procured and distributed
Number of Members trained on book keeping and business planning
Number of TOTs trained on book keeping and business planning
Stores rehabilitated and equipped
Training store keepers and cooperative members on stock management tools
Train Cooperative members on postharvest handling and quality management
120 on-farm demonstrations on ISFM practices (including soil and water conservation) of beans, soybean
180 TOTs trained on ISFM practices for beans, maize and soybean
ISFM input procured and distributed for use in demonstrations
Cooperative profile and social and gender analysis report
38 Cooperatives are formally registered with RCA
90 Cooperatives have sound governance and administrative structures
180 trainers trained in Cooperative management
90 Cooperatives trained on collective marketing skills
180 ToTs trained on postharvest handling and management
18000 farmers trained in Cooperative management
18,000 farmers trained on ISFM practices for beans, maize and soybean
Co-operatives trained on postharvest handling and management
Aggregation centers established
Markets $405,000 FOSCA $61,667 SHP $43,333 Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Dat (ASD):
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
77
The Network of Farmer Organizations in Tanzania - Mtandao wa Vikundi vya
Wakulima Tanzania (MVIWATA) (2012 FOSCA 002) Tanzania
MVIWATA builds on its experience of empowering SHFs to acquire the requisite capacities to capitalize on untapped opportunities to make Tanzania food self-sufficient and expand to export markets. The project aims to strengthen the capacity of FOs under MVIWATA to facilitate access to improved services and increased income for their members.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
Targets were indicated as overestimated, this is in comparison to the available internal human capacity to work in a large geographical distribution, the field officer end up focusing more on numbers rather than quality. This nonetheless, could have been addressed during the project design and was primarily falls on the grantee to have assigned targets based on a realistic geographic distribution as per the obtainable capacity.
MVIWATA - In regards to events affecting the achievement of the project targets, notably land conflict in Kivomero was one of the issues, this required the collaboration of the land officers and District Commission especially in the participation of meeting with FOs to address land conflicts within specific regions. Internal finance control was difficult and recruitment procedures took long.
As presented in the following table, out of 20 indicators, 7 (35 %) show a level of achievement above 90 %, while 8 (40 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents 40.6 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
78
Project Budget USD 9/1/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD) US$ 600,00008/01/2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) US$ 274,05601/03/2012 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) US$ 325,944
Budget spent:(USD) US$ 243, 741
Planned Target
(at end of
project)
Planned
Cumulated Target
(at the time of
review)
Cumulative Actual
value at time of
review
% of Achievment at
the time of review
Colour code: % Total Level of
Achievment
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 675 N/A N/A #VALUE!
2 10,000 7,300 73.0%
3 1 1 100.0%
4 4 4 4 100.0% 100.0%
5 6 9 15 166.7% 250.0%
6
10,500 8,006 76.2%
7 1 1 100.0%
8 8,000 4,500 3,334 74.1% 41.7%
9 900 600 66.7%
10 10,500 4,854 46.2%
11 85 93 109.4%
12 2,000 885 44.3%
13 588 265 45.1%
14 2,000 1,070 53.5%
15 2,300 1,682 73.1%
16 1 5.45 M 6.18 M
17 360 2,300 1,396 60.7% 387.8%
18 8 5 62.5%
19 4 4 100.0%
20 12 8 4 50.0% 33.3%
No of Demo plot established and maintained
Number count of FO members tried the skills
Number of FOs who have established new markets for their members
Total quantity of produce sourced to new markets sold by MVIWATA FOs on behalf of members (rice and maize)
Number of members accessing credit
Total portfolio of loans advanced to farmers
Number of SACCO members trained
Number of types of communication materials disseminated to members
Number of knowledge sharing and learning forums conducted
Number of project related decisions implemented
Number of SHFs trained on GAP
Progress Achieved:
Indicators:
Percentage increase in Household Income of the targeted SHFs
Number of members receiving market information
Improved capacity of MVIWATA to respond to the needs of its members
Number of project staff recruited
Number of people trained in project management
Total number of active FOs profiled and added in the database of FOs. Full profiling includes name of FO, address, number of members disaggregated by gender,
date of registration and contact detailsBaseline report on Agricultural Practices and Marketing conducted
FO members trained on entrepreneurship and business skills undertaken (Good business models identified and scaled up)
Agricultural production No. of lead farmers participated in ToT
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):Planned Finish Date: Actual Start Date (ASD):
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
79
Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU) (2013 FOSCA
002) Tanzania
(SACAU) seeks to establish and demonstrate the
effectiveness of a Digital Farmer Aggregation Platform
(DFAP) to enable SHFs to create and capture more value
in the agricultural value chain. More specifically, the
platform facilitates the aggregation of fragmented input
demand from smallholder farmers, bulk procurement of critical services and bulk marketing of
outputs. This initiative targets the rice value chain.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
Most output targets have been achieved except for the number of farmers sensitized on the
initiative, number of FOs serving as distribution and collection centres, and number of contracts
signed with off-takers/buyers. The project targeted to reach 4 FOs. This target was exceeded by
100% and now a total of 8 FOs are involved in the project.
