AGRICULTURAL VALUE CHAINS (AVC) PROJECT

Transcription

AGRICULTURAL VALUE
CHAINS (AVC) PROJECT
MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) PLAN
REVISED IN OCTOBER 2014
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development. It was prepared by DAI
AGRICULTURAL VALUE
CHAINS (AVC) PROJECT
MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) PLAN
Activity Title:
Agricultural Value Chains (AVC) Project
Sponsoring USAID Office:
Economic Growth Office
Contract Number:
AID-388-C-13-00003
Contractor:
Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI)
Status:
Final Draft
First Publication:
March 31, 2014
Revised on:
April, 2015
Author:
AVC Monitoring and Evaluation Team
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the
United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... VI
1.
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
PURPOSE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE AVC M&E PLAN ........................................ 1
AVC PROJECT BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 2
AVC LINK TO USAID/BANGLADESH’S CDCS ............................................................... 2
2.
AVC RESULTS FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 4
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
AVC DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS ................................................................................ 5
ASSUMPTIONS AND POTENTIAL RISKS........................................................................... 5
AVC OBJECTIVE .......................................................................................................... 5
SELECTION OF INDICATORS ........................................................................................ 16
3.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
DATA COLLECTION AND COMMUNICATION OF PROGRESS ............................ 17
BASELINE SURVEYS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF TARGETS .............................................. 17
DATA COLLECTION, PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS ........................................................ 18
DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE ....................................................................................... 20
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM ......................................................................... 22
DATA REPORTING AND USE ........................................................................................ 22
4.
AVC M&E ORGANIZATION .................................................................................... 22
5.
EVALUATION OF AVC ............................................................................................ 23
ANNEX A: LIST OF AVC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ............................................................. 24
ANNEX B: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEETS (PIRS) ........................................ 28
ANNEX C: PERFORMANCE DATA TABLE ................................................................................ 67
ANNEX D: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TASK SCHEDULER .................................................. 71
ANNEX E: AVC M&E TOOLS................................................................................................. 72
V
ACRONYMS
ADS
AVC
A2F
BFS
BIHS
BJDMEA
BSA
COP
COR
CDCS
CSV
DAI
DAE
DCA
DCC
DCOP
DO
DQA
FBO
FTE
FTF
FTFMS
FSP
GIS
GPS
GUC
IDQA
IFPRI
IM
IR
LOP
LOPAS
MFI
MOA
MoC
MoU
M&E
NBFI
NUPAS
ODK
PBS
PDT
Automated Directives System
Agricultural Value Chains Project
Access to Finance
Bureau for Food Security
Bangladesh Integrated Household Survey
Jute Diversified Product Manufacturer and Exporters Association
Bangladesh Seed Association
Chief of Party
Contracting Officer’s Representative
Country Development Cooperation Strategy
Comma-separated values
Development Alternatives, Inc.
Department for Agricultural Extension
Development Credit Authority
Dhaka City Corporation
Deputy Chief of Party
Development Objective
Data Quality Assessment
Farmer Based Organization
Full time equivalent
Feed the Future
Feed the Future Monitoring System
Financial Service Providers
Geographical Information Systems
Global Positioning System
Grants under contract
Internal Data Quality Assurance
International Food Policy Research Institute
Implementing Mechanisms
Intermediate Result
Life of Project
Local Organization Pre-Award Survey
Microfinance Institute
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Commerce
Memorandum of Understanding
Monitoring and Evaluation
Non-Banking Financial Institute
Non-U.S. Organization Pre-Award Survey
Open Data Kit
Population-based Survey
Performance Data Table
VI
PIRS
PMP
PPR
PPS
PSU
RiA
RF
SPS
TA
TBD
USAID
USG
VC
WEAI
WOG
ZOI
Performance Indicator Reference Sheets
Performance Management Plan
Performance Plan Report
Probability proportional to size
Primary Sample Units
Required-if-applicable
Results Framework
Standardized Program Structure
Technical Assistance
To be determined
United States Agency for International Development
United States Government
Value Chain
Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index
Whole of Government
Zone of influence
VII
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. PURPOSE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE AVC M&E PLAN
The AVC performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (M&E PLAN) is a strategic tool for monitoring
the performance of the AVC Project and reporting on the progress made toward the achievement of its
target results. The M&E plan includes the project’s development hypothesis, results framework (RF) with
critical assumptions; illustrative interventions, a minimal set of well-defined performance indicators in the
indicator performance reference sheets, a performance data table (PDT) that includes baseline and
expected values for each project year, description of data collection and analysis methods, an evaluation
plan, and a Performance Management Task Schedule that highlights special studies, surveys the project
will undertake in support of a robust M&E system. The M&E Plan folds into the USAID/Bangladesh
Mission Performance Management Plan through Development Objective (DO) 2 (Food Security
Improved) results and related performance indicators.
Performance indicators will be used to measure progress towards targeted Intermediate Results (IRs) and
Sub-IRs, identify shortcomings in project activities, inform decisions to adjust course, and facilitate
communication of results to USAID, counterparts, and other stakeholders. The AVC M&E Plan will rely
upon systematic collection, analysis and reporting of information (quantitative and qualitative).
Information generated from the M&E system will allow project managers to make informed decisions on
the overall management and performance of the project and provide a rationale for any needed changes in
project implementation and/or design.
AVC will train partner staff in relevant data collection methods, and provide associated feedback to
component managers, partners and field implementers. AVC’s M&E system will be coordinated with
ongoing projects in Bangladesh that also contribute to the IRs to ensure similar reporting formats and
robust, methodologically valid and comparable data that can be combined at the highest level to show
multiple projects’ impacts.
The principles governing the AVC M&E Plan are based on USAID Automated Directives System (ADS)
assessing and learning guidance:
1

A tool for self-assessment: This M&E Plan should enable the AVC project and USAID
management teams to systematically collect and analyze performance information to track
progress toward USAID/Bangladesh’s AVC objectives and results.

Plan early for performance management: The foundations of the M&E Plan have been planned
for and developed since the design and issuance of the AVC award. This development has helped
direct data review for performance measures, planning for development of data collection within
project activities, adequate planning across technical offices and within the donor community,
among others.

Alignment with USAID’s strategies and processes: The M&E Plan is developed based on the
USAID/Bangladesh DO 2 (Food Security Improved) Performance Management Plan (PMP)
which reflects the Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and experiences from
previous projects. Planning and regular review of results by indicator will occur on a set schedule
in accordance with USAID requirements.
AVC MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN

Performance-informed decision-making: The M&E Plan should be designed to inform and
influence project decision-making and resource allocation.

Transparency: To increase transparency, data quality assessments (DQAs) will be conducted,
and any known limitations will be documented in the M&E Plan and in DQA reports.
Additionally, results achieved under the project will be realistically attributed to USAID’s DO 2
(Food Security Improved) and, as appropriate, the host country and other donor partners.

Gender: The M&E Plan must capture gender differences under AVC as well as results and impact.

Communication: The M&E Plan should be designed to enable the communication of results
achieved, or not attained, to advance organizational learning and tell the Agency’s story.

Cost Effectiveness: When selecting performance indicators, efforts are made to streamline and
minimize the data collection and reporting burden. Efforts must be made to ensure that only data
useful for decision-making is collected. Data collection for each indicator will be reviewed with
relevant stakeholders. Where applicable, the project will use performance measures that are in
alignment with host country counterparts and other donors.

Participation: Finally, the M&E Plan should be developed in a participatory manner.
USAID/Bangladesh and DAI should play an active and collaborative part in preparing this M&E
Plan. Where appropriate, select stakeholders should be engaged in reviewing elements of the draft
M&E Plan.
1.2. AVC PROJECT BACKGROUND
USAID awarded the AVC Project, contract number AID-388-C-13-00003, to DAI on August 1, 2013.
AVC is a five-year project with a budget of $34,233,348 that will be completed by July 31, 2018.
The anticipated geographic focus for the AVC project is twenty southern districts in Barisal Division
(Barisal, Bhola, Jhalokati, Pirojpur, Barguna, Patuakhali), Dhaka Division (Faridpur, Gopalganj,
Madaripur, Rajbari, Shariatpur), and Khulna Division (Jessore, Jhenaidah, Magura, Narail, Bagerhat,
Khulna, Satkhira, Chuadanga, Meherpur). This area is referred to as both the “targeted” area and “the
Southern Delta of Bangladesh.”
DAI leads the implementation of the AVC project, supported by local implementing partners who are still
to be determined.
1.3. AVC LINK TO USAID/BANGLADESH’S CDCS
The AVC Project is a key intervention under Development Objective 2 of USAID/Bangladesh’s Country
Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). Development Objective 2, “Food Security Improved”, seeks
to increase the volume of food produced by Bangladesh’s small farmers and increase the purchasing
power of the food-insecure poor. DO2 is the flagship DO for the United States Government (USG)’s Feed
the Future (FTF) Strategy and its objective in Bangladesh, “Availability, Access, and Utilization of
Domestically Produced and Nutritious Foods Increased.” USAID AVC will contribute directly to
achievement of the DO2 level Intermediate Result (IR) 2.1,-“Sustainably increase agriculture
productivity” and the sub-IRs entitled, “Enabling environment for policy dialogue at the national and
local level;” and “Strengthen select value chains.” The areas where the AVC project will contribute are
exhibited below:
2
Figure 1: AVC Link to USAID/Bangladesh’s CDCS
DO2: Food Security Improved
2.1-Sustainably increase Agriculture productivity
2.2-Improved access through market systems
Illustrative sub IRs
Enabling environment for policy dialogue at the national and
local level
Diversified higher value and more nutritional crops
Enhance Research and Development
Strengthen selected value chains.
AVC’s contribution at the Feed the Future Intermediate Result areas
IR1: Improved
Agricultural Productivity
IR 2: Expanding Markets
and Trade
IR 3: Increased Investments in
Agriculture and Nutrition-Related
activities
Cross cutting issues: Gender, Youth and innovation
3
Increased Investment
IR 4: Increased Employment
Opportunities in Project-level,
targeted Value Chains
2. AVC RESULTS FRAMEWORK
Figure 2: AVC PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK1
AVC Goal:
IR-1: Sustainable, Diversified
Agricultural Productivity Increased
Sub-IR:-1.1: Utilization of
inputs improved
Sub-IR 1.2: Sustainable,
productivity, enhancing
practices adopted
Sub-IR 1.3: Agricultural
technologies and nutrition
information services
strengthened
Improved food security through strengthened agricultural value chains
IR-2: Agricultural Market
Systems Strengthened
Sub-IR 2.1: Sustainable farmto-market linkages and access
strengthened
IR-3: Innovation and Value Chain
Upgrading Increased
Sub-IR 3.1: Private sector
investment (lead firms et al)
increased
Sub-IR 2.2: Post-harvest
handling and processing
improved
Sub-IR 3.2: Availability of
appropriate services,
technologies & practices
expanded
Sub-IR 2.3: Relationships in
targeted value chains
strengthened
Sub-IR 3.3: Value-added
products, processes
introduced
Sub-IR 2.4: Access to support
services strengthened
Sub-IR 3.4: Private sector
research and development
capacity increased
Sub-IR 2.5: On and off farm
income opportunities
increased
IR-4: Local Capacities and
Systems Strengthened
Sub-IR 4.1: Local
organizations’ capacity
strengthened
Sub-IR 4.2: Local capacity
to support continued
learning enhanced
Sub-IR 3.5: Enabling
environment constraints to
value chain competitiveness
targeted
Cross cutting results: Nutritional practices improved, Gender equity and youth participation enhanced, and Environmental sustainability and resilience
to climate change strengthened
The AVC Results Framework presented here is consistent with the Results Framework presented in the AVC contract with one exception. Whereas the contract included a sub-IR 2.6 "Management
and oversight of USAID infrastructure," it has been excluded here as it only appeared in the Result Framework graphic of the contract, but not the scope of work or description of project results.
1
4
2.1. AVC DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS
The development hypotheses of the AVC project are:
1. Systemic improvements in the selected value chains in the agriculture sector will increase
productivity and profitability
2. Building capacity of value chain actors for improved management and technology will strengthen
agricultural market systems and will increase farm-level productivity, incomes and household
nutrition
3. Innovation and value chain upgrading will increase quality of services, improve management
practices and strengthen linkages with value chain actors which will in turn increase the profitability
and output of commercial agriculture and stimulate employment in associated value chains
4. Support for reform in the selected value chains to improve local capacities and strengthen systems
will provide an enabling environment for sustainable production and economic growth.
2.2. ASSUMPTIONS AND POTENTIAL RISKS
The success of the AVC project will depend on the following critical assumptions:




Natural disasters such as drought, flood, cyclone etc., will not interrupt project interventions
Minimal world economic shocks are in effect during the life of the project
Political stability is maintained within Bangladesh and hartals are infrequent so that staff’s access
to and throughout the AVC target zone is not disrupted
There will be no major disruption from internal or regional conflict
It should be noted that conflict in Bangladesh or in the region will lead to distortions in markets. Conflict
also results in higher prices as risk factors are added to traders’ costs. Potential investors, domestic and
foreign, are reluctant to invest if conflict is an issue in a country or region.
2.3. AVC OBJECTIVE
AVC will achieve broad-based economic growth in Bangladesh enhancing long-term food security in
targeted areas by applying a market systems approach. This sustainable market systems approach will
transform targeted agricultural value chains to increase on and off-farm income at the household level.
The project will target a portfolio of both food and non-food agricultural crops and will address shared
constraints across those agricultural value chains. The project will also address essential support services
that may be lacking in the targeted areas and market systems (for example, access to finance, extension
services, etc.). The project will facilitate growth and upgrading of the agricultural sector as a whole and
maximize value retained (and accompanying income) for the rural poor who participate in it. The
resulting increased access to and availability of diverse, nutritious fruits, vegetables and pulses in local,
regional and national markets will contribute significantly to achieving improved food security in the
Southern Delta of Bangladesh. The project will also increase key investments in value chain innovation
and build capacity of local organizations to ensure that value chain upgrading is private-sector driven and
sustainable in the long term, reflecting USAID’s emphasis on locally-led and implemented development
efforts.
Project Goal: “Improved food security through strengthened agricultural value chains”
5
To achieve this goal, DAI anticipates the following intermediate results will be required:
IR number
Detailed Intermediate Results (IRs)
Intermediate Result 1:
Sustainable, Diversified Agricultural Productivity Increased
Agricultural Market Systems Strengthened
Innovation and Value Chain Upgrading Increased
Crosscutting Elements
Local Capacities and Systems Strengthened
Nutritional practices improved;
Gender integration and youth participation enhanced;
Access to finance, and Environmental sustainability and resilience
to climate change strengthened.
AVC has food value chains and non-food value chains. The food value chains include potatoes, tomatoes,
mangos, groundnuts, pulses (lentils and mungbeans) and an array of summer vegetables. Approximately
200,000 farmers and other stakeholders will be involved in the food value chain process. AVC has also
selected two major sectors under non-food value chains- flowers and natural fibers that include jute and
coir targeting 100,000 beneficiaries in the Southern Delta. The activities under non-food value chains are
to increase the capacity of non-food producers to meet domestic and export markets and enhance the
demand for non-food products in both national and international markets through improved product
quality, diversity, innovative technology, and disseminating information on market trends, prices and
demand.
Intermediate Result (IR) 1: Sustainable, Diversified Agricultural Productivity Increased
Under this IR, AVC will promote increased agricultural productivity through a focus on availability and
adoption of high-quality inputs, dissemination on correct usage of these inputs, increased utilization by
small holder farmers of productivity enhancing practices, and the introduction of new higher value crops.
IR 1 is comprised of three sub-IRs. These include 1) Utilization of inputs improved, 2) Sustainable,
productivity, enhancing practices adopted, and 3) Agricultural technologies and nutrition information
services strengthened
Key interventions in 2015 in IR 1 include:
 Promoting modern farming practices in pulse cultivation by promoting seed priming practices,
especially for dry soils, for 9,600 farmers; facilitating 1,000 farmers’ trainings on modern farming
practices of pulses
 Facilitating skills enhancement training for 1,100 potato farmers and sponsoring contractors; assisting
to establish soil testing facilities targeting contract farmers
 Facilitating establishment of quality regime for summer basket of vegetables by assisting 2,000
farmers’ trainings on modern farming practices of selected summer vegetables; Supporting farmers in
enhancing the span of supply for the selected vegetables by assisting 5,000 farmers to gain better
access to new varieties (early, late, off season and varieties with longer shelf life); supporting capacity
building of the 3,000 farmers on cultivating the newly introduced varieties;
 Facilitating improved orchard management for mango producers by facilitating 1,600 farmers training
on modern mango orchard management; facilitating exposure visits to Chapainababganj/ Rajshahi
mango gardens with intercropping;
 Supporting the introduction of processed varieties of tomatoes with high conversion ratios from fresh
to processed items by working closely with processors and seed companies to identify appropriate
6