The number of FOs benefiting from training was surpassed. However, the target of 4,000 farmers
to be trained was over-estimated. The combined membership levels of FOs involved was less than
4,000. In addition, it would be difficult to train all 4,000 farmers due to a number of factors
including the need for the training to be slow and continuous and put into consideration the
literacy levels.
The project assists farmers to aggregate input requirements and outputs for marketing. Thus far,
farmers were able to purchase inputs at discounted prices.
As presented in the following table, out of 15 indicators, 4 (26.7 %) show a level of achievement
above 90 %, while 11 (73.3 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents
6.2 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
80
Project Budget USD
Sept 1st 2013 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)
31st Oct2014 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) US$ 86,199
Sept 1st 2013 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) US$ 213,801
Budget spent:(USD) US$ 109,710
Planned Target
(at end of
project)
Planned
Cumulated Target
(at the time of
review)
Cumulative
Actual value at
time of review
% of Achievment
at the time of
review
Colour code: % Total Level of
Achievment
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 4 4 8 200.0% 200.0%
2 4,000 2,500 572 22.9% 14.3%
3 4 - 4 100.0%
4 4 3 8 266.7% 200.0%
5 TBD N/A
6 2 2 2 100.0% 100.0%
7 TBD
8 300 300 - 0.0%
9 0 - - 0.0%
10 4 3 - 0.0% 0.0%
11 300 240 0.0% 0.0%
12 TBD TBD
13 TBD TBD
14 TBD TBD
15 300 240 - 0.0% 0.0%
Number of FOs who purchase inputs using the DFAP
% farmers in the FOs who purchased inputs using the DFAP
Quantity of inputs purchased using the DFAP
Volume (MT) of produce sold through the DFAP
Value of produce sold through the DFAP
Percentage of farmers in the FOs who sold their produce using DFAP
Percentage change in FO membership of target Fos
Progress Achieved:
Indicators:
Number of FOs trained
Number of farmers sensitized
Number of FOs serving as distribution and collection centres
Number of contracts signed with input suppliers
Number of FOs receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs (input supplier)
Number of contracts signed with off-takers/buyers
Number of FOs receiving services from FOSCA supported SPs (off-takers)
Number of target farmers satisfied with services provided by Fos
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):
Planned Finish Date:
Actual Start Date (ASD):
1,480,635.00 BMGF; AGRA 300,000.00
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
81
Farmer Organization Support Program (FOSUP) (2011 MKT 005) Zambia
FOSUP proposed initiative complemented the AGRA supported project on scaling up integrated soil
fertility management (ISFM) practices. The relevance of project objectives is satisfactory but is not
addressing the need for market infrastructure development which FUM found to be a key component
in ensuring farmers are able to aggregate produce and linked to structured markets. The project also
supported rehabilitation of existing ware-housing facilities for farmers. The project activities are thus
in line with FUM’s strategic approach in ensuring that SHFs are organised in FOs for them to
effectively engage with other value chain players.
The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
The project reached was above target mainly because of the project approach of working with the
FOs already registered under the ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and those also supported by
other AGRA projects in the region. This significantly reduced time taken of identification, formation
and strengthening of new groups.