varieties; facilitating the introduction of the varieties through seed companies and FBOs; Promoting
perineal farming of tomatoes by assisting to develop crop calendars for preparing crop planning
schedules in the FTF region; facilitating farmers’ training on production of offseason tomato varieties
and assisting in year round production planning; supporting linking producers with high end
consumer outlets
Capacity development of tomato dike farmers in FTF region by conducting a study on efficient uses
of dikes for horticulture farming with special emphasis on winter and summer tomatoes; supporting
skills enhancement training for the dike farmers on dike specific crops; supporting replication of dike
farming in FTF areas not conducting dike farming
Promoting modern farming practices in groundnut cultivation by undertaking promotional campaigns
for using high quality groundnut seeds; assisting 1,500 farmers’ trainings on modern farming
techniques of groundnuts;
Facilitating Jute Diversified Product Manufacturer and Exporters Association (BJDMEA) to organize
workshops on dissemination of information of jute and coir by participation in national and
international stakeholders (1 workshop in 2015 for 35 participants); facilitating BJDMEA to develop
training modules and organize seminars on developing business norms and ethics by involving the
jute and coir stakeholders (1 seminar in 2015 for 35 participants)
Identifying and selecting partners for improved jute cultivation, retting and seed production
technology dissemination; assisting partners to identify resource persons for developing training
modules on improved jute cultivation, good quality fiber production and seed production technology;
facilitating training on improved jute cultivation and retting technology (reach: 10,000 farmers in
2015); patronizing quality jute seed production through partners/entrepreneurs/ NGOs in the Southern
Delta to make available quality seed in the target area (through cutting/ late sowing method). In 2015
will reach 120 farmers
Facilitating partners to develop a documentary on improved retting technology/ procure video on
retting technology from BJRI to display among the farmers (1 documentary for 2015 to cover existing
practices and demonstrate modern technology to the target group); facilitating demonstration of
alternative retting technology through video/ flip chart and live demo. (In 2015, target is 10,000
farmers); assisting partners to develop capacity of input sellers through workshop training with input
selling company (In 2015, 4 workshops for 120 input sellers); facilitating field demonstration and
farmers field days on improved cultivation practice and quality input use through private company
partners (In 2015, 12 for Jessore and 12 for Faridpur region)
Strengthening raw materials procurement management system for coir VC by conducting feasibility
study on raw materials procurement system; assisting entrepreneurs to develop ToR and recruit
consultants/firms for business plan development; assisting consultant to develop business plan for the
company; assisting to get MoU signed with the association;
Helping new farmers enter flower production with extension and training support by supporting
flower association to identify competent consultants to provide farmers training on modern
floriculture practices (Identify 2 consultants in 2015); train 210 farmers
Helping new and current flower farmers to obtain access to quality planting material by jointly
identifying potential varieties and other exotic varieties for introducing in the Southern Delta.
Assisting the flower association in re-introducing new breeds of popular but de-generated varieties (3
new and de-generated varieties will be introduced in 2015 ); assisting BFS to identify potential
private sector nursery owners and tissue culture labs for producing and supplying quality plantings
materials to the farmers and signing MoU (2 private nurseries and 2 tissue culture labs will be
selected in 2015); supporting association in developing and signing MoU with the planting material
suppliers of India/China/Nepal/Netherlands (1 or 2 MoUs will be signed with international planting
materials suppliers in 2015); assisting association in planting materials collection and farmer selection
7


for demonstrating the performance of new planting materials; Cluster demo plot and farmers
selection process will be started in 2015. Nine demo plots will be developed; supporting association
to organize in-country exposure visit for the other target area farmers to observe demonstrated
new/modern technology 75 farmers trained; two in-country visits for 60 farmers; working with
association/consultant to develop promotional materials (leaflet/booklet/video) on new flower
varieties and technology for the farmers; supporting capacity building of existing nursery/tissue
culture labs and linking them with the target floriculture farmers of Southern Delta; introducing
sustainable and appropriate propagation system for tube rose in new area to minimize generation gap
and minimize inbreeding depression 30 farmers oriented; 10 farmers will adopt the technology for
business purposes
Assisting Flower Association in organizing lead farmers to conduct trials of new flower varieties
catering to the high quality market niche that if successfully cultivated could be viable for import
substitution; assisting association to establish demonstration plots to showcase commercially feasible
modern technology and cultivation approaches for carnation, chrysanthemum, and other high value
flowers; supporting association to organize in-country exposure visits for other farmers to observe
modern technology at the demonstration plot; facilitating orientation on importance of soil testing in
flower production for the flower farmers of Southern Delta; developing printed handbook on flower
variety, modern cultivation, irrigation, fertilizer application, crop protection solution, post-harvest
management and marketing
Testing and promoting new flower production technologies by supporting flower association to
develop ToR and recruit individual international/national consultant/firm for assessing needs of
postharvest training for farmers, laborers and traders to identify appropriate and affordable packaging
technology for Bangladeshi farmers/traders and develop and facilitate the training module & manual.
(Train 1,000 famers in 2015); supporting local service providers to develop and distribute costefficient packaging materials for improved flower transport, and educate traders on proper usage of
this packaging technology. (Train 1,000 famers in 2015); introducing special transportation (rack
/chamber) system for carrying flower to wholesale market (conduct 2 discussion meeting/workshop to
identify private sector transport company/investors in 2015); capacity development of flower
association to establish monitoring and evaluation system to ensure flower quality and quantity of
South Delta
Intermediate Result (IR) 2: Agricultural Market Systems Strengthened
Under this IR, AVC will ensure that agricultural markets for diverse, high-value crops function to the
greatest benefit of smallholder farmers in the Southern Delta of Bangladesh by forging and strengthening
relationships between producers and traders, improving post-harvest processing and handing, ensuring
increased access for smallholder farmers to credit and insurance products, and increasing value added
processing, exports and productivity.
IR 2 is comprised of five sub-IRs. These include 1) Sustainable farm-to-market linkages and access
strengthened, 2) Post-harvest handling and processing improved, 3) Relationships in targeted value chains
strengthened, 4) Access to support services strengthened, and 5) On and off farm income opportunities
increased
 Facilitating linkages between sponsor contractors and processors in the Potato VC
8













Promoting the most efficient mode of transport for pulses by conducting feasibility study of using
different modes of transports with special emphasize on water transport for pulses; facilitating linkage
development with the traders and transport operators through meetings and workshops.
Promoting a market for high quality seeds for lentils and mung beans for 9,600 farmers
Facilitating linkage development between Department for Agricultural Extension (DAE) and 3,000
pulse farmers
Assisting sponsor contractor to train relevant staff and 1,000 farmers on improved farming practices,
responsibilities and obligations under contract farming system.
Supporting exposure visit for sponsor entrepreneurs and farmers to get an understanding of successful
contract farming ventures
Promoting organized marketing by assessing and improving the existing status of FBOs in pulses;
supporting enhancing facilities of the collection points; facilitating linkages among 1,000 farmers,
collection points and traders; Organizing farmers day at collection points
Facilitating modernizing pulse processing facilities in the FTF zone by assessing the existing state of
milling machineries; supporting conducting feasibility of setting up modern facilities on commercial
basis; facilitating exposure visits of the millers to efficient models of pulse husking; facilitating
introduction of modern machineries/techniques for pulses milling; assisting to improve pulses
processing facilities
Facilitating setting up a quality regime for the supply chain of processing industry by supporting
processors in acquiring HACCP and other certifications; assisting to build capacity for the workforce
on compliance related issues− food safety, environmental compliance, good labor practice, quality
compliance; supporting processors in establishing traceability and accomplishing compliance in all
nodes of the supply-chain in sustainable manner; assisting linking processors with the international
buyers
Promoting most efficient mode of transport facilitates for potatoes by conducting feasibility study of
using different modes of transport with special emphasis on water transport; facilitating linkage
development with the traders, processors and transport; assisting to develop efficient mode of
transport
Facilitating enhanced access for exporters to air cargo by facilitating conducting a comprehensive
situation analysis on availability of air cargo space, tariff and competitive options; organizing
workshops for sharing analysis with the stakeholders; facilitating holding a dialogue between the air
cargo providers and vegetable exporters; conducting feasibility on alternative cargo options;
Promoting high yielding vegetables seeds among farmers by promoting a market for high quality
vegetables seeds for vegetable farmers
Supporting “safe” branding for dike vegetables by facilitating training for 500 farmers on cultivation
of safe vegetables by educating them on appropriate dosage of pesticides and fertilizers; working
closely with the dike clusters for Promoting Good Agricultural Practices (GAP); facilitating
workshops for assist linkage between dike clusters and super shops for marketing “safe” branded
vegetables among the high end consumers; facilitating trainings on branding of safe vegetables;
facilitating exposure visits in neighboring countries doing safe vegetable branding
Assisting entrepreneurs in sourcing modern machineries and equipment for manufacturing new coir
products and coco pith by conducting feasibility study for assessing suitable tools/machineries for
cluster entrepreneurs/ diversified product entrepreneurs; supporting entrepreneurs to participate in
machineries trade fairs in China (3 participant in 2015; assisting the entrepreneurs to procure modern
and appropriate machineries like coir pith block, felt machine and door mat machine from China and
other countries ( 3 entrepreneur in 2015); assisting to hire technical people to install machineries and
train the workforce
9










Assisting fiber producers in capacity building of cluster based cottage industries; producing coir
products for domestic market
Facilitating setting up a quality regime for mangoes by supporting 500 farmers and orchard workers
training on mango postharvest management including water treatment; assisting entrepreneurs in
establishing mango ripening and preservation facilities in close vicinity of national and regional hubs
(viz Barisal, Dhaka, Khulna); facilitating exposure visits for potential entrepreneurs (ACI, Meena
Bazaar, Agora) for establishing ripening chambers; supporting linking the orchards with reputed
retailers in national market; assisting in establishing ripening chamber to farmers/traders association;
assisting in establishing safe food brand to farmers/traders association
Facilitating improved access to finance for the summer tomato farmers by assisting financial institutes
in developing appropriate loan products for the summer tomato farmers; supporting FBOs for
developing capacities of the loan applicants; facilitating A2F workshops with NBFI, Banks, and
FBOs
Supporting linking dike clusters with the agencies for documentation and certification; facilitating
branding and promotion of the dike tomatoes
Facilitating investment in new shelling facilities and the adoption of new technology in existing
shelling facilities to reduce losses by assessing existing state of shelling facilities; supporting
conducting feasibility of setting up modern facilities on commercial basis; facilitating exposure visits
of the Sheller’s and relevant food processors to efficient model of shelling; facilitating introduction of
modern machineries/techniques for shelling
Facilitating the establishment of commercial drying facilities by facilitating Business Plan
development for establishing commercial drying facilities (Chatal) in the FTF zone; supporting
raising awareness of 1,500 farmers’ and traders on the benefits of proper drying; facilitating linkage
establishment among the drying facility owners and 500 groundnut farmers and traders through
meetings, leaflets and posters; assisting to establish commercial drying facilities
Promoting use of water transport for groundnut transportation from FTF zone to processing clusters
by conducting feasibility study of using water transports for groundnuts transportation, along with the
comparative analysis of other modes of transportation; facilitating linkage development with the
traders and water transport operators through workshops and meetings; assisting to developing
feasible water transport to water transport
Promoting FBOs for organized farming and aggregation by promoting contract farming system;
assessing and improve the existing status of FBOs in groundnuts; supporting enhancing facilities of
the collection points; facilitating linkage among 500 farmers, collection points and traders; Organize
farmers day at collection points; assisting to establishing field pack station
Establishing permanent market place for flower industry in Dhaka by facilitating meeting with flower
association to identify area of activities and lobbying issues (3-4 meetings in 2015); facilitating the
association to form steering committee for lobbying with the relevant government departments
(Forming I steering committee in 2015); supporting steering committee in hiring a team of experts for
designing modes of operandi for the proposed market (Hire expert team in 2015); working closely
with the steering committee in appointing a professional lobbyist. Lobbyist together with
representative of steering committee will meet with Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Ministry of
Commerce (MoC), Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) and
others relevant government authorities (conduct 6 meetings with relevant stakeholders in 2015);
supporting to develop policy papers (develop draft policy papers in 2015); facilitating dialogues with
the stakeholders for building public opinion in favor of market allocation (conduct 1 round table
dialogue in 2015); establishing sales corner for female farmers at
Godkhali/Agargoan/Gangna/Kaligonj and other market places
Linkage development of mango orchard owners with extension and research entities
10













Facilitating better linkage between Department for Agricultural Extension (DAE) and Farmer Based
Organizations (FBOs) in the groundnut VC
Strengthening association horizontal and vertical linkages between and among manufacturers and
exporters in the natural fiber VC by identifying key areas of cooperation and collaboration;
Assisting jute seed importers to establish linkage with renowned jute seed producing and supplying
company in India (Prasad Seed Company Ltd, Hyderabad, India) through buyer-seller meeting. (In
2015 1 buyer seller meeting for 5 importers);
Strengthening linkages with specialized technology providers by brokering relationships between
international firms/consultants with expert knowledge of innovative floriculture production
technologies and associations of producers and traders in the Southern Delta. Strengthen linkages for
improved access to and know-how about cutting edge technologies including poly-vinyl shading,
mulching, drip irrigation equipment and flower-specific fertilizer compounds and other technologies.
( Identify 2 international and national private company/ firms/consultants in 2015) 2 polyvinyl
shading demos; working with national and international technology leaders/private Company to
organize exposure visit for association members (India/China/Nepal/Netherlands/Kenya) to acquire
the firsthand knowledge on cutting edge technologies in modern floriculture.
Supporting responsible post-harvest handing techniques in the potato VC by facilitating skills
enhancement training of 1,100 farmers and the aggregators; assisting to establish field pack stations
Assisting 2,000 farmers’ and traders’ training on postharvest practices;
Promote cost effective post-harvest technology and packaging systems by assisting association in
organizing lead farmers to conduct trials on modern floriculture technology such as ventilated and
temperature controlled greenhouses, mist sprayers, drip irrigation hydroponic production and
fertilization to determine commercial feasibility. (Identify 2 farmers to conduct trial on modern
technology in 2015) 2 Greenhouse construction demos;
facilitating special training for female farmers and workforce on variety specific post-harvest
handling and management ( Train at least 200 female farmers and in 2015);
Introducing and promoting contract farming with private sector processors targeting mung beans
Facilitating contract farming for processing potato varieties by supporting sponsor contractors to
develop alternative modes of operation;
Promoting improved packaging techniques for the vegetables; facilitating strengthening the value
chain as a conduit of information flow, especially for end market opportunities;
Promoting contract farming system for industrial varieties of groundnuts by creating awareness
among 500 groundnut growers and potential contractors on benefits of contract farming; supporting
entrepreneurs in designing a mode of operation for the contract farming system; assisting sponsor
contractors to select potential groundnut farmers; assisting sponsor contractors to train relevant staff
and farmers on improved farming practices, responsibilities and obligations under contract farming
system; supporting exposure visit for sponsor entrepreneurs and farmers to get understanding of
successful contract farming ventures
Supporting jute and coir entrepreneurs to explore end market information of high end jute and coir
diversified products, their contemporary design, quality and market trend and assist SME jute and
coir diversified product manufacturers and Artisan jute and coir diversified product manufacturers in
workforce development by identifying interested companies who would like to explore end market
information on high end jute and coir diversified products; facilitating workshops through
participation of national and international entrepreneurs including designers, buyers/importers,
manufacturers, government agencies and relevant stakeholders (1 Workshop for 35 participants in
2015) ; assisting entrepreneurs to participate in international trade fairs (8 entrepreneurs will
participate in 2015); facilitating exposure visit for the entrepreneurs (1 exposer visit for 8
entrepreneurs in India/ Shrilanka/ Korea and China in 2015)
11


Assisting jute seed importers to introduce custom jute seed production through contract farming/out
growing system in AP, India. through meeting. (In 2015 1 meeting for 2 entrepreneurs);
Supporting contract farming of processing varieties and linking the sponsor contractors with tomato
paste processors
Intermediate Result (IR) 3: Innovation and Value Chain Upgrading Increased
Under this IR, AVC will utilize a Grants under Contract (GUC) mechanism and promote private sector
investment to upgrade targeted value chains and introduce appropriate innovations.
IR 3 is comprised of five sub-IRs. These include 1) Private sector investment (lead firms et al) increased,
2) Availability of appropriate services, technologies & practices expanded, 3) Value added products,
processes introduced, 4) Private sector research and development capacity increased, and 5) Enabling
environment constraints to value chain competitiveness targeted
 Supporting up-grading of cold-storage system for potatoes by supporting capacity development of the
cold storage management and workers on inventory layouts, handling techniques, and temperature
maintenance; assisting cold storage entrepreneurs in introducing new applications
 Introducing a processing variety of mung beans by identifying the right industrial variety of mung
beans, in cooperation with private sector processors, research firms and seed companies
 Supporting 2,000 summer basket of vegetable farmers’ training on meeting export quality
specifications; assisting to establish field pack stations for vegetable crops
 Facilitating the establishment of an one stop service center for jute and jute diversified products by
mapping existing products and services in the sector; identifying priority products/services for
establishing “one stop service center” for JDP producers/entrepreneurs; identifying interested jute
mills for one stop service introduction through workshop/meeting with jute mills; organizing
exposure visit for interested jute millers and JDP entrepreneurs especially in India and China to
observe one stop service models (For 2015, 1 exposer visit in India/ China for 2 jute mill
owners/entrepreneurs); assisting one stop service providers on feasibility study and compliance issues
(Effluent Treatment Plant-ETP) and assist for 1 ETP setup; facilitating participation of entrepreneurs
in machineries fair in China to observe machineries and equipment for developing “one stop service
center”; assisting one stop service providers / entrepreneurs to identify and procure high quality
equipment and machineries that will be suitable for jute industry owners and also assist them to setup
1 lamination machine; facilitating to develop & disseminate promotional materials on “One-stop
service center” and linkage build up with JDP producers
 Supporting private seed entrepreneurs to market high quality seeds and promote modern jute retting
technology and improved jute cultivation methods for quality fiber production by facilitating meeting
with government policy bodies such as Seed Wings, MoA through Bangladesh Seed Association
(BSA) for modifying Import Permit time, Jute seed importation option (Packet seed or bulk seed)
with company brand /logo (3 meetings for 20 participant in 2015);
 Assisting partners to develop MoU with BJRI & BARD for getting continuous support on their
developed technologies;
 Supporting value chain actors to advocate for increased recognition by the government as a priority
sector
 Facilitate developing pragmatic business plans for processors and contractors in the potato VC
 Facilitating exploration of alternate storing techniques for vegetables and horticulture crops
 Assisting to establish field based preservation facilities as pilot in the summer vegetable basket VC
12