The targets were set based on well researched indicators, for example the number of extension
staff in the camp, FOs in each agriculture camp and production levels. The baseline study
undertaken at the start of the project validated the justification of the targets set in the proposal.
Major assumption of FOSUP project was availability of extension staff to backstop in the
identification of FOs in their agricultural camps. Out of the anticipated 65 staff only 15 stationed
were supported by staff in the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock.
As presented in the following table, out of 18 indicators, 10 (55.5 %) show a level of achievement
above 90 %, while 1 (5.6 %) show a level of achievement below 70 %. The budget spent represents
45.6 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
82
Project Budget USD
08/01/2012 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)31/7/2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD) $ 148, 820
08/01/2012 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD) 451,180$
Budget spent:(USD) $ 122, 565
Planned Target
(at end of
project)
Planned
Cummulated
Target (at the
time of
review)
Cumulative
Actual value
at time of
review
% of
Achievment
at the time
of review
Colour code: % Total
Level of
Achievmen
t
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 50% #DIV/0! 0.0%
2 100% 50% 58% 116.0% 58.0%
3 500 200 #DIV/0! 40.0%
4 70,000 210 #DIV/0! 0.3%
5 35% 15% 44% 293.3% 125.7%
6 95% 90% 0% 0.0% 0.0%
7 100% 0% #DIV/0! 0.0%
8 90% 40% 70% 175.0% 77.8%
9 10,000 8,000 9,100 113.8% 91.0%
10 265 165 596 361.2% 224.9%
11 108 90 139 154.4% 128.7%
12 108 108 205 189.8% 189.8%
13 67 67 46 68.7% 68.7%
14 365 165 187 113.3% 51.2%
15 10,000 7,000 5,225 74.6% 52.3%
16 30 20 30 150.0% 100.0%
17 365 200 215 107.5% 58.9%
18 10,000 7,000 5049 72.1% 50.5%
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):
Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Date (ASD):
SHP: $168,993; FOSCA: $100,000
Number of lead farmers trained in water management technologies
Progress Achieved:
Indicators:
Percentage change in smallholder farmers’s incomesProportion of target farmers using water management technologiesNumber of farmers access revolving fund for irrigationAverage value ($) of input credit provided by financial institutions to farmers to purchase irrigation equipment
Proportion of target farmers using irrigation equipment.Rate (%) of input credit repaymentChange in yield (tons) per ha (soybean, cowpeas and maize) Proportion of farm size under legume cultivation Number of farmers who complete training in water management technologies
Establishment of demonstrations to train farmers on conservation farming and irrigation mechanisms.Number of farmers participating in Farmer Field DaysNumber of officers trained in utilization of water management techniquesNumber of farmer organizations (Fos) profiled and registered in AGRA databaseNumber of members in the participating FosNumber of FOs whose women membership has increasedNumber of Fos trained in governance and core businessNumber of SHFs trained in governnace and core business
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
83
African Investment Climate Research (AFRICRES) (2013 FOSCA 001) Regional
AFRICRES seeks to strengthen the capacity of FOs in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) through implementation of a multiplicity of capacity building interventions to be translated to a support system for SHFs thus enabling them to increase income and improve their food security. The project links FOs to service providers offering capacity strengthening interventions including training and development of operational toolkits for FOs, mentoring and coaching, facilitated access to finance, information and input and output markets. The strengthening is further complimented by knowledge sharing and learning platforms and other facilities such as online services to access information to enable FOs and SHFs from different countries to share experiences, successes, challenges and best practice. This is done through forums and online tools such as web-based links. The progress of outcomes and outputs for this project are as outlined below:
The establishment of the Africa Farmer of the Year Award was observed as a major success story throughout Africa. Demonstrating the high extent of improved internal capacity of AFRICRES from the AGRA grant.
The project targets were not meet in the first year of the project as a result of delay in the project implementation plan, but significant progress has been made. Interesting AFRICRES has specific targets on women and youth. This will be an interesting target achievement to monitor.
The intervention model of AFRICRES project for capacity building, in particular training, provision of information and promoting of FOs through awards, seminars and workshops. The document produced by AFRICRES for use by FOs require approval by AGRA before release, a process that takes longer than anticipated thus affecting target achievement. The project began with a scoping phase where capacity assessment of FOs and Service Providers (SPs) was undertaken. A selection criterion for identifying FOs to be supported was developed and a code of standards for SPs set to facilitate selection of SPs to be involved in this project. In both the assessment and the selection phase, AGRA grantees were included so that those that meet the code of standards to serve as SPs were selected, while those that did not would benefit from capacity enhancing interventions.
As presented in the following table, out of 26 indicators, 8 (30.1 %) show a level of achievement
above 90 %. The budget spent represents 3.4 % of the total budget.
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
84
Project Budget USD01/01/2013 Planned Budget as per grant memo: (USD)31/12/2015 Actual disbursement upto date:(USD)01/04/2013 Remaining amount to be disbursed:(USD)
Budget spent:(USD)
Planned
Target (at
end of
project)
Planned
Cummulated
Target (at the
time of
review)
Cumulative
Actual value
at time of
review
% of
Achievment
at the time of
review
Colour code: % Total Level
of
Achievment
A B C C/B*100 C/A*100
1 200 200 244 122.0% 122.0%
2 1 1 n/a
3 200 200 244 122.0% 122.0%
4 50 50 76 152.0% 152.0%
5 1 1 1 100.0% 100.0%
6 1 1 1 100.0% 100.0%
7 160 160 243 151.9% 151.9%
8 1 n/a n/a
9 80 40 n/a
10 80 40 n/a
11 50 20 n/a
12 60 20 n/a
13 n/a n/a
14 >30% n/a n/a
15 >10% n/a n/a
16 >30% n/a n/a
17 >50% 1 1 100.0%
18 1 1 1 100.0% 100.0%
19 6 2 n/a
20 12 4 n/a
21 30 10 n/a
22 6 2 n/a
23 120 40 n/a
24 9 3 n/a
25 15 5 n/a
26 3 1 n/a List of best performersCeremony to present awards
Amount of Loans (US$)More women participating in management committees of target FOs More Youth participating in FO activities Target FOs linked with market service providers
Number of exchange visits conducted
Success stories documented Lessons learned documentedWorking Papers relevant to FO issues producedNumber of FOs who have participated in knowledge sharing and learning forums
FOs meeting the set quality standards for service delivery (standards are to be developed under this project)Checklist for quality standards that FOs would work to achieve in the delivery of services to their membersBest practices emerging from target FOs documented and shared
Level of satisfaction of targeted SHFs (FO members) with services offered by FOsNumber of FOs trained (in leadership, good governance, business management, human resource management etc.)Toolkit document that FOs use to access services by SPs in placeSupported FOs receiving mentoring and coaching Proportion of target FOs accessing financial services
Number of FOs profiledNumber of SPs ProfiledChecklist for FOs to qualify for support developedCode of Standard ReportNumber of FOs whose geo-coordinates available in FOSCA information depository
FOSCA 997,086; Markets 600,000
Planned Finish Date:Actual Start Date (ASD):
60,627.11
Project TimelinessPlanned Start Date (PSD):
Progress Achieved:
Indicators:
Number of active FOs and SPs registered in FOSCA information depositoryFOSCA Information depository available online to stakeholders
90%≥
70%≥ <90%
<70%
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
85
Appendix 9: Summary of Project Reporting
Project
Project/Grantee Technical/Narrative Reports
IPTT
Financial Reports
2013 FOSCA 001 Sep 2013-Feb 2014 Jan-Mar 2014 Mar-Aug 2013
2012 MKT 009 Sep 2013-Feb 2014 Oct-Dec 2013 Sep 2013-Feb 2014
2011 MKT 009 Jun-Nov 2012 Apr-June 2014 Jun-Nov 2013
2011 MKT 014 Dec 2012-May 2013 Oct-Dec 2013 Dec 2011-May 2012
2012 FOSCA 002 Apr 2013-Sep 2013 Jan 2013 - Mar 2013 Oct 2013 - Mar 2014
2013 FOSCA 002 Sep 2013-Feb 2014 Dec 2013-Feb 2014 Sep 2013 - Feb 2014
2011 MKT 005 Jul-Dec 2013 Oct-Dec 2013 Jan-Jun 2013