Business plan for considering alternate options especially for different duration of processing period
in the tomato VC
Supporting setting up field pack stations in tomato and vegetable clusters
Encouraging the development of 8 cost sharing activities in the Natural Fiber VC such as: 1 ETP
setup, 1 laminating machine setup, 2 coir pith block machine, 1 felt machine, 2 door mat machine, 1
coarse fiber machine
Testing and promoting specialty cold storage for flowers by identifying interested investors for
specialized cold storage establishment ( Identify 2 private company in 2015); developing ToR and
recruit consultant/firm to support investor by developing business plan for sustainable operation and
maintenance of cold storage facility (ies); brokering relationship between cold storage investor and
association, which may result in an MOU for association members to utilize storage facilities;
Supporting cold storage investor and association in disseminating information to raise awareness
about cold storage services and importance for quality maintenance; facilitating exposure visit to
observe cold storage operation and management system internationally; supporting for identify
international expert for feasibility study and establishment of cold storage in Bangladesh;
Encouraging the development of five cost-sharing grant proposals to fund activities such as:
greenhouse construction, innovative packaging, transportation, drip irrigation/misting, new varieties
Possible grants to support value chain upgrading:
 Grant for developing efficient mode of transport to farmers/traders/processors association in
the pulse VC
 Grant for establishing field pack station to Farmers/Traders association in the pulse VC
 Grant for improving pulse processing facilities to millers association
 Grant for establishing soil testing facilities targeting the contract farmers in the potato VC
 Grant for HACCP and relevant compliance certification to processors in the potato VC
 Grant for establishing field pack station to farmers/traders association in the potato VC
 Grant for introducing CIPC system to cold storage association in the potato VC
 Grant for developing efficient mode of transport to traders/farmers/processors association in
the potato VC
 Grant for establishing field pack station to farmers/traders association in the summer
vegetable basket VC
 Grant for establishing field based preservation facilities as pilot to farmers/traders association
in the summer vegetable basket VC
 Grant for establishing ripening chamber to farmers/traders association in the mango VC
 Grant for establishing safe food brand to farmers/traders association in the mango VC
 Grant for establishing field pack station to farmers/traders association in the tomato VC
 Grant for establishing commercial drying facilities to farmers/traders association in the
groundnut VC
 Grant for developing feasible water transport to water transport association/trader/processors
in the groundnut VC
 Grant for establishing field pack station to Farmers/Traders association in the groundnut VC
 Grants to promote the volume, profitability, and accessibility of cut flowers
13
Intermediate Result (IR) 4: Local Capacities and Systems Strengthened
Under this IR, AVC will focus on strengthening the capacity of a variety of selected local organizations
working within the AVC value chains, to enable them to continue to receive USAID funding in the future,
to implement agricultural value chain project and activities.
IR 4 is comprised of two sub-IRs. These include 1) Local organizations’ capacity strengthened, 2) Local
capacity to support continued learning enhanced
 Providing support to capacity building activities related to agricultural value chains strengthening
(listed in IR sections above)
 Assisting to hire resource person/institutions for providing targeted training to value chain actors
 Supporting the AVC technical team in capacity building and training initiative
 Continuing to conduct periodically assessment to identify capacity Gaps and training needs across the
value chains and coordinate with sector team to address and further intervention
 Coordinating with technical Team to implement Training and capacity building activities related to
Agricultural Value Chains strengthening
 Local Capacity Development under USAID-Forward by assisting AVC to select Local sub-contractor
to implement capacity building plan; implementation of activities under the Organizational Capacity
Building Plan; overseeing and Monitoring of ongoing Organizational Capacity Building efforts
Cross-Cutting Results
There are three cross-cutting elements within the AVC project that are embedded within the four activity
results described above. These include nutritional practices improved, gender integration and youth
participation enhanced, improved access to finance, and environmental sustainability and resilience to
climate change strengthened.
AVC will integrate nutrition, gender, youth participation, access to finance and environmental resilience
to climate change to ensure sustainable, broad-based growth.
Key interventions in 2015 in cross-cutting initiatives include:
 Expanding professional organizations’ services for females
 Expanding training opportunities for women entrepreneurs involved in the selected sectors
 Facilitating capacity building of female-headed organizations
 Supporting NGOs and value chain enterprises to develop youth workforce training programs
 Developing gender sensitivity training for AVC staffs and selected partner organizations
 Facilitating upgrading gender policy for the partner organizations
 Developing Nutritional Behavior Messages
 Building women’s technical skills to improve their productivity, this in turn will help address the
wage disparity. Incorporating nutrition behavior change and gender empowerment messages in this
training.
 Supporting financial institutions in developing appropriate loan products by organizing and
conducting meetings with Banks & NBFIs and MFIs to get understanding of the available agro-based
financing and value chain financing products; signing MOU with Banks, NBFIs, and MFIs and create
linkage with Development Credit Authority (DCA) partners; organize/facilitate meetings with
stakeholders to develop loan products having cash flow based repayment schedule; arranging
14
























workshops to facilitate dissemination of information regarding the available loan products and their
features
Facilitating and implementing financing solutions for vegetable farmers & traders by organizing
workshop with the farmers and financiers for sharing of knowledge and requirements for developing
and designing effective loan products; facilitating fairs, training sessions and workshops for farmers
on vegetable loan products and payment system; facilitating farmers’ training on loan application
procedures
Promoting Women’s empowerment using the domains included in the Women Empowerment in
Agriculture Index.
Expanding professional organizations’ services for females.
Facilitating women’s involvement in contract farming.
Expanding training opportunities for women entrepreneurs involved in the selected sectors
Expanding training opportunities for women entrepreneurs involved in the selected sectors
Supporting NGOs and value chain enterprises to develop youth workforce training programs.
Developing and deliver gender sensitivity training for AVC staff and selected partner organizations
Facilitating upgrading gender policy for the partner organizations
Promoting ecofriendly jute retting & extraction techniques to reduce environmental degradation
Increasing awareness on safe usage of pesticides through training and promoting safety materials
Promoting usage of safer high quality resins among coir product manufacturers
Increasing awareness on occupational safety measures for the factory workers and owners
Enhancing awareness on safe post-harvest practice
Enhancing farmers’ awareness on appropriate/ balanced use of fertilizer and certified pesticides
through workshops and trainings.
Promoting organic farming practices in addition to IPM & ICM for the farmers
Promoting private sector investment in the agricultural sector
Exploring and identify private sector companies interested for investment in new production
technologies or processing chains
Facilitating linkage between investor and agro product producers and processors through meetings
and workshops
Working with MIS and ICT specialist to explore and implement mobile money technology at farmers,
producers/processors and traders level
Facilitating to develop platforms to receive the loans amount and repay the loan through mobile
money
Providing cost-share grant to third party to facilitate Access to Finance (A2F) fairs for all value chain
stakeholders
Facilitating MFIs with grants to pilot new agricultural loan products
Supporting financial institutions in developing appropriate loan products and facilitate capacity
building of farmers on loan processing by identifying and prioritize potential Financial Service
Providers (FSP) who provides loans (specially for jute and coir diversified products) for the farmers,
entrepreneurs and traders; organizing A2F workshop/fair for jute farmers, jute and coir traders and
entrepreneur to get understanding of the available agro-based financing and value chain financing
products ( 1 fair/workshop in 2015 for targeted farmer, traders and entrepreneur); jointly
organize/facilitate meetings with stakeholders to develop loan products having cash flow based
repayment schedule (1 meeting in 2015); supporting hired consultant to develop training module &
manual on loan application; facilitating jute farmers and coir traders capacity development training on
loan application; jointly arranging/facilitating workshops and training session for capacity building of
15

jute farmers, jute and coir traders and entrepreneur to make them eligible to avail loans from the
banks/ MFIs/Financial Service Providers (FSPs)
Finding and implementing financing solutions for flower farmers by organizing A2F workshop/fair
for floriculture farmers to get understanding of the available agro-based financing and value chain
financing products. (1 fair/workshop in 2015 for targeted farmer, traders and entrepreneur); jointly
organizing/facilitating meetings with stakeholders to develop loan products having cash flow based
repayment schedule (1 meeting in 2015); facilitating farmer capacity development training on loan
application process(1 training for 100 farmer in 1st year, based on their need); supporting hired
consultant to develop training module & manual (one training module will develop in 2015); jointly
arranging workshops and training session for capacity building of the farmers to make them eligible
to avail loans from the banks; (3 workshops or training will organize in 2015)
By achieving these objectives, the project will contribute – directly and indirectly – to all three elements
of improved food security: access, availability, and utilization, while ensuring private sector-driven,
agricultural-led transformation in the targeted area.
2.4. SELECTION OF INDICATORS
In determining appropriate project indicators, the AVC M&E team, in consultation with USAID, program
staff and management, has considered three key documents: the AVC contract, DAI’s winning proposal
and finally, the FTF indicator list. Every effort has been made to consolidate indicators where appropriate,
and keep the number of indicators to a minimum, while maintaining a robust set of multi-level indicators,
appropriate for making management decisions and reporting on project progress.
AVC’s 22 performance indicators include output, outcome and impact indicators that will effectively
measure the project at multiple levels. Currently there are 10 output indicators, 12 outcome indicators.
This mix of performance indicators comprises nine Standard Foreign Assistance (“F”) Performance
indicators (all of which are FTF indicators) and 13 custom indictors.
In addition to the indicators outlined within this M&E plan, there are several nation-wide impact level
indicators that measure the collective work of all implementers working within the FTF initiative in
Bangladesh, and into which ACV work will contribute. AVC will not be directly responsible for
achieving the targets for these indicators but its work over the life of the project will contribute. These
indicators are measured periodically by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) via a
Population-based Survey (PBS) and the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI). Baseline
data collection was conducted in 2011 and 2012. IFPRI will conduct a mid-term and a final survey on
these indicators as directed by USAID.





Women’s dietary diversity increased
Prevalence of stunted children reduced
Percent of wasted children reduced
Prevalence of anemia amongst women and children reduced
Women’s Empowerment Index
16
3. DATA COLLECTION AND COMMUNICATION OF
PROGRESS
3.1. BASELINE SURVEYS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF TARGETS
The AVC baseline survey was conducted in June 2014 (and is expected to be finalized at the end of
October) by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The baseline survey provides data
necessary to set baseline values for several AVC indicators, validate appropriate targets for impact and
outcome indicators, and illustrate the situation in the Southern Delta prior to AVC project
implementation. As directed by the FTF initiative, and specifically the Bureau for Food Security (BFS),
several FTF indicators need to draw their baseline from direct beneficiaries. Since direct beneficiaries
have not yet been identified for AVC, the M&E team will collect these baseline figures as part of the
beneficiary registration process during the first year of actual activity implementation. To this end, the
baselines for these indicators will not be determined until the end of the first year of actual
implementation, in Sep 2015 following the end market report and identified value chains crops.
For the IFPRI baseline survey, a structured approach was used, wherein farm household surveys were
conducted using structured questionnaires for each of the 12 target commodities identified by the Value
Chain Assessment carried out by DAI. These 12 target commodities were chili, onion, coriander, mung
bean, lentil, mango, tomato, ground nut, potato, flowers, jute, and coconut coir. IFPRI has extensive
experience in the design and implementation of similar surveys in Bangladesh and other countries.
The baseline survey used a purposive sampling method for selecting farm households living in the FTF
zone of influence. The sample areas were drawn using data from the National Census of Agriculture 2008
and the Bangladesh Integrated Household Survey (BIHS) conducted by the IFPRI in 2011-2012.
The baseline survey sample consists of a total of 103 Primary Sample Units (PSUs). However since there
were overlaps (that is, more than one target crops were grown in some PSUs), a total of 83 PSUs were
needed for 12 target crops within three divisions, 20 districts, and 120 upazilas of the FTF zone. The
sample design followed a three stage stratified sampling procedure: (1) selection of Upazilas, (2) selection
of PSUs within each Upazila, and (3) selection of households within each PSU.
The sampling process and survey administration included the following steps:
 Identify and list all upazilas in the FTF zone of influence from the Census of Agriculture 2008 (118
out of 120 FTF upazilas were identified).
 Select the upazilas with at least 70 percent of total area under the 12 target crop production. The
number of upazilas varies for each crop, for example, tomatoes achieve 70 percent of concentration
with the top 15 upazilas, while mung beans need the top 53 upazilas to achieve 70 percent of
concentration.
 List all mouzas in the selected upazilas using the 2011 National Population Census data.
 Randomly select 10 mouzas (PSUs) for each target crop with probability proportional to size (PPS)
sampling using the total number of farmers growing each of the 12 target crops, except
17




mango, coconut and cut flower. Purposive sampling was done for mango, coconut, and cut flowers
according to concentration.
Conduct complete census of households in each of the 10 selected mouzas for each of the selected
crop.
List all farm households that cultivated a particular crop in a particular mouza among the 12 target
crops in the 12-month period prior to the survey, then randomly select 20 farm households from
village census list for the particular crop.
Conduct interviews of selected farm households.
The total AVC baseline sample has 1,950 farm households in 200 PSUs. The product specific distribution
of sub-samples is as follows:
Product
Groundnut
Tomatoes
Lentil
Mung beans
Potatoes
Chili
Onion
Coriander
Jute
Coconut coir
Mango
Floriculture
Total
Sample size
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
50
50
50
1,950
For many of the AVC indicators, life of the project (LOP) targets has been outlined in the project contract
and proposal. Based on these contractual targets and implementation plans, annual targets have been
established. For those custom indicators not included in the contract or the proposal, targets have been
established in conjunction with AVC management and technical staff, taking into account plans for
implementation of AVC activities and objectives.
3.2. DATA COLLECTION, PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS
The AVC M&E team will use primary data as the principal source for reporting progress and results
against project indicators. AVC will collect data from primary sources during value chains analysis,
baseline survey implementation, beneficiary registration, quarterly performance monitoring, and annual
survey implementation.
The M&E unit will generate reports on project progress in alignment with USAID reporting requirements.
The diagram below illustrates the key steps of data collection, processing and analysis at AVC, in
addition to the regular day-to-day data quality checks upon project data.
18
Data Collection Tools: Standardized data collection tools are being developed (see Annex E) to
efficiently and effectively collect AVC’s performance data. Detailed guidelines will be developed for
each data collection tool and consolidated within an M&E Operations Manual. The manual will be
updated regularly and on hand for all data collectors as a reference. It will also be used to train AVC staff
in data collection to ensure that those collecting the data understand the steps required, and to ensure the
highest data quality. In the first year, the M&E team will pilot digital tablets as a means of efficient, realtime data collection for the project.
Unique Client Coding numbers: AVC will be using National ID numbers to create a unique coding
system so that each project beneficiary can be tracked throughout the life of the project. This ID number
will be used when registering beneficiaries and for tracking their involvement with the project.
Data Storage: All project data, both hard and soft copies, will be stored at the AVC Dhaka office. For
audit purposes, hard copies of all data collected, both on paper and on tablets will be available for review.
A customized database will be created to maintain project data throughout the life of the project. From
this database, data can be exported to ‘comma-separated values’ (CSV) files, converted to excel and
analyzed as outlined within the Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS). In addition to regularly
scheduled reporting, this database will also allow the project to respond to any ad-hoc requests by
USAID.
Geographical Information Systems (GIS): GIS will be integrated into the collection, management, and
visualization of monitoring and evaluation data for project reporting and near real-time decision-making.
This powerful analysis tool will utilize primary and secondary sources to create maps that can be used by
program staff to make better decisions. A GIS strategy has been developed that provides a more detailed
approach to AVC’s work in this area.
Data quality checks: As illustrated above, there is a multi-layer check on project data starting from data
collection, all the way to final reporting. In addition a data quality protocol is being developed by the
AVC M&E team to document each step of the daily data quality process to ensure uniformity in
implementation.
19
3.3. DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE
The AVC M&E unit has formed an Internal Data Quality Assurance (IDQA) team headed by the COP.
The team will follow the standard USAID DQA
check list and ensure data quality through close
IDQA
monitoring and verifications of supporting
Headed by COP
documents periodically (on a quarterly basis).
The IDQA assessment results will be evaluated
and resulting recommendations will be made to
Organizati
AVC staff to ensure that corrective measures are
onal
Capacity
put into place to ensure a high level of data
M&E
Building
Manager
quality on the AVC project.
Unit +
IDQA Tasks:
 Train data collectors and IDQA team
about study and role and responsibility to
perform the IDQA
 Randomly sample at least 10% of AVC
collected data and check physically with
data source
 Document findings and
corrective action if data
quality concerns arise Share
learning and observations
with survey team and
supervisors
 Implement required
changes, where necessary
 Check to see that changes
have been implemented
Outreach
Unit
Regional M&E staff
Chief of Party (COP)
•Leadership and mentoring
•Results Mangment and
directions for quality control
Organizational Capacity
Building Unit and
Outreach Unit
•Survey observers, field visits
and sharing feedback
•Reporting and lessons learns
•Build capacity
M&E Unit (including
Regional M&E staff)
•Design and Implement study
•Ensure 10% data DQA
•Reporting sumamry findings
and reporting progress
The overall purpose of a DQA is
to ensure that USAID/Bangladesh through AVC is aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the data
collected, as determined by five data quality standards: Validity, Precision, Reliability, Integrity and
Timeliness. DQAs are used to help inform decision-makers on the extent to which the data integrity can
be trusted to influence project management decisions.
USAID DQAs will focus on applying the data quality standards and examining the systems and
approaches for collecting data to determine whether they are likely to produce high quality data over time.
In other words, if the data quality standards are met and the data collection methodology is well designed,
then it is likely that good quality data will result. The DQAs will provide processes, protocols, and
templates addressing how to:
 Assess the design and implementation of the program’s data management and reporting
systems
 Trace and verify (recount) data collection processes and systems of indicator results
 Address the DQA findings and implement recommendations.
20
The AVC data quality assurance team will align with the USAID’s Agency standards for DQAs and will use
the following data quality standards in the management of data collection and reporting processes:
Validity: Data should clearly and adequately represent the intended result.
 Are the people collecting data qualified and properly supervised?
 Are steps taken to identify and correct data errors?
 Are steps being taken to minimize errors such as sampling, transcription, measurement errors
and sample representativeness?
 Has an acceptable level of error been established?
 Are data quality problems clearly described in DQA final reports?
Reliability: Data should reflect stable and consistent data collection processes and analysis methods over
time.
 Is the indicator clearly and objectively defined (see PIRs)
 Is a consistent data collection process used from year to year, location to location, data source
to data source?
 Are there consistent sampling methods or comparable data collection instruments and
procedures in place
 Are data collection and maintenance procedures periodically reviewed and documented in
writing?
Timeliness: Data should be available at a useful frequency, should be current, and should be timely
enough to influence management decision making.
 Is a data collection schedule in place that meets program management needs?
 Are data sufficiently up to date to be useful to the project?
 Is data properly stored and readily available?
Precision: Data have a sufficient level of detail to permit management decision making; e.g. the margin
of error is less than the anticipated change.
 Is there a method for detecting duplicate data?
 Is there a method for detecting missing data?
Integrity: Data collected should have safeguards to minimize the risk of transcription error or data
manipulation.
 Are there proper safeguards in place to prevent unauthorized changes to the data?
 Is there a system in place to provide independent review of data and results reported?
USAID/Bangladesh will conduct periodic Data Quality Assessment to ensure that AVC performance
indicators meet USAID’s data quality standards. DQA’s will be completed within six months of M&E
Plan approval and at least once every three years. The final schedule will be determined in coordination
with the USAID/Bangladesh AOR/COR and the AVC project team.
21
3.4. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
DAI’s proprietary Technical and Administrative Management Information System (TAMIS) will be the
main repository of all project information and activity tracking. A stand-alone, customized database will
be created for robust data analysis and will feed data directly into TAMIS. This database will be created
by a local vendor, with direction and input from the AVC M&E team, and will store all project data,
including data collected via digital tablets. Data from standardized data collection tools will be entered
into the customizable data base by M&E staff.
During the first year of implementation, M&E staff will pilot data collection on smartphones/tablets.
Until all bugs are worked out of the of digital data collection system, a dual paper system will also be in
operation. The M&E team envisions a system of nearly real-time data collection integrating GIS as tools
of Decision Support Systems that can be easily, visualized, validated and maintained by M&E staff.
To collect the data via smart phone or tablet device, Formhub.org will be used. Form-hub is a free online
system that has successfully been used in numerous DAI projects for mobile data collection. It allows
data to be collected on a smartphone using an Open Data Kit (ODK) format that can be developed by the
M&E staff. ODK requires no computer programming experience, simply the ability to edit a Microsoft
Excel document. These data methods can include GPS points, pictures, text, and numbers to name a few.
The data collection process will be completed by program and M&E staff in the field upon completion of
interventions, interactions with partners or beneficiaries, and when collecting data for surveys. All data
are stored and accessible for project staff to view on formhub.org and within the M&E database. Read
only access will be available for program staff.
3.5. DATA REPORTING AND USE
Project data will be reported to USAID primarily via Quarterly and Annual Reports. All data will be
reported in a disaggregated manner, as outlined in the Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) in
Annex-B. Ad-hoc reporting of AVC data will be provided as requested by the project Contracting
Officer’s Representative (COR). In addition, AVC will provide timely reports for USAID’s PPR and
USAID Portfolio Reports, as well as for the Feed the Future Monitoring System (FTFMS).
AVC data will be shared with program and management staff on a quarterly basis in order to review
project performance and make adjustments to implementation plans.
4. AVC M&E ORGANIZATION
The AVC M&E Office is overseen by Wasel Syed, M&E Manager. He will be supported by three staff in
Dhaka, including one Data Management Specialist, one GIS Specialist and one M&E Specialist. AVC
will have three regional offices and each of the offices will have one M&E Specialist/officer.
The M&E Specialists will help to ensure overall data quality, and oversee and provide M&E technical
support. The Data Management Specialist will assist in database maintenance, DQAs, analysis and
reporting. The GIS Specialist will be responsible for setting up the AVC GIS system and assisting with
the GIS related tasks such as map creation for use by program staff. In addition, M&E technical support
and advice will be provided by DAI home office. The M&E team structure is presented below:
22
5. EVALUATION OF AVC
In 2016, at approximately the midpoint of the project, AVC’s annual survey will be conducted by an
external party to ensure complete objectivity of the process. This will serve as an internal mid-term
evaluation and will be supplemented by several smaller ad hoc evaluations around topics relevant to
project and management staff at the time. These smaller evaluations could cover topics such as the
changing roles of women as a result of AVC interventions, adoption rates and reasons of key AVC
promoted technologies, and/or the best crop mix for AVC farmers. Final topics will be chosen closer to
2016.
USAID or its designee will conduct evaluations focused on key implementation issues during the
implementation of the AVC project. Evaluations will be conducted in line with ADS 203 and the USAID
Evaluation Policy of January 2011 and accompanying documents. Such external evaluation(s) may
include a detailed review and analysis of the development hypothesis, cause and effect dynamics, project
organization, management, field work, significant outputs, and the quality and quantity of overall
performance. AVC will ensure sufficient planning for the regular collection of data that may be required
for different types of evaluations, most likely performance evaluations. While monitoring will provide
USAID and AVC with early indications of AVC’s progress, evaluations will provide deeper insight to
help stakeholders achieve the intended results.
USAID will conduct an Impact Evaluation of the AVC project at the end of the project. The evaluation
will be carried out by FEEDBACK project under the Bureau for Food Security (BFS). FEEDBACK is
responsible for the design and implementation of the evaluation, including the baseline, mid-term and
final surveys. USAID will provide guidance and comments to FEEDBACK throughout the process.
The AVC team will work closely with FEEDBACK and USAID as needed, to ensure they have the
information and any data needed from the project for the Impact Evaluation.
23
ANNEX A: LIST OF AVC PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
#
SPS REF. (F)
INDICATOR NAME
TYPE
Contractual
Results
Source
Project Objective: Improved food security through strengthened agricultural value chains
1
Custom
Indicator 1
2
FTF 4.5.2-13
(S)
Percent change in income of
targeted groups
Outcome
AVC supported
farmers/HHs and
other value chain
actors
Project beneficiaries
-
Number of rural households
Output
benefiting directly from USG
interventions
Custom
Number of full time equivalent Outcome
Farmers/HHs and
Indicator 2
jobs created as a result of
other value chain
AVC activities
actors
Intermediate Result 1: Sustainable, Diversified Agricultural Productivity Increased
300,000
4
FTF 4.516,17,18 (RiA)
AVC supported
farmers/HHs
25%
5
Custom
Percent change in yield of
Outcome
AVC supported
Indicator 3
value chain crops per hectare
farmers/HHs
Sub-IR 1.2: Sustainable, productivity, enhancing practices adopted
10%
6
FTF 4.5.2-2
(RiA) (WOG)
Number of hectares under
Outcome
AVC supported
improved technologies or
farmers/HHs
management practices as a
result of USG assistance
Sub-IR 1.3: Agricultural technologies and nutrition information services strengthened
75,000
7
FTF 4.5.27(RiA) (WOG)
Number of individuals who
Output
Trainees
have received USG supported
short-term agricultural sector
productivity or food security
training
Custom
Percent of beneficiaries with
Outcome
AVC supported
Indicator 4
awareness on nutritional diets
farmers/HHs and
receiving nutritional
other value chain
information
actors
Intermediate Result 2 : Agricultural Market Systems Strengthened
300,000
9
FTF 4.5.2-23
(RiA)
Value of incremental sales at
Outcome
AVC supported
farm level attributed to FtF
farmers/HHs
implementation
Sub-IR 2.1: Sustainable farm-to-market linkages and access strengthened
$400 million*
10
Custom
Indicator 5
25,000
3
8
Gross margin per hectare,
animal or cage of selected
product
Sub-IR 1.1: Utilization of inputs improved
Number of independent
producers involved in
organized production and
marketing systems
Outcome
Output
AVC supported
farmers
80,000
-
24
Sub-IR 2.2: Post-harvest handling and processing improved
11
Custom
Percentage point reduction in
Outcome
AVC supported
Indicator 6
post-harvest loss
farmers/HHs
Sub-IR 2.3: Relationships in targeted value chains strengthened
-
12
Custom
Indicator 7
Number of producer groups
Output
supported in value chain
integration activities
Sub-IR 2.4: Access to support services strengthened
Trainees and AVC
supported
farmers/HHs
300
13
FTF 4.5.2-30
(S)
Project beneficiaries/
farmers
-
14
Custom
Outcome
Project beneficiaries
Indicator 8
Intermediary level
Intermediate Result 3: Innovation and Value Chain Upgrading Increased
-
15
FTF 4.5.2-5
(RiA) (WOG)
Number of farmers and others
Outcome
AVC supported
who have applied new
farmers/HHs
technologies or management
practices as a result of USG
assistance
Sub-IR 3.1: Private sector investment (lead firms et al) increased
-
16
FTF 4.5.2-38
(RiA)
17
Custom
Indicator 9
Number of MSMEs, including Output
farmers, receiving USG
assistance to access loans
Sub-IR 2.5: On and off farm income opportunities increased
Value of new private sector
investment in the agriculture
sector or food chain leveraged
by FtF implementation
Number of grants to private
sector organizations
Outcome
Private sector firms
$100 million**
Output
Grant
contracts/MOUs and
program reports
-
Sub-IR 3.2: Availability of appropriate services, technologies & practices expanded
18
Custom
Indicator 10
Number of new technologies
Output
and management practices
introduced for transfer
Sub-IR 3.3: Value added products, processes introduced
Annual performance
survey, season based
survey
5
Same as Ind #14,
disaggregated by type
Sub-IR 3.4: Private sector research and development capacity increased
-
19
Custom
Indicator 11
Percentage adoption of new
Outcome
AVC supported value
and/or innovative services,
chain actors
technology and/or
management practices by
value chain actors
Sub-IR 3.5: Enabling environment constraints to value chain competitiveness targeted
20%
20
Custom
Indicator 12
-
Number of
meeting/dialogue/workshops
Output
Program reports and
attendance records
25
held with relevant partners to
discuss business environment
constraints that impede
economic growth
Intermediate Result 4: Local Capacities and Systems Strengthened
Sub-IR 4.1: Local organizations’ capacity strengthened
21
Custom
Indicator 13
Number of organizations
Output
Program records
eligible to receive direct
funding for value chain
activities
Sub-IR 4.2: Local capacity to support continued learning enhanced
22
FTF 4.5.211(RiA)
(WOG)
3
Number of food security
Output
Implementation
private enterprises (for profit),
records, project
producers organizations, water
records of
users associations, women's
organizations/associa
groups, trade and business
tions and attendance
associations, and communityrecords
based organizations (CBOs)
receiving USG assistance
Cross cutting results: Nutritional awareness increased, Gender equity and youth participation enhanced,
Access to finance and Environmental sustainability and resilience to climate change strengthened
Notes:
Two results, however, disclosed troubling discrepancies. The first was the value of incremental sales at the farm
level. The contract calls for an increase of $400 million. Our measure, however, despite projecting a percent
change in income among targeted groups three times greater than called for in the contract as well as exceeding
every other food security- relevant result, was $121.92 million. We therefore recommend that USAID revise its
incremental value at the farm level to an amount closer to $120 million. Given that AVC is a value chain project,
we request that USAID consider adding a result reflecting the value of incremental sales at retail level, which would
position AVC to meet its original $400 million figure.
The second result disclosed an even larger discrepancy: USAID called for the value of new private sector investment
in the FTF zone to reach $100 million. Even with Kellogg’s new initiative (that we valued at $5 million), there was
no evidence to warrant elevating additional domestic and/or international investment potential much above $21
million. Short of a sea change in production volumes, especially in natural fiber products, there are virtually no
indications of investment of this magnitude moving into the Southern Delta. Accordingly, we request that USAID
reconsider the size of this result.
26
Cross cutting results will be measured through key indicators mentioned above, and by disaggregating
several other project indicators. Specifically through indicator #8, “percent of beneficiaries with
awareness on nutritional diets receiving nutritional information,” indicator #13, “number of MSMEs,
including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access loans,” and sex disaggregated data for indicators:
 1 Percent change in income of targeted groups
 3 Number of full time equivalent jobs created as a result of AVC activities
 4 Gross margin per hectare, animal or cage of selected product
 6 Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG
assistance
 7 Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector
productivity or food security training
 8 Percent of beneficiaries with awareness on nutritional diets receiving nutritional information
 10 Number of independent producers involved in organized production and marketing systems
 11 Percentage point reduction in post-harvest loss
 12 Number of producer groups supported in value chain integration activities
 13 Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access loans
 15 Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as
a result of USG assistance
 17 Number of grants to private sector organizations
 19 Percentage adoption of new and/or innovative services, technology and/or management
practices by value chain actors
27
ANNEX B: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR
REFERENCE SHEETS (PIRS)
28
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet-1
Development Objective 2 Intermediate Result: Food Security Improved
Development Objective 2 Sub-IR: 2.1. Sustainably increase agriculture productivity
Program Objective: Improved food security through strengthened agricultural value chains
Program Intermediate Result : N/A
Name of Indicator: Percent change in income of targeted groups
Classification: Custom Indicator # 1
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This impact indicator measures the change in income of program beneficiaries along the AVC selected value chains.
Targeted groups in this case include farmers and other VC actors such as processors, traders, buyers, input suppliers, transporters, retailers,
and wholesalers. Baseline figures were determined through the AVC Baseline Assessment via a random selection of respondents. AVC’s annual
survey, employing a random selection of AVC beneficiaries, will provide data to determine the change in income of targeted groups.
Calculation: Numerator: Annual income of targeted groups, minus base year income, Denominator: Previous year’s income of targeted
groups.
Unit of Measure: Percent change
Disaggregated by: Sex [male, female], Commodity
Justification & Management Utility: Measures the impact of program activities working to both increase incomes of smallholder farmers
and other value chain actors and contribute to improving overall food security in Bangladesh.
PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID
Data Collection Method: Use of structured questionnaires/surveys via sample survey method of targeted groups working with AVC along value chain
Data Source: AVC supported farmers/HHs and other value chain actors via annual project survey
Frequency and Timing of Data analysis & Reporting: Annually in October 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,2018
Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: A rough estimate of the survey is approximately $150,000
Individual Responsible at USAID: COR
Individual Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: COP and M&E Manager
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of Data Quality Assessments: April 2015
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): TBD
Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: TBD
PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW & REPORTING
Data Analysis and Presentation: Percent change in income of targeted groups by sex, commodity
Data Use: Share progress and results with USAID and project management for effective decision making on interventions
Reporting of Data: Annual Report
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline data will be collected by Sept 2015 via direct AVC beneficiaries along the AVC value chains. The
targets for this indicator are cumulative.
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES
Year
FY 2014
Target
Actual
Notes
0%
FY 2015
7.5%
FY 2016
26.2%
FY 2017
56.1%
FY 2018
75%
LOP
75%
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 10/30/2014
29
Program Intermediate Result: N/A
Name of Indicator: Number of rural households benefiting directly from USG interventions
Classification: Standard Indicator and FTF Indicator # 4.5.2-13 (S)
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s)
Standard Definition: A household is a beneficiary if it contains at least one individual who is a beneficiary. An individual is a direct beneficiary if
s/he comes into direct contact with the set of interventions (goods or services) provided by the activity. The intervention needs to be significant,
meaning that if the individual is merely contacted or touched by an activity through brief attendance at a meeting or gathering, s/he should not be
counted as beneficiary. Individuals who receive training or benefit from activity-supported technical assistance or service provision are considered
direct beneficiaries, as are those who receive a ration or another type of good. (An indirect beneficiary, on the other hand, does not necessarily
have direct contact with the activity but still benefits, such as the population who uses a new road constructed by the activity or the individuals
who hear a radio message but don’t receive any other training or counseling from the activity.) This indicator can include vulnerable households if
they are in rural areas.
AVC Definition: Rural in the Bangladeshi context is considered to be anything outside of the district headquarters. Rural households will benefit
from AVC interventions such as training, technical assistance, linkages to markets, access to finance, grants, new job creation, increased
awareness on nutrition and gender issues, capacity building for example.
Unit of Measure: Number
Disaggregated by:
Duration: new, continuing,
Gendered Household type: Adult Female no Adult Male (FNM), Adult Male no Adult Female (MNF), Male and Female Adults (M&F), Child No Adults (CNA)
Justification & Management Utility: Tracks access and equitable access to services in targeted area. Tracks the rural households which have
been benefitted by AVC interventions. Illustrates the scope of impact of AVC work in Bangladesh by identifying the households with direct
connection to the project.
Data Collection Method: AVC maintains records documenting beneficiary involvement with the project. These include attendance sheets, farmer
registration books, meeting attendance, etc.
Data Source: Project beneficiaries including farmers, processors, traders, input suppliers, transporters, retailers, wholesalers, buying agents or others.
Frequency and Timing of Data analysis & Reporting: Quarterly in October 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,2018
Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: The costs are included in an existing activity or contract/agreement.
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of rural households benefiting directly from USG interventions by duration and gendered household type
Reporting of Data: Quarterly Report
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline is 0. Targets for this indicator are cumulative
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
30,000
FY 2016
105,000
FY 2017
225,000
FY 2018
300,000
LOP
300,000
Notes
30
Development Objective 2 Sub-IR: 2.2. Improved access through market systems
Name of Indicator: Number of full time equivalent jobs created as a result of AVC activities
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definitions: Full time equivalent jobs will be defined as those equal to 260 working days per year for non-agricultural work and 150
days for agricultural production (given the seasonality associated with agricultural work).This will be calculated by taking the total number of
work days and dividing it by 260 or 150, as appropriate. A new job will be attributed to the year in which the job originated. “Created as a result
of AVC activities” includes farming and non-farm jobs where AVC investments were intentional in assisting in any way to expand (or contract)
jobs and where a program objective of the AVC investment was job creation. Data regarding days worked will be tracked via annual surveys
and self-reported information. This will then be extrapolated to the wider AVC population. Off farm jobs could include wholesalers, retailers,
traders, transporters, processors, collectors, input suppliers, extension agents and service suppliers. Currently AVC is working on a jobs
multiplier that will be submitted to USAID upon its finalization for approval.
Calculation: performance period data will be collected each year through a sample survey. Sample performance survey results will be
extrapolated for the population as a whole.
Disaggregated by: Sex of job-holder (male/female); location of job (Urban/rural); on farm vs. off farm;
Justification & Management Utility: This is a direct measure of improved livelihoods, as it measures creation of employment.
Data Source: Farmers/HHs and other value chain actors, such as wholesalers, retailers, transporters, processors, collectors, input suppliers and
service suppliers
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of full time equivalent jobs created as a result of AVC activities by sex of job-holder, urban vs.
rural, new vs. continuing, on-farm vs. off-farm
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline is 0. The targets for this indicator are not cumulative but represent annual targets
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
8,900
FY 2016
22,250
FY 2017
35,600
FY 2018
22,250
LOP
89,000
Notes
31
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet-4a
Program Intermediate Result : Sustainable, diversified agricultural productivity increased
Name of Indicator: Gross margin per hectare, animal or cage of selected product - mung bean
Classification: Standard Indicators and FTF Indicators #s 4.5-16, 4.5-17, 4.5-18 (RiA)
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s):
Standard Definition: The gross margin is the difference between the total value of small-holder production of the agricultural product (crop,
milk, eggs, meat, live animals, fish) and the cost of producing that item, divided by the total number of units in production (hectares of land,
number of animals for milk, eggs; pond area in hectares for pond aquaculture or cage count for open water aquaculture). Gross margin per
hectare, per animal, or per cage, is a measure of net income for that farm/livestock/fisheries-use activity. Gross margin is calculated from five
data points, reported as totals across all IM direct beneficiaries:
1. Total Production by direct beneficiaries during reporting period (TP)
2. Total Value of Sales (USD) by direct beneficiaries during reporting period (VS)
3. Total Quantity (volume) of Sales by direct beneficiaries during reporting period (QS)
4. Total Recurrent Cash Input Costs of direct beneficiaries during reporting period (IC)
5. Total Units of Production: Hectares planted (for crops)for direct beneficiaries during the production period (UP)
Data will be collected disaggregating on the five gross margin data points, disaggregated first by commodity, and then by the FTF sex disaggregate
categories (male, female, joint and association-applied) as applicable. Commodity-sex layered disaggregated data are required because the most
meaningful interpretation and use of gross margin information is at the specific commodity level, including the comparison of gross margins
received by female and male farmers. FTFMS will then use the formula below to automatically calculate the average commodity-specific Gross
Margin, and the average commodity-specific Gross Margin for each sex disaggregate:
Gross margin per ha, per animal, per cage = [(TP x VS/QS) – IC ] / UP
If there is more than one production cycle in the reporting year, farmer’s land area should be counted (and summed) each time it is cultivated,
and the other four data points (Total Production, Value and Quantity of Sales, Recurrent Cash Input Costs) summed across production cycles if
the same crop was planted.
The unit of measure for Total Production (e.g., kilogram, metric ton, liter) must be the same as the unit of measure for Total Quantity of Sales,
so that the average unit value calculated by dividing sales value by sales quantity can be used to value total production (TP x VS/QS). Input costs
included should be those significant cash costs that can be easily ascertained. Most likely cash input cost items are: purchased water, fuel,
electricity, seed, feed or fish meal, fertilizer, pesticides, hired labor, hired enforcement, and hired machine/veterinary services. Capital
investments and depreciation should not be included in cash costs. Unpaid family labor, seed from a previous harvest and other in-kind inputs
should not be included in costs.
AVC definition: On the AVC project, farmer recall method will be used via annual survey, to determine the factors contributing to the gross margin calculation. The crops that AVC will
report on are tomatoes, groundnuts, mung beans and jute. The seasons for these crops are as follows:
Crop
Sowing season(s)
Harvesting season(s)
1. Mung bean
February – March (Summer Season for BARI variety), August – May – June for summer variety & November –
September (Kharif 2 for local variety)
December for Kharif 2 local variety
Unit of Measure: Dollars/hectare (crops)
Disaggregated by: Commodity [tomatoes, groundnuts, mung beans and jute], Sex of farmer [Male, Female, Joint, Association-applied]
Justification & Management Utility: Improving the gross margin of value chains for farming commodities contributes to increasing
agricultural GDP, will increase income, and thus directly contribute to the IR of improving production and the goal indicator of reducing poverty.
The gross margin of tomatoes, groundnuts, mung beans and jute is an appropriate measure of the productivity of these commodities per
hectare. It also illustrates the impacts of improved horticulture interventions.
Data Collection Method: Use of structured questionnaires/surveys via sample survey method of farmers working with AVC (i.e. having attended
trainings/workshops and other project interventions)
Data Source: AVC supported farmers/HHs via annual project survey (around crop seasons where possible)
Frequency and Timing of Data analysis & Reporting: Annually in October 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
32
Data Analysis and Presentation: Gross margin per hectare by sex of farmer and commodity
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
689
FY 2016
781
FY 2017
887
FY 2018
954
LOP
954
Notes
33
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet-4b
Name of Indicator: Gross margin per hectare, animal or cage of selected product - tomatoes
DESCRIPTION
Crop
Sowing season(s)
2. Tomato
May – June for summer Tomato, August- September for early winter July – October for summer tomato, October – January
(mostly in dyke farming) and October – November for winter
for early winter and December –March for winter variety
Disaggregated by: Commodity[tomatoes, groundnuts, mung beans and jute], Sex of farmer [Male, Female, Joint, Association-applied]
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
34
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
791
FY 2016
1,344
FY 2017
1,977
FY 2018
2,372
LOP
2,372
Notes
35
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet-4c
Name of Indicator: Gross margin per hectare, animal or cage of selected product – ground nuts
DESCRIPTION
Crop
Sowing season(s)
3. Ground Nut
February – March for crop cultivation and Late April-Mid July mainly May – June for crop and Late October – Mid
for seed production
December for seed harvest
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
36
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
887
FY 2016
1,042
FY 2017
1,219
FY 2018
1,330
LOP
1,330
Notes
37
Performance Indicator Reference Sheet-4d
Name of Indicator: Gross margin per hectare, animal or cage of selected product - jute
DESCRIPTION
Crop
Sowing season(s)
4. Jute
April- May
July- August
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
38
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
147
FY 2016
159
FY 2017
174
FY 2018
183
LOP
183
Notes
39
Name of Indicator: Percentage change in yield of value chain crop per hectare
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures both production (in metric tons) and cultivated area (in hectares) of targeted products for each commodity. It
is part of the calculation for gross margin per hectare produced. For each value chain commodity, yield is calculated from two distinct types of data:
1. Total production during reporting period (TP): in metric tons
2. Total production during previous reporting period (TP-PP): in metric tons
3. Total Units of Production (UP): Hectares planted (for crops) during the production period
4. Total Units of Production (UP-PP): Hectares planted (for crops) during the previous production period
Data will be collected from direct beneficiaries assisted by AVC. If there is more than one production cycle in the reporting year, data will be collected to track
different production cycles within one year. To that end, farmer’s land area as well as the total production will be counted (and totaled) each time it is cultivated.
The unit of measure for Total Production (TP) on an individual level will primarily be KG but will then be converted to metric tons. The Unit of Production (UP land area) will be in decimal but converted to hectares. AVC’s value chain crops that will be measure here are tomatoes, groundnuts, mung beans and jute
Calculation: ((TP-PP / UP-PP) * 100) – ((TP / UP) * 100)
Unit of Measure: Percent change
Disaggregated by: Commodity [tomatoes, groundnuts, mung beans, lentils, mango, potato, vegetables, flower, natural fibers], Male/female
headed or managed HHs
Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will help track the increase in agricultural productivity. Increases in yields in the target
commodity’s should result in increased volumes of food overall and increases in the availability of surpluses to generate income.
Data Source: AVC supported farmers/HHs via annual project survey
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): TBD.
Data Analysis and Presentation: Change in yield of value chain crop per hectare by commodity, male or female headed HH, and division
Data Use: Share progress and results with USAID and project management for effective decision making on interventions.
OTHER NOTES
targets for this indicator are cumulative
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
2.8%
FY 2016
9.8%
FY 2017
21%
FY 2018
28%
LOP
28%
Notes
40
Name of Indicator: Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance
Classification: Standard Indicator and FTF Indicator # 4.5.2-2 (RiA) (WOG)
DESCRIPTION
Standard Definition: This indicator measures the area (in hectares) of land cultivated using USG-promoted improved technology(ies) or management
practice(s) during the current reporting year. Technologies to be counted here are agriculture-related, land-based technologies and innovations including
those that address climate change adaptation and mitigation. Significant improvements to existing technologies should be counted. Examples of relevant
technologies include:
 Crop genetics: e.g., improved/certified seed that could be higher-yielding, higher in nutritional content (e.g., through bio-fortification, such as vitamin Arich sweet potatoes or rice, or high-protein maize) and/or more resilient to climate impacts.
 Cultural Practices: e.g. planting density; seedling production and transplantation; moulding; mulching.
 Pest management: e.g., Integrated Pest Management; appropriate application of insecticides and pesticides
 Disease management: e.g., appropriate application of fungicides
 Soil-related fertility and conservation: e.g., Integrated Soil Fertility Management, soil management practices that increase biotic activity and soil
organic matter levels, such as soil amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiency (e.g., soil organic matter); fertilizers, erosion control
 Irrigation: e.g., drip, surface, sprinkler irrigation; irrigation schemes
 Water management: non-irrigation-based e.g., water harvesting
 Climate mitigation or adaptation: e.g., conservation agriculture, carbon sequestration through low- or no-till practices no-till practices
 Other: e.g., planting density and other cultural practices, improved mechanical and physical land preparation and harvesting approaches,
If a beneficiary cultivates a plot of land more than once in the reporting year, the area should be counted each time it is cultivated with one or more
improved technologies during the reporting year. For example, if the farmer applies FTF promoted technologies to her/his plot during both the rainy season
and the dry season, the area of the plot would be counted twice under this indicator. If a lead farmer cultivates a plot used for training, e.g., a demonstration
plot used for Farmer Field Days or Farmer Field School, the area of the demonstration plot should be counted under this indicator. However, in both cases
the “farmer” would only be counted once under FTF indicator 4.5.2-5 “number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies.”
If a group of beneficiaries cultivate a plot of land as a group, e.g., an association has a common plot on which multiple association members cultivate together,
and on which improved technologies are applied, the area of the communal plot should be counted under this indicator and recorded under the sex
disaggregate “association-applied.”
Technology Type Disaggregation: If more than one improved technology is being applied on a hectare, count the hectare under each technology type (i.e.
double-count). In addition, count the hectare under the total w/one or more improved technology category. Since it is very common for Feed the Future
activities to promote more than one improved technology, not all of which are applied by all beneficiaries at once, this approach allows Feed the Future to
accurately track and count the uptake of different technology types, and to accurately count the total number of hectares under improved technologies.
New/Continuing disaggregation: If a hectare is under more than one improved technology, some of which continue to be applied from the previous year and
some of which were newly applied in the reporting year, count the hectare under new. Any first-time application of an improved technology categorizes a
hectare as new, even if other improved technologies being applied are continuing.
AVC Definition:
Only “direct beneficiary” farmers who have applied the new improved technology on their farms are qualified to be counted under this indicator. The crops
for which the hectares will be counted are all AVC crops. Average farm sizes will be added to this definition once the baseline of direct beneficiaries
has been completed at the end of 2015
Unit of Measure: Hectares
Disaggregated by: Technology type [crop genetics, cultural practices, pest management, disease management, soil-related fertility and
conservation, irrigation, water management, or other], Duration [new or continuing]), Sex [male, female, joint, association-applied]
Justification & Management Utility: Tracks successful adoption of technologies and management practices in an effort to improve
agricultural productivity, agricultural water productivity, sustainability, and resilience to climate impacts.
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
41
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices by technology type, duration and sex
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline is 0. The targets for this indicator are cumulative
Year
Target
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
7,500
FY 2016
26,250
FY 2017
56,250
FY 2018
75,000
LOP
75,000
Actual
Notes
42
Name of Indicator: Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training
Classification: Standard FTF# 4.5.2-7 (RiA) (WOG)
DESCRIPTION
Standard Indicator Definition: The number of individuals to whom significant knowledge or skills have been imparted through interactions
that are intentional, structured, and purposed for imparting knowledge or skills should be counted. This includes farmers and other primary
sector producers who receive training in a variety of best practices in productivity, post-harvest management, linking to markets, etc. It also
includes rural entrepreneurs, processors, managers and traders receiving training in application of new technologies, business management,
linking to markets, etc. and training to extension specialists, researchers, policy makers and others who are engaged in the food, feed and fiber
system and natural resources and water management.
There is no pre-defined minimum or maximum length of time for the training; what is key is that the training reflects a planned, structured
curriculum designed to strengthen capacities, and there is a reasonable expectation that the training recipient will acquire new knowledge or
skills that s/he could translate into action. Count an individual only once, regardless of the number of trainings received during the reporting year
and whether the trainings covered different topics. Do not count sensitization meetings or one-off informational trainings.
In-country and off-shore training are included. Training should include food security, water resources management/IWRM, sustainable
agriculture, and climate change risk analysis, adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability assessments as they relate to agriculture resilience, but
should not include nutrition-related trainings, which should be reported under indicator “Number of individuals trained in nutrition” instead.
Delivery mechanisms can include a variety of extension methods as well as technical assistance activities.
AVC Definition: Targeted beneficiaries are farmers, processors, traders, extension agents, input suppliers, transporters, retailers, wholesalers,
buying agents or others. Trainings will include topics such as improved cultivation technology/farming system for farmers, soil treatment and its
benefit (soil testing and its benefit, organic fertilizer application, crop rotation etc.) , land preparation, seed selection and treatment (quality seed
identification, required quantity, treatment before sowing etc.) , fertilization (application time, doze determination, fertilizer quality identification