2012 SHP 002 Aug 2012-Jan 2013 Feb-Apr 2014 Jan-Jul 2013
2011 MKT 006 Apr-Sep 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 Apr-Sep 2013
2012 BBTE 003 Oct 2012-Mar 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 Oct-Dec 2013
2012 MKT 006 Feb-Jul 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 Jul 2012-Jan 2013
2012 FOSCA 001 Jan-Jul 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 Jan-Jun 2013
2011 MKT 018 Jan-Jun 2013 Apr-June 2014 Jul-Dec 2013
2011 SHP 006 Aug-Jan 2013 Jan-Mar 2014 Jan-Jul 2012
2011 MKT 002 Dec 2011-May 2012 Jan-Mar 2014 Dec 2012-May 2013
2011 SHP 020 Apr-Sep 2012 Jan-Mar 2014 Apr-Sep 2013
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
86
Appendix 10: FOSCA Expenditure Report as at 31 August 2014 – estimated BUDGET LINE
BMGF RF IITA SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET UF 2010 UF 2011 UF 2012 BMGF RF IITA UF 2010 UF 2011 UF 2012
Grants Committed 4,142,500 250,000 - 319,659 265,925 1,800,000 6,778,084 5,568,142 300,000 - 319,659 335,209 735,247 7,258,257 (480,173)
Personnel 3,082,707 - 655,904 - - 60,000 3,798,611 1,836,682 - 335,150 - - 59,874 2,231,705 1,566,906
Travel 508,584 30,000 49,995 11,738 18,750 19,668 638,736 334,934 28,862 39,694 11,738 3,511 10,000 428,739 209,997
Consultants 447,553 50,000 423,350 40,000 - 960,903 351,204 42,150 117,290 - - 15,750 526,394 434,509
Other Direct Costs 248,167 94,654 143,478 32,149 16,234 75,187 609,868 315,607 40,329 31,291 32,149 16,936 27,214 463,525 146,343
Indirect Costs 1,264,427 - 127,273 51,935 34,091 195,486 1,673,211 823,207 - 52,342 51,935 35,566 70,757 1,033,807 639,403
Total 9,693,938 424,654 1,400,000 415,481 375,000 2,150,341 14,459,413 9,229,776 411,341 575,767 415,481 391,221 918,842 11,942,428 2,516,985
BUDGETS TOTAL
BUDGET
EXPENDITURE TOTAL
EXPENSES
BUDGET
BALANCE
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
87
Appendix 11: Summary of key enabling factors, internal and external constraints of projects Countries
Key Enabling Factors Key Internal Constraints Key External Constraints
Ghana Training extension workers
Facilitating access to services
Links established between FOs, service providers and off-takers
Capacities of SHFs & FOs enhanced
Partnerships with government & NGOs
High staff turnover
Internal power struggles
Concept quality still unpopular
Slow rate of adoption of technology
Poor rainfall
Tribal conflicts
Lack of provision of credit
Inadequate SP/off-takers
Un-favorable economic environment
Regional AFOYA promoting success and bringing in sponsorships
Training in partnership with universities
Geo-referencing platform and the information repository developed
Greater involvement and ownership by FOs
Supply-side constraints; not being able to maintain expectations
Lack of additional funds
Lack of interest to update continually
FOs politicizing the project
Zambia Working with NGOs, government, research institutions
Establishment of the FO award encourages farmers to work hard
Revolving fund established with a view to grow it into an innovative financing mechanism supported by the private sector
SHF and FOs linked to a network of agro-dealers and market providers
Limited funding to project activities
Limited support to human resources in terms of remuneration and skills
Shifting policies in AGRA can compromise the long-term results
Climate change
Environmental constraints
Global financing towards market-led development may have the potential to side-line the vulnerable societies in preference for affluent beneficiaries
Mali Capacity building of stakeholders
Establishment of M & E
Implementation of simple management tools
Capitalization and sharing of results (e.g. a documentary)
Creation of cooperatives
Financing difficulties
Low yields
Poor governance of FO
Climatic hazards
Market liberalism
Malawi Farmers engaging buyers
Availability of equipped storage facilities
Well trained FOs
Government extension staff involved in capacity building initiatives
Poorly negotiated contracts
Government policies that impinges on farmers
Mozambique FOs acquire knowledge & information
Links to buyers & financial institutions