techniques etc.), sowing techniques (line, spacing etc.), intercultural operation (irrigation, weeding, earthing-up etc.) , disease and Pest
management and ICM/IPM (disease identification, pesticide selection and doze determination, application time, other preventive measure etc.),
postharvest management (appropriate harvest time, sorting, grading, packaging, drying techniques, winnowing, storage techniques, transportation
etc.). An individual will be counted once, even if s/he attends more than one training by the project.
Unit of Measure: Number of individuals
Disaggregated by: Sex [Male, Female]; Type of individual [Producers (farmers, fishers, pastoralists, ranchers, etc.), People in government (e.g.
policy makers, extension workers), People in private sector firms (e.g. processors, service providers, manufacturers), People in civil society (e.g.
NGOs, CBOs, CSOs, research and academic organizations)]
Note: While producers are included under MSMEs under indicators ”Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access loans” and
”Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving business development services from USG-assisted sources”, only count them under the Producers and not
the Private Sector Firms disaggregate to avoid double-counting. While private sector firms are considered part of civil society more broadly, only count them
under the Private Sector Firms and not the Civil Society disaggregate to avoid double-counting.
Justification & Management Utility: Measures enhanced human capacity for increased agriculture productivity, improved food security,
policy formulation and/or implementation, which is the key to transformational development.. Training is a key step towards meeting AVC’s
goals and by keeping track of this indicator, AVC will eventually be able to see which trainings have had the biggest impacts for the project.
Data Collection Method: Structured questionnaires (Form 7-Training Attendance) are collected at each training session. AVC maintains
training records of those trainings provided to farmers, firms or other individuals.
Data Source: Trainees
Frequency and Timing of Data analysis & Reporting: Quarterly in October, January, April, July 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: The costs are included in an existing activity or contract/agreement
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or
food security training by type of individual and sex
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline is 0. The targets for this indicator are cumulative
43
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
30,000
FY 2016
75,000
FY 2017
120,000
FY 2018
75,000
LOP
300,000
Notes
44
Name of Indicator: Percent of beneficiaries with awareness on nutritional diets receiving nutritional information
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the percent of project beneficiaries who are aware of nutritional foods and diets and who have
been educated about these through AVC interventions. As part of the annual AVC survey beneficiaries will be asked nutritional related
questions for which they would have learned the answers in AVC nutritional trainings, to see if they have learned key information about
nutritional diets and food. The number of beneficiaries indicating learned information will be the numerator and the total number surveyed will
be the denominator. Survey findings will be extrapolated to the larger AVC beneficiary population.
Unit of Measure: Percent of beneficiaries
Disaggregated by: Sex [male, female]
Justification & Management Utility: In Bangladesh, most households are unaware of proper nutritional practices. As a result, they and their
children suffer from malnutrition. This indicator is a measure of awareness among the households on nutritional foods and their importance in health.
Data Collection Method: Use of structured questionnaires/surveys via annual sample survey
Data Source: AVC supported farmers/HHs and other value chain actors via annual project survey
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Percent of beneficiaries with awareness on nutritional diets receiving nutritional information by sex
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline is 0.
Year
Target
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
10%
FY 2016
10%
FY 2017
10%
FY 2018
10%
LOP
10%
Actual
Notes
45
Program Intermediate Result : Agricultural Market Systems Strengthened
Name of Indicator: Value of incremental sales (collected at farm level) attributed to FtF implementation
Classification: Standard Indicator FTF # 4.5.2-23 (RiA)
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition :
Standard Definition: This indicator will collect both volume (in metric tons) and value (in US dollars) of purchases from small-holder direct
beneficiaries of targeted commodities for its calculation. This includes all sales by the small-holder direct beneficiaries of the targeted
commodity(ies), not just farm-gate sales. Only count sales in the reporting year attributable to the Feed the Future investment, i.e. where Feed
the Future assisted the individual farmer directly. Examples of Feed the Future assistance include facilitating access to improved seeds and other
inputs and providing extension services, marketing assistance or other activities that benefited small-holders.
The value of incremental sales indicates the value (in USD) of the total amount of targeted agricultural products sold by small-holder direct
beneficiaries relative to a base year and is calculated as the total value of sales of a product (crop, animal, or fish) during the reporting year
minus the total value of sales in the base year.
The number of direct beneficiaries of Feed the Future activities often increases over time as the activity rolls-out. Unless an activity has identified
all prospective direct beneficiaries at the time the baseline is established, the baseline sales value will only include sales made by beneficiaries
identified when the baseline is established during the first year of implementation. The baseline sales value will not include the “baseline” sales
made prior to their involvement in the Feed the Future activity by beneficiaries added in subsequent years. Thus the baseline sales value will
underestimate total baseline sales of all beneficiaries, and consequently overestimate incremental sales for reporting years when the beneficiary
base has increased. To address this issue, Feed the Future requires reporting the number of direct beneficiaries along with baseline and
reporting year sales so that baseline sales and reporting year sales data can be better interpreted, and actual incremental sales better estimated.
It is absolutely essential that a Baseline Year Sales data point is entered. The Value of Incremental Sales indicator value cannot be calculated
without a value for Baseline Year Sales. If data on the total value of sales of the value chain commodity by direct beneficiaries prior to Feed the
Future activity implementation started is not available, do not leave the baseline blank or enter ‘0’. Use the earliest Reporting Year Sales actual
as the Baseline Year Sales. This will cause some underestimation of the total value of incremental sales achieved by the Feed the Future activity,
but this is preferable to being unable to calculate incremental sales at all.
If a direct beneficiary sample survey is used to collect incremental sales data, sample survey estimates must be extrapolated to total beneficiary
estimated values before entry into FTFMS to accurately reflect total sales by the activity’s direct beneficiaries.
Note that quantity of sales is part of the calculation for gross margin under indicator #4.5-15, and in many cases this will be the same or similar
to the value reported here.
AVC Definition:
AVC will collect data on incremental sales for four VC crops. These are crops are tomatoes, groundnuts, mung beans, and jute. Baseline sales
will be collected within the first year of AVC implementation via beneficiary registration in order to cover direct beneficiaries, as specified by
FTF. Through this process AVC will have the total direct beneficiaries for the first year of implementation and their corresponding baseline
sales. Baseline data for this indicator will not be available until Sept 2015.
Calculation:
Performance period data will be collected through a sample survey of project beneficiaries. The sample’s performance result will be extrapolated
for total beneficiaries. The difference between the baseline and the extrapolated performance survey is calculated. All individual partners’
(producer groups) performances are added up together to get the value chain, sector, and project performance.
Only the increase in sales in the reporting year attributable in this indicator will be counted, i.e. where AVC assisted the individual farm directly
in improved seeds, better input availability or farming techniques, marketing assistance or other activities that benefited farmers.
Unit of Measure: USD,
Disaggregated by: Commodity [tomatoes, groundnuts, mung beans, lentils, mango, potato, vegetables, flower, natural fibers]
Justification & Management Utility: Value (in US dollars) of purchases from smallholders of targeted commodities is a measure of the
competitiveness of those smallholders. This measurement also helps track access to markets and progress toward commercialization by
subsistence and semi-subsistence smallholders. Improving markets will contribute to the key objective of increased agricultural productivity and
production, which in turn will reduce poverty, thereby achieving the project’s goals.
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
46
Data Analysis and Presentation: Value of incremental sales at farm level by commodity
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline data will be collected within the first year of AVC implementation to cover direct beneficiaries, as
specified by FTF. Targets for this indicator are not cumulative and represent annual targets
Year
Target
Actual
Notes
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
$12,000,000
FY 2016
$30,000,000
FY 2017
$48,000,000
FY 2018
$30,000,000
LOP
$120,000,000
47
Name of Indicator: Number of independent producers involved in organized production and marketing systems.
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Organized production or contract production is an arrangement between producers and buyers (contractors) under
which the buyer provides farming/production support to the contracted producers and, in turn, the producers agree to sell their produce to
buyers at market price (or at predetermined price). Under this indicator the number of independent producers (farmers) under each value chain
engaged in farming through an organized production or contracted basis will be counted and reported. This indicator will also count other
independent producers (in this case, those not under a contract farming system) but involved in organized production and marketing systems.
Unit of Measure: Number of producers
Disaggregated by: Commodity, Sex [male, female]
Justification & Management Utility: Contract production arrangements offer benefits to buyers and sellers, as sellers are assured of better
demand and buyers are assured of better sources of supply. This indicator measures market linkages between producers and processors, which
is critical for a value chain project
Data Collection Method: Initially contract production information will be collected through farmer registration forms and will be followed up
quarterly via program records.
Data Source: AVC supported farmers via program records and processors contract-farmer lists
Frequency and Timing of Data analysis & Reporting: Quarterly in October, January, April, July 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,2018
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Numbers of independent producers participating in contract production system by commodity and sex
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline is 0. The targets for this indicator are not cumulative but represent annual targets.
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
2,500
FY 2016
6,250
FY 2017
10,000
FY 2018
6,250
LOP
25,000
Notes
48
Program Intermediate Result: Agricultural Market Systems Strengthened
Name of Indicator: Percentage point reduction in post-harvest loss
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures total post-harvest loss (in metric tons) of targeted products for each commodity. Post-harvest loss is
calculated from four distinct types of data:
1. ATL: Average total loss (called wastage in AVC surveys) during reporting period in metric tons
2. ATP: Average total production during reporting period in metric tons
3. ATL-PP: Average total loss (called wastage in surveys) during previous reporting period in metric tons
4. ATP-P:P Average total production during previous reporting period in metric tons
Data will be collected from direct beneficiaries assisted by AVC via annual survey and small mini surveys. If there is more than one production cycle in the
reporting year, farmer’s total loss as well as the total production will be counted (and totaled) each time it is cultivated. The unit of measure for each of these
data points on an individual level will primarily be KG but will then be converted to metric tons.
Calculation: ((ATL-PP / ATP-PP) *100) – ((ALP /A TP) *100)
Unit of Measure: Percent change in post-harvest loss
Disaggregated by: Sex [male, female] and Commodity
Justification & Management Utility: Measure of improved post-harvest practices and opportunities to sell to processors.
Data Collection Method: Producer groups will initially be registered and their involvement with AVC will be monitored throughout the life
of the project via annual impact survey.
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Percentage point reduction in post-harvest loss by commodity and sex
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
1.3%
FY 2016
4.7%
FY 2017
10%
FY 2018
13%
LOP
13%
Notes
49
Program Intermediate Result: Agricultural Market Systems Strengthened
Name of Indicator: Number of producer groups supported in value chain integration activities
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the number of producer organizations that receive technical assistance to ensure enhanced
integration into AVC supported value chains. Producer groups who are assisted by AVC through promotion of modern production technology
in agricultural production, farm management, and also in product marketing will be counted. Integration activities also includes assistance in
creating strong group structures within organizations, clearly articulated rules and procedures, sound business management practices, or
creating a package of services to offer members within the group/association.
Unit of Measure: Number of producer groups
Disaggregated by: Sex [male, female, Joint]
Justification & Management Utility: Strong producer groups allow farmers to aggregate, transport, and sell their production, capturing a
larger portion of the overall retail price of the commodity.
Data Collection Method: Producer groups will initially be registered and their involvement with AVC will be monitored throughout the life
of the project.
Data Source: Trainees via project training records and AVC supported farmers/HHs via the farmer registry records
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of producer groups supported in value chain integration activities by commodity and sex
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
30
FY 2016
75
FY 2017
120
FY 2018
75
LOP
300
Notes
50
Name of Indicator: Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access loans
Classification: Standard Indicator and FTF Indicator # 4.5.2-30
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition:
Standard Indicator
Total number of micro (1-10) small (11-50) and medium (51-100) (parenthesis = number of employees) enterprises (MSMEs). Number of
employees refers to full time-equivalent workers during the previous month. MSMEs include producers (farmers). Producers should be classified
as micro, small or medium-enterprise based on the number of FTE workers hired (permanent and/or seasonal) during the previous 12 months. If
a producer does not hire any permanent or seasonal labor, s/he should be considered a micro-enterprise. To be counted an MSME must have
received USG assistance which resulted in a loan from any financial institution, formal or informal, including MFIs, commercial banks, or informal
lenders, as well as from in-kind lenders of equipment (e.g. tractor, plow) or other agricultural inputs (e.g., fertilizer or seeds), or transport, with
repayment in cash or in kind. USG assistance may include partial loan guarantee programs or any support facilitating the receipt of a loan.
The indicator does not measure the value of the loans, but the number of MSMEs that received USG assistance and accessed loans. Only count
the MSME once per reporting year, even if multiple loans are accessed.
AVC definition: AVC will assist the MSMEs/farmers to access loans by linking them with USAID Development Credit Authority (DCA)
implementing partners and other financial service providers. The project will assist the farmers/MSMEs to be more attractive to lending
institutions by facilitating training on loan applications and loan processing requirements. The project will further assist the financial service
provider to design suitable loan products for the value chain actors.
Unit of Measure: Number of MSMEs
Disaggregated by: Size [Micro, Small, Medium], , Sex of owner/producer [Male, Female, Joint]
Justification & Management Utility: The lack of access to financial capital is frequently cited as a major impediment to the development of MSMEs, thus
helping MSMEs access finances is likely to increase investment and the value of output (production in the case of farmers, value added for agricultural
processing). This will directly contribute to the expansion of markets, increased agricultural productivity, and the reduction of poverty.
Data Collection Method: AVC maintains training records for trainings provided to farmers, firms or other individuals and tracks and reports
from these along with other available internal project documentation
Data Source: Project beneficiaries/farmers
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of MSMEs, including farmers, receiving USG assistance to access loans by size, MSME type and sex
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
Notes
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
200
FY 2016
500
FY 2017
800
FY 2018
500
LOP
2,000
51
Name of Indicator: Value of incremental sales at Intermediary level
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the value (in US dollars) of purchases from small-holders of targeted commodities (tomatoes,
groundnuts, mung beans and jute) for its calculation. Only count sales in the reporting year attributable where AVC assisted to the intermediary
level. For example; assistance includes facilitating access inputs and providing extension services, marketing assistance or other activities that
intermediary level.
The value of incremental sales indicates the value (in USD) of the total amount of targeted agricultural products sold by intermediary relative to
a base year and is calculated as the total value of sales of tomatoes, groundnuts, mung beans and jute during the reporting year minus the total
value of sales in the base year. This indicator value will be calculated based on data collected in the project’s baseline survey. Since intermediary
sample survey is used to collect incremental sales data, sample survey estimates must be extrapolated to total intermediary estimated values.
The intermediary level is the level of supply agents and others who operate between the farmers and processors. The processor level is where
processing of the raw materials happens. In a value chain project it is necessary to measure all the way up the value chain, not just at the farm
level.
Calculation: Performance period data will be collected through a sample survey of project intermediary. The sample’s performance result will
be extrapolated for total trained intermediary. The difference between the baseline and the extrapolated performance survey is calculated.
Only the increase in sales in the reporting year attributable in this indicator will be counted.
Unit of Measure: USD
Disaggregated by: Commodity
Justification & Management Utility: Most green markets are well supplied with fruits and vegetables in the production season though
quality and thus process are often low. This measurement also helps track access to markets and progress toward commercialization by
intermediary. Improving markets will contribute to the key objective of increased agricultural productivity and production, which in turn will
reduce poverty, thereby achieving the project’s goals.
Data Source: Project beneficiaries
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Value of incremental sales at the intermediary level by commodity
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
Notes
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
$28,000,000
FY 2016
$70,000,000
FY 2017
$112,000,000
FY 2018
$70,000,000
LOP
$280,000,000
52
Name of Indicator: Number of farmers and others who have applied improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG
assistance
Classification: Standard Indicator and FTF Indicator # 4.5.2-5 (RiA) (WOG)
DESCRIPTION
53
Standard Indicator Definition(s):
This indicator measures the total number of direct beneficiary farmers, ranchers and other primary sector producers (food and non-food crops, livestock
products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural resource-based products are included), individual processors (not firms), rural entrepreneurs,
managers and traders, natural resource managers, etc. that applied improved technologies anywhere within the food and fiber system as a result of USG
assistance during the reporting year. This includes innovations in efficiency, value-addition, post-harvest management, marketing, sustainable land management,
forest and water management, managerial practices, input supply delivery. Technologies to be counted here are agriculture-related technologies and
innovations including those that address climate change adaptation and mitigation (including, but not limited to, carbon sequestration, clean energy, and
energy efficiency as related to agriculture). Significant improvements to existing technologies should be counted.
Examples for listed technology type disaggregates include:
- Crop Genetics: e.g. improved/certified seed that could be higher-yielding, higher in nutritional content (e.g. through bio-fortification, such as vitamin A-rich
sweet potatoes or rice, or high-protein maize, or drought tolerant maize, or stress tolerant rice) and/or more resilient to climate impacts; improved germ plasm.
- Cultural Practices: e.g. planting density; seedling production and transplantation; moulding; mulching.
- Livestock Management: e.g. improved livestock breeds; livestock health services and products such as vaccines; improved livestock handling practices.
- Wild Fishing Technique/Gear: e.g. sustainable fishing practices; improved nets, hooks, lines, traps, dredges, trawls; improved hand gathering, netting,
angling, spearfishing, and trapping practices.
- Aquaculture Management: e.g. improved fingerlings; improved feed and feeding practices; fish disease control; pond culture; pond preparation; sampling
& harvesting; carrying capacity & fingerling management.
- Pest Management: e.g. Integrated Pest Management; improved insecticides and pesticides; improved and environmentally sustainable use of insecticides
and pesticides.
- Disease Management: e.g. improved fungicides; appropriate application of fungicides.
- Soil-related Fertility and Conservation: e.g. Integrated Soil Fertility Management; soil management practices that increase biotic activity and soil