Establishment of FO structures
Access of markets & inputs
Training extension officers and TOTs on extension services
Aggregation systems
Training farmers to multiply seed & linked with seed companies
Mistrust among farmers because of incompetency and lack of transparency
Low literacy levels against new technology
Cross cultural challenges
Limited number of extension services
Unavailability of improved seeds in local market
Political challenges
Inflation challenges
Lack of proper infrastructures
Global climatic change
Political and security situation
Low price of PP applied by buyers
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA) Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
88
Kenya Massive recruitment into BGAK and setting up of a functional secretariat and training the staff and board
Tissue culture banana (TCB) nurseries will act as a revenue source to BGAK
TOTs ensure that farmers are continuously trained
Nurseries have been set up and are continuously refilled with seedlings
Low adoption of technologies being exposed to farmers
Conflict of interest among the beneficiaries on Tissue Culture Banana nurseries and demonstration plots
Leadership wrangles among FOS
Climatic effects
Increased county levies on banana marketing
Competition from other sectors such as revival of the coffee sector
Tanzania Established collective marketing
Presence of promoters
Linkages to cooperative banking
The savings made from aggregation
The digital platform brings various players together
More funding of technical training
Institutional arrangements beyond pilot
Cost of software and license
Lack of sufficient number of field officers
Late disbursement of funds
Output/ commodity pricing issues
Infrastructure, policy and logistical constraints
Land conflicts
Changes in the weather patterns
Limited access to improved seed
Rwanda Cooperatives dealing with different SPs
Cooperatives capacity was increased
Use of TOTs
Aggregation of produce
Link to financial institutions for credit
Leaders with low skills
Insufficient storage facilities
Climate change
Local leaders not committed to sensitize farmers to work together
Burkina Faso Multiplication of seed
Linking to microfinance institutions for access to credit
Capacity of FOs in planning and organizing enhanced
Development of public-private partnership
Triangulation mechanism for accessing inputs and equipment
Links to buyers: contracting for annual deliveries with negotiated prices
Key players have been trained
Low financial resources to subsidize the purchase of post-harvest facilities, rehabilitation of stores and equipment
Misunderstanding by farmers on the issue of prices
Access to finance for FOs to provide financial service to their members is difficult
Instability of prices of agricultural products
Rainfall risk affecting yield of crops
Niger Structuring FOs and their links with producers
Local expert trained
Ownership of post-harvest technology by beneficiaries
SILC raise funds at local level and engage in income-generating activities
Establishment of local management committees within FOs
Establishment of agents/private service providers (AT / PSP) for the monitoring and supervision of SILC
Establishment of the link between producers and local suppliers of inputs; and registered buyers for the collective sale
Not taking into account the proposed staffing of FOs, modern materials, threshing and transportation of agricultural products to reduce post-harvest losses
Not taking into account the project storages, agricultural products of high capacity and meeting conventional standards at the Unions
Failure to consolidate the achievements of project beneficiaries and project partners
The Farmers Organization Support Centre in Africa (FOSCA)
Mid-Term Review (MTR) Report
IDEA International Institute
Nairobi Regional Office, Saachi Plaza,
3rd Floor, Suite 7A,
Arwings Kodhek Road.
www.idea-international.org
Kanjata Road, off Muthangari Drive (off Waiyaki Way) •P.O. Box 66773 •Westlands
00800•Nairobi, Kenya •Switchboard: +254 (20) 3675 000 •Fax: +254 (20) 3750 653
•E-mail: [email protected] • Web: www.agra-alliance.org•