organic matter levels, such as soil amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiency (e.g. soil organic matter); improved fertilizer; improved fertilizer use
practices; erosion control.
- Irrigation: e.g. drip, surface, and sprinkler irrigation; irrigation schemes.
- Water Management - non-irrigation-based: e.g. water harvesting; sustainable water use practices; improved water quality testing practices.
- Climate Mitigation or Adaptation: e.g. conservation agriculture; carbon sequestration through low- or no-till practices; increased use of climate
information for planning, risk reduction, and increasing resilience; increased energy efficiency; natural resource management practices that increase resilience
to climate change.
- Marketing and Distribution: e.g. contract farming technologies and practices; improved input purchase technologies and practices; improved
commodity sale technologies and practices; improved market information system technologies and practices.
- Post-harvest - Handling & Storage: e.g. improved packing house technologies and practices; improved transportation; decay and insect control;
temperature and humidity control; improved quality control technologies and practices.
- Value-Added Processing: e.g. improved packaging practices and materials including biodegradable packaging; food and chemical safety technologies and
practices; improved preservation technologies and practices.
- Other: e.g. improved mechanical and physical land preparation; information technology.
Please note there is some overlap between the disaggregates listed here and those listed under “4.5.2-2 Number of hectares under improved technologies
or management practices as a result of USG assistance.” This overlap is limited to the technologies and practices that relate to activities focused on land.
However, the full list of disaggregates here is much broader because with this indicator we are aiming to track efforts focused on individuals (as opposed to
land area) across the value chain in land, and non-land based activity.
A beneficiary is counted once regardless of the number of technologies applied during the reporting year. If more than one beneficiary in a household is
applying improved technologies, count each beneficiary in the household who does so.
If a beneficiary cultivates a plot of land more than once in the reporting year, s/he should be counted once if s/he applied an improved technology during any
of the production cycles during the reporting year. S/he should not be counted each time an improved technology is applied. For example, because of new
access to irrigation as a result of a Feed the Future activity, a farmer can now cultivate a second crop during the dry season in addition to her/his regular crop
during the rainy season. If the farmer applies Feed the Future promoted technologies to her/his plot during one season and not the other, or in both the
rainy season and the dry season, s/he would only be counted once under this indicator. However, the area under improved technologies should be counted
each time it is cultivated under indicators 4.5-15 Gross margin per unit of land and 4.5.2-2 number of hectares of land under improved technologies.
Beneficiaries who are part of a group and apply improved technologies on a demonstration or other common plot with other beneficiaries, are not counted
as having individually applied an improved technology The group should be counted as one (1) beneficiary group and reported under 4.5.2-42 Number of
private enterprises, producers organizations… and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved technologies . The area of the communal
plot should be counted under 4.5-15 Gross margin per unit of land and 4.5.2-2 number of hectares of land under improved technologies.
54
If a lead farmer cultivates a plot used for training, e.g a demonstration plot used for Farmer Field Days or Farmer Field School, the beneficiary farmer should
be counted under this indicator, and the area of the demonstration plot counted under 4.5-15 Gross margin per unit of land, if applicable and 4.5.2-2 number
of hectares of land under improved technologies. However, if the demonstration or training plot is cultivated by extensionists or researchers, e.g. a
demonstration plot in a research institute, neither the area nor the extensionist/researcher should be counted under the respective indicators.
This indicator, 4.5.2-5, counts individuals who applied improved technologies, whereas indicator 4.5.2-28 Number of private enterprises, producers
organizations…and community-based organizations (CBOs) that applied improved technologies or management practices counts firms, associations, or other
group entities applying association- or organization-level improved technologies or practices. 4.5.2-5 Number of farmers and others applying
technologies/practices individual-level indicator should not count all members of an organization as having applied a technology or practice just because the
technology/practice was applied by the group entity. For example, a producer association implements a new computer-based accounting system during the
reporting year. The association would be counted as having applied an improved technology/practice under 4.5.2-42 Number of private enterprises,
producers organizations…applying indicator, but the members of the producer association would not be counted as having individually-applied an improved
technology/practice under 4.5.2-5 Number of farmers and others applying technologies/practices individual-level indicator. However, there are scenarios
where both the group entity and its members can be counted, the group counted once under 4.5.2-42 and individual members that applied the
technology/practice under 4.5.2-5. For example, a producer association purchases a dryer and then provides drying services for a fee to its members. The
producer association can be counted under 4.5.2-42 and any association member that uses the dryer service can be counted as applying an improved
technology/practice under 4.5.2-5.
AVC definition: In the case of AVC , the following technologies are expected to be promoted: within the AVC VC’s: crop genetics, cultural practices, pest
management disease management, soil-related fertility and conservation, irrigation, water management, marketing and distribution, post-harvest handling and
storage, value added processing and other. Data will be collected annually (and in cases where a crop is harvested multiple times throughout the year, then a
mini survey will be administered at the time of harvest) via a survey of randomly sampled of farmers trained as part of AVC interventions. This number will
then be extrapolated to the larger population of AVC farmers. As part of the survey, farmers will be asked to report on new technologies or management
practices they are have applied. In addition to this self-reported information, farmer’s record books will be observed to verify the veracity of their claim and
they will be asked some basic questions about the technology or management practice that they would have learned in training, again to serve as one way to
validate their claim.
Disaggregated by: Value chain actor type [ Producers (e.g. farmers, ranchers, and other primary sector producers of food and non-food
crops, livestock products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural resource-based products; Others (e.g. individual processors (but
not firms); rural entrepreneurs; traders; natural resource managers; extension agents)]
Technology type [Crop genetics; Cultural practices; Livestock management; Wild fishing technique/gear; Aquaculture management; Pest
management; Disease management; Soil-related fertility and conservation; Irrigation; Water management-non-irrigation based; Climate mitigation
or adaptation; Marketing and distribution; Post-harvest – handling & storage; Value-added processing; Other; Total w/one or more improved
technology/practice]
Sex: [male, female]
Justification & Management Utility: Technological change and its adoption by different actors in the agricultural supply change will be
critical to increasing agricultural productivity, which is the Intermediate Result under which this indicator falls.
Data Source: AVC supported farmers/HHs
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices by duration and sex
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline is 0. The targets are cumulative
Year
FY 2014
Target
Actual
Notes
0
55
FY 2015
25,500
FY 2016
89,250
FY 2017
191,250
FY 2018
255,000
LOP
255,000
56
Program Intermediate Result : Innovation and value chain upgrading increased
Name of Indicator: Value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by FtF implementation
Classification: Standard Indicator and FTF Indicator # 4.5.2-38 (RiA)
DESCRIPTION
Standard Indicator: Investment is defined as the use of private sector resources intended to increase future production output or income, to
improve the sustainable use of agriculture-related natural resources (soil, water, etc.), to improve water or land management, etc. The “food
chain” includes both upstream and downstream investments. Upstream investments include any type of agricultural capital used in the agricultural
production process such as animals for traction, storage bins, and machinery. Downstream investments could include capital investments in
equipment, etc. to do post-harvest transformation/processing of agricultural products as well as the transport of agricultural products to markets.
“Private sector” includes any privately-led agricultural activity managed by a for-profit formal company. CBO or NGO resources are included if
they engage in for-profit agricultural activity. “Leveraged by FTF implementation” indicates that the new investment was directly encouraged or
facilitated by activities funded by the AVC project’s initiative. Investments reported do not include funds received by the investor from the
project. New investment means investment made during the reporting year.
AVC Definition:
Local currency will be converted to USD at the average market foreign exchange rate for the reporting period. AVC is anticipating investments in
new modern drying and milling facilities located near groundnut production clusters, new cold storage facilities for flowers, summer basket, and
potatoes; and “one stop service centers” for where natural fiber is transformed into diversified products under one roof, as well as investments
in the establishment of designated ripening and preservation facilities for mangos, tomato paste processing units, green houses for many VC’s, For
farmers this could also be input costs.
Unit of Measure: US Dollars
Disaggregated by: None
Justification & Management Utility: Increased investment is the predominant source of economic growth in the agricultural and other
economic sectors. Private sector investment is critical because it indicates that the investment is perceived by private agents to produce a positive
financial return and therefore is likely to lead to sustainable increases in agricultural production. Agricultural growth is critical to achieving the
FTF goal to “Sustainably Reduce Global Poverty and Hunger.”
as well as project documentation and records.
Data Source: Private sector firms, farmers and farmers
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Value of new private sector investment in the agriculture sector or food chain leveraged by FtF
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
Notes
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
$2,100,000
FY 2016
$5,250,000
FY 2017
$8,400,000
FY 2018
$5,250,000
LOP
$21,000,000
57
Name of Indicator: Number of grants to private sector organizations
Classification: : Custom Indicator # 9
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Grants will be provided to private sector local organizations to implement activities that strengthen agricultural
productivity and market systems, and to develop innovative financial products and services to support on-farm productivity and micro, small and
medium-sized enterprise development. The grants will be provided to invest in productivity or value enhancing technologies, scientific or
cutting-edge technologies for producers, increasing access to market information through information and communications technology and
Public Private Partnerships (PPP) to catalyze investment in value chains.
Unit of Measure: Number of grants
Disaggregated by: Division [Dhaka, Khulna, Barisal], Sex of business/organization head
Justification & Management Utility: Capital for research and design and support services is a constraint in the target area. Increased
financing to private sector actors functioning in the agriculture sector will support the research, design, and scaling of value-adding products and
services to all actors along the value chain.
Data Collection Method: Grants made to private sector organizations will be tracked with the assistance of AVC Grants staff. Copies of
grant contracts/MoUs and activity progress report will be used to support the tracking of this indicator.
Data Source: Grant contracts/MoUs and program reports
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of grants to private sector organizations by organization type, grant purpose/type and division
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
20
FY 2016
50
FY 2017
80
FY 2018
50
LOP
200
Notes
58
Name of Indicator: Number of new technologies or management practices introduced for transfer
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator includes technologies and management practices related to improved agricultural production made
available for transfer by U.S. government supported activities and made available for public use and benefit and may relate to any of the products
at any point along the value chain. Introduced in this case means that the new technology or management practice has been made available to
AVC beneficiaries via training and workshops, Other AVC indicators will look at adoption of these introduced technologies and practices.
Relevant technologies include:
•
Mechanical and physical: New land preparation, harvesting, processing and product handling technologies, including packaging,
sustainable water management practices (irrigation); sustainable land management practices;
•
Biological: New germ plasm (varieties, breeds, etc.) that could be higher-yielding or higher in nutritional content and/or more resilient to
climate impacts; bio-fortified crops such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes or rice, or high-protein maize; soil management practices that
increase biotic activity and soil organic matter levels
•
Chemical: Fertilizers, insecticides, and pesticides sustainably and environmentally applied, and soil amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiencies;
•
Management and cultural practices: Information technology, improved/sustainable agricultural production and marketing practices,
increased use of climate information for planning risk management strategies, climate change mitigation and energy efficiency, and natural
resource management practices that increase productivity and/or resiliency to climate change. IPM, ISFM, and PHH as related to agriculture
should all be included as improved technologies or management practices.
Significant improvements to existing technologies will be counted; an improvement would be significant if, among other reasons, it served a new
purpose or allowed a new class of users to employ it. Examples include a scaled down-down milk container that allows individuals to carry it
easily, a new blend of fertilizer for a particular soil, tools modified to suit a particular management practice, and improved fishing gear.
Note that completing a research activity will not itself constitute having made a technology available. In the case of crop research that developed a
new variety, e.g., the variety must have passed through any required approval process, and seed of the new variety should be available for
multiplication. The technology should have proven benefits and be as ready for use as it can be as it emerges from the research and testing process.
Unit of Measure: Number of technologies or management practices
Disaggregated by: Commodity
Justification & Management Utility: Increased research and development of new technologies, management practices and development (in
addition to improvements to existing technologies) measures the impact of program interventions as it relates to beneficiaries adopting new
practices to increase agricultural productivity.
Data Collection Method: Annual performance survey, season based survey
Data Source: Program reports, records of technology and management practices
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of new technologies or management practices introduced.
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
Notes
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
4
FY 2016
7
FY 2017
7
FY 2018
2
LOP
20
59
Name of Indicator: Percentage adoption of new and/or innovative services, technology and/or management practices by value chain actors
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the percentage of direct beneficiary farmers, ranchers and other primary sector producers
(food and non-food crops), individual processors (not firms), rural entrepreneurs, managers and traders, natural resource managers, etc. that
adopt new and/or innovative services, technology management practices anywhere within the food and non-food value chains as a result of USG
assistance during the reporting year. This includes innovations in production efficiency, value-addition, post-harvest management, marketing,
sustainable land management, water management and irrigation, managerial practices, input supply delivery. Technologies to be counted here are
agriculture-related technologies and innovations including those that address climate change adaptation and mitigation (including, but not limited
to, carbon sequestration, clean energy, and energy efficiency as related to agriculture). Significant improvements to existing technologies should
be counted.
Relevant technologies include:
•
Mechanical and physical: New land preparation, harvesting, processing and product handling technologies, including packaging,
sustainable water management practices (irrigation); sustainable land management practices;
•
Biological: New germ plasm (varieties, breeds, etc.) that could be higher-yielding or higher in nutritional content and/or more resilient
to climate impacts; bio-fortified crops such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes or rice, or high-protein maize; soil management practices
that increase biotic activity and soil organic matter levels
•
Chemical: Fertilizers, insecticides, and pesticides sustainably and environmentally applied, and soil amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiencies;
•
Management and cultural practices: Information technology, improved/sustainable agricultural production and marketing practices,
increased use of climate information for planning risk management strategies, climate change mitigation and energy efficiency, and natural
resource management practices that increase productivity and/or resiliency to climate change. IPM, ISFM, and PHH as related to
agriculture should all be included as improved technologies or management practices.
Adoption in this case means the value chain actors have integrated the new and/or innovative service, technology and/or management practice
into their work in order to see the perceived benefit. A value chain actor will only be counted once, even if they have adopted several new
services, technologies or management practices
Data will be collected annually (and in cases where a crop is harvested multiple times throughout the year, then a mini survey will be administered at the time
of harvest) via a survey of randomly sampled of farmers trained as part of AVC interventions. This number will then be extrapolated to the larger population
of AVC farmers. As part of the survey, farmers will be asked to report on new technologies or management practices they are have applied. In addition to
this self-reported information, farmer’s record books will be observed to verify the veracity of their claim and they will be asked some basic questions about
the technology or management practice that they would have learned in training, again to serve as one way to validate their claim.
Calculation: Numerator: Number of value chain actors having adopted new and/or innovative services, technology management practices,
Denominator: Total number of AVC value chain actors
Unit of Measure: Percentage of farmers
Disaggregated by: Commodity, Sex [male, female]
Justification & Management Utility: Measures the utilization of new technologies and practices related to improved agricultural production.
Data Source: AVC supported value chain actors, such as wholesalers, retailers, transporters, processors, collectors, input suppliers and service
suppliers via annual project survey (around crop seasons where possible)
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Percentage adoption of new and/or innovative services, technology management practices by commodity
OTHER NOTES
60
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline is 0. The targets for this indicator are cumulative.
Year
Target
Actual
Notes
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
2%
FY 2016
7%
FY 2017
15%
FY 2018
21%
LOP
21%
61
Name of Indicator: Number of meeting/dialogue/workshops held with relevant partners to discuss business environment constraints that
impede economic growth
Classification: : Custom Indicator # 12
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the number of meetings/dialogue/workshops held between AVC and relevant USAID
projects working to increase the regulatory and business enabling environment in Bangladesh.
Unit of Measure: Number of meetings
Disaggregated by: Food vs Non Food
Justification & Management Utility: Measures the utilization of new technologies and practices related to improved agricultural production.
Data Collection Method: Collection of project activity records from program staff
Data Source: Program reports and attendance records
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of meeting/dialogue/workshops held with relevant partners to discuss business environment
constraints that impede economic growth
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
3
FY 2016
4
FY 2017
3
FY 2018
2
LOP
12
Notes
62
Program Intermediate Result : Local capacities and systems strengthened
Name of Indicator: Number of organizations eligible to receive direct funding for value chain activities
Classification: : Custom Indicator #13
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the number of AVC's local partners who have the capacity to receive and manage direct
funding from USAID for Feed the Future and other activities. In this case, “eligible” means that an organization has achieved the required
standards as outlined by AVC (and in conjunction with the COR). During the first year of AVC implementation, AVC’s Capacity Building Unit
will set standards for eligibility based on USAID’s Non-U.S. Organization Pre-Award Survey (NUPAS) and Local Organization Pre-Award Survey
(LOPAS). Based on these comprehensive survey’s, and their four scale capacity ranking, AVC proposes an organization can be eligible only if:
 The organization scores at least 3 individually in all the flagged high priority capacity indicators which seemingly are the main area of concern
for USAID. Therefore, an organization that scores less than 3 in any of the priority indicators will not be considered for eligibility.
 The organization must score more than 2.5 on average in non-flagged indicators. There can be variations within these non-prioritized
indicators but if scores less than 2 in any of the non-priority indicators, the organization will not be considered eligible
 An organization will be considered eligible if a standard USAID pre-award survey indicates that the organization is able to manage USAID
funding without any outside assistance.
The process of eligibility includes:
1. At the end of the capacity building implementation, each of organizations will undergo a thorough assessment by AVC based on the USAID
LOPAS/NUPAS test (Certification model).
2. A number of indicators have been flagged in the LOPAS/NUPAS assessments as those given high priority from USAID and US government.
Therefore, local organization must prove to have adequate capacity (a score of 3) in those areas.
3. During the LOPAS assessment, indicator specific empirical evidence will be collected through document review, key informant interviews
and direct observations.
4. Collected evidence will be compared against LOPAS/NUPAS capacity parameters and a score for the organization determined
The certifying authority is AVC’s Capacity Building Unit.
When competition is limited to local entities (see ADS 303.3.6.6(b)(2)),whether an awardee meets the Agency’s definition of “local”
organization must be considered in determining the potential awardee’s eligibility for an award . To be considered a “local” organization, an
entity must:
 Be organized under the laws of the recipient country
 Have its principal place of business in the recipient country
 Be majority owned by individuals who are citizens or lawful permanent residents of the recipient country or be managed by a governing
body, the majority of whom are citizens or lawful permanent residents of a recipient country
 Not be controlled by a foreign entity or by an individual or individuals who are not citizens or
 permanent residents of the recipient country
Unit of Measure: Number of local partners
Disaggregated by: None
Justification & Management Utility: Measures the impact of AVC capacity building of local partners and helps ensure that development
work will be carried out efficiently and effectively by local organizations
Data Collection Method: Collection of program activities records from program staff
Data Source: Program records
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of local partners in a position to receive direct USAID funding
63
OTHER NOTES
Year
Target
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
0
FY 2016
4
FY 2017
1
FY 2018
0
LOP
5
Actual
Notes
64
Program Intermediate Result : Local capacities and systems strengthened
Name of Indicator: Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations, women's
groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) receiving USG assistance
Classification: : Standard FTF # 4.5.2-11 (RiA) (WOG)
DESCRIPTION
Standard Indicator: Total number of private enterprises, producers’ associations, cooperatives, producers organizations, water users
associations, women’s groups, trade and business associations and community-based organizations (CBO), including those focused on natural
resource management, that received USG assistance related to food security during the reporting year. This assistance includes support that aims
at organization functions, such as member services, storage, processing and other downstream techniques, and management, marketing and
accounting. “Organizations assisted” should only include those organizations for which implementing partners have made a targeted effort to build
their capacity or enhance their organizational functions.
In the case of training or assistance to farmer‘s association or cooperatives, individual farmers are not counted separately, but as one entity.
AVC definition:
The organizations that have received assistance may be of two types- receiving fresh assistance in current period, and/or they are continuing the
assistance taken during a previous year. AVC assistance will be in the form of trainings, technical assistance, linkages to markets, access to finance,
grants, new job creation, increased awareness on nutrition and gender issues, capacity building.
Unit of Measure: Number of organizations
Disaggregated by: Type of organization [private enterprise (for profit), producer organization, water users association, women’s group, trade
and business associations, community-based organization]; New/Continuing [New (entity is receiving USG assistance for the first time during the
reporting year), Continuing (entity received USG assistance in the previous year and continues to receive it in the reporting year)]
Justification & Management Utility: Tracks civil society capacity building that is essential to building agricultural sector productivity.
Data Collection Method: AVC maintains training records for the trainings provided to farmers, firms or other individuals as well as any other interventions
Data Source: Implementation records, project records of organizations/associations and attendance records
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Data Analysis and Presentation: Number of food security private enterprises (for profit), producers organizations, water users associations,
women's groups, trade and business associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs) by type of organization
OTHER NOTES
Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline is 0. The targets for this indicator are cumulative.
Year
Target
Actual
FY 2014
0
FY 2015
8
FY 2016
50
FY 2017
65
FY 2018
65
LOP
65
Notes
65
ANNEX C: PERFORMANCE DATA TABLE
Indicator
Unit of
Measure
Disaggregation
Baseline
Year
Base-line
Value
LOP
Target
2014
Target
2015
Target
2016
Target
2017
Target
2018
Target
TBD
75%
0
7.5%
26.2%
56.1%
75%
0
300,000
0
30,000
105,000
225,000
300,000
0
89,000
0
8,900
22,250
35,600
22,250
Project Objective: Improved food security through strengthened agricultural value chains
Percent change in income of targeted
groups
Percent
Sex, commodity
2014
Duration, and
2014
gendered HH type
Sex of job holder,
Number
location of job, on
2014
farm vs. off farm
Intermediate Result 1: Sustainable, Diversified Agricultural Productivity Increased
FTF 4.5.2-13 Number of rural households
benefiting directly from USG interventions
Number of full time equivalent jobs
created as a result of AVC activities
FTF 4.5-16,17,18 Gross margin per
hectare, animal or cage of selected
product – MUNG BEAN
product – TOMATO
product – GROUND NUT
product – JUTE
Sub-IR 1.1: Utilization of inputs Improved
Number
$/ hectare
Commodity and sex
2014
TBD
954
0
689
781
887
954
$/ hectare
Commodity and sex
2014
TBD
2372
0
791
1344
1977
2372
$/ hectare
Commodity and sex
2014
TBD
1330
0
887
1042
1219
1330
$/ hectare
Commodity and sex
2014
TBD
183
0
147
159
174
183
2014
TBD
28%
0
2.8%
9. 8%
21%
28%
2014
0
75,000
0
7,500
26,250
56,250
75,000
2014
0
300,000
0
30,000
75,000
120,000
75,000
Commodity,
Male/female headed
or managed HHs
Sub-IR 1.2: Sustainable, productivity, enhancing practices adopted
Percent change in yield of value chain
crops per hectare
Percent
FTF 4.5.2-2 Number of hectares under
Technology type,
improved technologies or management
Hectares
duration and sex
practices as a result of USG assistance
Sub-IR 1.3: Agricultural technologies and nutrition information services strengthened
FTF 4.5.2-7 Number of individuals who
have received USG supported short-term
agricultural sector productivity or food
Number
Type of individual
and sex
67
Indicator
Unit of
Measure
Baseline
Year
Base-line
Value
LOP
Target
2014
Target
2015
Target
2016
Target
2017
Target
2018
Target
2014
0
10%
0
10%
10%
10%
10%
2014
TBD
$120
million
0
$12
million
$30
million
$48
million
$30
million
Commodity and sex
2014
0
25,000
0
2,500
6,250
10,000
6,250
Percent
Commodity and sex
2014
TBD
13%
0
1.3%
4.7%
10%
13%
Number
Commodity and sex
2014
0
300
0
30
75
120
75
Size, Sex of
owner/producer
2014
0
2,000
0
200
500
800
500
2014
0
2014
0
Disaggregation
security training
Percent of beneficiaries with awareness
on nutritional diets receiving nutritional
Percent
Sex
information
Intermediate Result 2: Agricultural Market Systems Strengthened
FTF 4.5.2-23 Value of incremental sales at
farm level attributed to FtF
USD
Commodity
implementation
Sub-IR 2.1: Sustainable farm-to-market linkages and access strengthened
Numbers of independent producers
participating in contract production
Number
system
Sub-IR 2.2: Post-harvest handling and processing improved
Percentage point reduction in postharvest loss
Sub-IR 2.3: Access to finance strengthened
Number of producer groups supported in
value chain integration activities
Sub-IR 2.4 Access to support services strengthened
FTF 4.5.2-37 Number of MSMEs, including
farmers, receiving USG assistance to
access loans
Number
Sub-IR 2..5 Sub-IR 2.5: On and off farm income opportunities increased
Intermediary level
USD
Commodity
$280
million
0
$28
$70
$112
$70
million
million
million
million
25,500
89,250
191,250
255,000
Intermediate Result 3: Innovation and Value Chain Upgrading Increased
FTF 4.5.2-5 Number of farmers and
Value chain actor
others who have applied new technologies
Number
type, technology type
or management practices as a result of
and sex
USG assistance
Sub-IR 3.1: Private sector investment (lead firms et al) increased
255,000
0
68
Indicator
FTF 4.5.2-38 Value of new private sector
investment in the agriculture sector or
food chain leveraged by FtF
implementation
Unit of
Measure
Disaggregation
Baseline
Year
Base-line
Value
LOP
Target
2014
Target
2015
Target
2016
Target
2017
Target
2018
Target
USD
None
2014
0
$21 million
0
$2.1
$5.25
$8.4
$5.25
million
million
million
million
2014
0
200
0
20
50
80
50
2014
0
20
0
4
7
7
2
2014
0
21%
0
2%
7%
15%
21%
2014
0
12
0
3
4
3
2
None
2014
0
5
0
0
4
1
0
Type of organization
and New/Continuing
2014
0
65
0
8
50
65
65
Organization type,
Grant purpose/type,
Number of grants to private sector
Number
Division, Sex of
organizations
business/organization
head
Sub-IR 3.2: Availability of appropriate services, technologies & practices expanded
Number of new technologies and
management practices introduced for
Number
transfer
Sub-IR 3.3: Value added products, processes introduced
None
See Value of incremental sales above
Sub-IR 3.4: Private sector research and development capacity increased
Percentage adoption of new and/or
innovative services, technology and/or
Percent
Commodity, sex
management practices by value chain
actors
Sub-IR 3.5: Enabling environment constraints to value chain competitiveness targeted
Number of meeting/dialogue/workshops
held with relevant partners to discuss
Number
None
business environment constraints that
impede economic growth
Intermediate Result 4: Local Capacities and Systems Strengthened
Sub-IR 4.1: Local organizations’ capacity strengthened
Number of organizations eligible to
receive direct funding for value chain
Number
activities
Sub-IR 4.2: Local capacity to support continued learning enhanced
FTF 4.5.2-11 Number of food security
private enterprises (for profit), producers
organizations, water users associations,
Number
69
Indicator
Unit of
Measure
Disaggregation
Baseline
Year
Base-line
Value
LOP
Target
2014
Target
2015
Target
2016
Target
2017
Target
2018
Target
women's groups, trade and business
associations, and community-based
organizations (CBOs) receiving USG
assistance
Cross cutting results: Nutritional awareness increased, Gender equity and youth participation enhanced, Access to finance and Environmental sustainability and
resilience to climate change strengthened
70
ANNEX D: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TASK
SCHEDULER
Title
Value Chain
Assessment
AVC M&E Plan
AVC Baseline
Assessment
Customization of
Performance
Reporting System –
TAMIS, GIS and
project database
M&E Operations
Manual
Audit of field reports
USAID PPR
Annual Project
Survey
Data Quality
Assessment –
Internal
Date
To determine key value
chains upon which the
AVC project will focus
To reach agreement with
USAID on AVC
performance
measurements
To determine baseline
values prior to project
implementation in order
to determine impact of
project interventions
upon its completion, and
to determine baseline
values for key
performance indicators
Customization of
TAMIS, GIS and project
database to include all
M&E tools and internal
project reporting system
To outline the steps of
data collection, storage
and analysis for each
indicator
To verify the quality of
data collected
30
September
2014
31 October
2014
One-off
DCOP and
program staff
Annual
M&E Advisor
and M&E
Manager
April –
September
2014
One-off
M&E Manager
April –
December
2014
One-off
M&E Manager
November
2014
Annual
M&E Manager
October,
January,
April, July
October
Quarterly
M&E Manager
Annual
M&E Manager
July – Sept
Annual
M&E Manager
April
Annual
M&E Manager
Contribute to annual
USAID performance
reporting to Washington
and on CDCS results
Collect updates on
annually reported
performance indicators
To audit AVC M&E
systems to ensure they
are efficiently and
effectively functioning
Frequency
Person
Responsible
Reason
Notes / Next
Steps
Random
checks in 5
Upazillas
Ensure DQAs
are completed
for each of the
PPR indicators
71
ANNEX E: AVC M&E TOOLS
Form-1: Project’s Participant Registration
From-2: Farmer’s Baseline – in development stage
Form-3: Farmer’s Performance Monitoring – in development stage
Form-4: Intermediary Baseline
Form-5: Intermediary Performance Monitoring– in development stage
Form-6: Institution Profile– in development stage
Form-7: Training Attendance
Form 8: Access to Loan Monitoring
72
Form 1: Project’s Participant Registration
Division:
Upazila:
District:
Union:
1
Sl#
#
2
Nation
al ID#
Farmer's
Name
Number
Number
Name
Code1
3
N:
E:
4
N:
E:
7
N:
E:
N:
E:
N:
E:
8
N:
E:
6
9
10
5
GPS
Reading
2
5
4
Name of Implement Partner(IP):
Name of Value Chain(VC):
Occupati
on other
than
Farming
N:
E:
N:
E:
1
3
Village:
6
7
Father's
/
Husban
d's
Name
Gender
(M =1,
F=2)
Name
Code↑
Period of FY:
8
9
10
Cell
Number
Age
(Full
year)
Total
Family
Memb
er
Number
Year
Number
If Contract production, Organization Name:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Last Year/Seasons Selected VC Product Coverage
HH
Type
Total
Cultiva
ble
Land
(HH)
Cultiva
ted
Land
Code2
Decimal
Decimal
Harvest
PostHarv
est
Loss
Quantit
y of
Sales
Kg/No.
Kg/No
Kg/No.
Sales
Reve
nue
Inp
ut
cost
Taka
Taka
19
20
Other
AVC
VC
Cultiva
ted
Produc
ts
Total
HH
Incom
e
Code3
Taka
N:
E:
N:
E:
Occupation Code1:1=Fish Culture, 2=Agricultural Labor, 3=Non-Agricultural Labor, 4=Small Business, 5=Big/Medium Business, 7=Service, 8=Self-Employed (Handicrafts/Carpenter/other), 9=Rickshaw/Van driver, 10=Professional (Doctor, Engineer, Advocate),
11=Student, 12=Retired/Minor Child, 13=Old (Age >60 years), 14=Others (specify)
Household Type (HH) Code2: 1=Male and female adult - household contains at least one male and one female adult ≥ 18 years old ,2=Female adult only - household contains at least one female adult and no male adults ≥ 18 years old, 3=Male adult only - household
contains at least one male adult and no female adults ≥ 18 years old, 4=Child only - household contains no adults ≥ 18 years old
Product Code3: 1=Mug Bean , 2=Lentil, 3=Mango, 4=Tomato, 5=Ground Nut, 6=Potato, 7=Vegetables, 8=Flowers, 9=Jute, 10=Coir
Name of Group Organizer:
Signature
Date: ___ __/ ___ __/ _________
Name of Supervisor:
Verification by M&E Unit (Name):
Signature
Signature
Date: ___ __/ ___ __/ _________
Date: ___ __/ ___ __/ _________
73
Form-4: Intermediary Baseline
April 2014
(Input Seller, Service provider, Collectors, Aggregators, Traders, Wholesalers, Processors)
Date: ___/____/______
Form SL: [___|___|___|___|___]
Module A: Basic Information
A1. GPS Coordinates:
[applicable for GPS
machine]
A2. Trader/Business
Type:
N: ________°_______' ________''
E: ________°_______' _________''
GPS Machine/Tab ID:
Waypoint ID:
1. Collector:
2. Aggregator:
3. Trader:
4. Wholesaler:
5. Retailer:
6. Semi Processor:
7. Processor:
8. Input Seller:
9. Service Provider:
10. Other trader/processor:
11. Exporter:
A3. Name of Business center:
1=Man only, 2=Woman only, 3=Man-woman
joint, 4=Man –man joint, 5=Woman-woman
joint, 6= Association, 7=Others
A4. Owner type:
A5. Owner’s Name:
A6. Owner’s National ID no.
A7. Owner’s Cell No:
A8. Sex of Owner (1=Male/2=Female):
A9. Age [Complete year]:
0=Never attended school, 1=only can read and write, 2=Primary pass, 3= Secondary
School/Dakhil pass, 4= Higher Secondary/Alim, 5=BA/BSC pass/Fazil, 6=
MA/MSC and above/Kamil, 7=Other (specify)
A10. Education [use code]:
A11. Contact Person Name:
A12. Contact Person Designation:
A13. Contact Person Cell No:
A14. Address/Location of Business center:
A14.1. Para/Street No.:
A14.2. Village:
A14.4. Upazila:
A14.3. Union:
A14.6.
Division:
A14.5. District:
Module B: Legal status and area coverage
Ref.
B1
Questions
For how long have you been in this business? [Applicable
for individual entrepreneur. If joint owner, count the
highest experience no. of years]
B2
Business Establishment/Starting Year:
B3
Working Area
Response
Code
Number of years
[1=Rural, 2=Urban,
3=Both]
75
B4
Do you have any license/registration for your business?
B5
If yes, what type of license/registration does your
organization have?
1=Yes
2=No
9=Not required
1=Trade
2=Fertilizer
3= Pesticide
4=Trade and Fertilizer
5=Trade and Pesticide
6=All
7=Other
9=Not Required
Module C: Product/Service ranges and mode of operation
Ref.
C1
Questions
What type of products do you generally trade/process?
(Check all that apply)
C2
From whom do you mainly buy the product?
C3
How many farmer/small traders
are linked with you to supply
product?
Client Type
Response
Code/explanations
1=Mango
2=Tomato
3=Potato
4=Onion
5=Chili
6=Coriander
7=Mungbean
8=Lentil
9=Ground nut
10=Jute
11=Coconut
Coir
12=Cut
Flower
13=Input
14=Service
1=Individual farmers
2=Farmer associations
3=Contract Farming
4=Small Traders
5=collector
6=Other (please specify)
C3.1 No of
Female
C3.2 No of
Male
C3.3 Total
Individual farmers
Farmer associations
Contract Farming
Small Traders
Collector
C4
C5
From how many villages do you generally collect/buy
through your business?
How do you purchase products from the suppliers?
C6
Please provide detailed information in table below? [during Last 12 month]
SL
Crop ID
C6.1
Month of
purchase
C6.2
Amount purchased
Number of villages
1=At farm gate/farmers yard
2=At your business point
3= Bulk from farmer
associations
4=From small
trader/collector
5=From commission based
collectors
[1=Mond, 2=Kg, 3=Nos]
Purchase value
(Tk/unit)
Amount lost (if
any)
C6.3
C6.4
C6.5
1
76
2
3
4
5
6
C7
SL
Please provide detailed sales information in table below? [during Last 12 month]
Crop
ID
Month
of Sale
Amount
Sold
[1=Mond,
Sales value
(Tk/unit)
2=Kg, 3=Nos]
C7.1
C7.2
C7.3
C7.4
Sales type
[1=Domesti
c,
2=Export]
C7.5
Amount in
Storage
[1=Mond, 2=Kg,
Amount
lost (if
any)
3=Nos]
C7.6
C7.7
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ref.
Questions
Response
Code/explanations
C8
Where do you store your product?
0=Not Applicable
1=Own storage facility
2=Other’s storage
3=Cold storage
4= Other (please specify)
C9
Is there any wastage in the storage during last 12
months?
1=Yes, 2=No
C10
If yes, how much?
Amount in
C11
Measures of unit of wastage
C12
How do you pay your suppliers?
1=On cash at purchase
2=Purchase on credit
3=Cash advance
4=Through Bank/Check
5=Through mobile
banking
C13
Do you provide any services as embedded to your
1=Yes
77
Ref.
Questions
Response
Code/explanations
C8
Where do you store your product?
0=Not Applicable
1=Own storage facility
2=Other’s storage
3=Cold storage
C9
Is there any wastage in the storage during last 12
months?
1=Yes, 2=No
C10
If yes, how much?
Amount in
C11
Measures of unit of wastage
C14
suppliers?
If you provide embedded services, what are those?
2=No >>> skip C14
1=Information
2=Suggestions
3=Training
4=Demonstrations
5=Cash in advance
6=Cash as loan
7=Seed/fertilizer on credit
C15
Where do you mainly sell the products you are
trading?
1=Individual consumer
2=Other trader
3= Wholesaler
4=Retailer
5=Processor/Supply Agent
6=Government dept.
7=I am a semi/processor
C16
How do your buyers pay you?
1=On cash at purchase
3=Cash advance
4=Through Bank/Check
5=Through mobile
banking
C17
Has there been any change occurring in your
business during last 12 months?
What are those?
1=Yes
2=No >>> skip C18
1=Increase working capital
2= invest in equipment
3=Add new product
4=Add new service
5=Market linkage
6=Agreement with supplier
7=Agreement with buyer
8=Recruit new staffs
9=No change occurred
C18
Module D: Manpower and employment generation due to AVC intervention
Ref.
Question
D1
Do you have any employees at your business?
D2
If yes, put information in the following table
Response
Code/explanations
1=Yes
2=No >>> Skip D2
78
SL
Employee
Role/Title
Tota
l#
#
Male
#
Female
Employment
type
[1=Casual,
2=Permanent]
Working
hours per day
(for casual)
Payment (Tk)
Daily
Monthly
1
2
3
4
5
Note: Have to apply economic multiplier model to calculate the employment opportunity creation
Module E: Market linkages and business growth
SL
E1
Questions
Are you connected to a Lead Firm/processor?
E2
If yes, with which Firm/processor is your business linked
with?
1=PRAN
2=Bombay Sweet
3=Square
4=Amrita
5= Others (please specify)
E3
In the last 12 months, have you entered into any formal
business agreement with any trader/processor?
If yes, with which of the following?
1=Yes
2= No >>> Skip E4
1=Other Traders
2=Wholesaler
3=Retailer
4=Processor
5=Government dept.
6=Others (please specify)
1=Yes
2= No >>> Skip E6
1=Local Traders association
2=Chambers of Commerce
3=NGOs
4=MFIs
5=Input company
6=Others (please specify)
1=Yes
2= No >>> Skip E8
1=Chambers of commerce
2=Other Trade association
3=Bank/MFIs
4=NGOs
5=Input company
6=Big traders/wholesaler
7=Processor
8=Dept. of Government
1=Yes
2= No >>> Skip E10
1=Product volume
2=Product quality
3=Price
4=Payment
1=Yes
2= No >>> Skip E12
1=Product volume
2=Product quality
E4
E5
E6
E7
Do you have membership/ affiliation of any professional
or business associations/organizations?
If yes, in which associations/organizations?
E8
Do you receive any other help/support from any other
organization?
From whom/which organization you receive help/support?
E9
Do you have long term agreements with your buyers?
E10
If yes, which type?
E11
Do have any agreements with your suppliers?
E12
If yes, what are those?
Response
Code/Explanation
1=Yes
2= No >>> Skip E2
79
SL
Questions
Response
Code/Explanation
3=Price
4=Payment
Module F: Income, expenditure and investment status
F1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Income-Expense of your profession (Last Month)
Income Area
Taka
F1.1
F1.2
Product Sale
Other Agro input sale
Agro equipment sale
Service fees
Others
XXXXXXX
Expenditure Area
F1.3
Shop Rent
Staff Salary
Electricity and Allied
Cost of goods sold
Transportation cost
Storage Cost
Service Delivery Cost
Cost of Credit collection
Loan installment payment
Others (Security , Utility, Tea and
Allied, others)
Total
SL
F2
Taka
F1.4
Total
Questions
Do you have any other income source other than this
business/profession?
If yes, what are those?
Response
F4
If yes, how much of your income comes from those
sources in each month?
Income Source
F5
What is the amount of working capital for your business?
F6
Please put the Investment for your business/profession during last 12 month in the following table
F3
SL
1
2
3
4
5
6
Item Name
F7.1
Business development
Purchase of equipment
Receive Training
Purchase Delivery Truck
Licensing
Others
Code/Explanation
1=Yes
2= No >>> Skip F3
1=Farming
2=Input sell
3=Ago-equipment sell
4=Service
5=Transport rent
6=Other business
Taka
Taka
Total Value/Cost (Tk)
F7.2
80
Module G: Access to finance and savings
SL
G1
Questions
Do you have any Savings from your income?
G2
Where do you keep your savings?
G3
How do you maintain the finances of your
business?
G4
If you received a loan, from where did you
borrow the money?
G5
What amount of loan (taka) did you borrow
during the last 12 months?
Did you use the money from the loan for your
business?
If yes, how do you use the loan amount?
G6
G7
Response
Code/Explanation
1=Yes
2= No >>> Skip G2
1=Bank
2=MFIs
3=Mobile Banking
4=Trade Associations
1=Own savings
2=Through loans
3=Grant from govt. institute
4=Grant from NGO
5=Gift from relatives
6=Family fund
7=Advance from processor
8=Others ( specify)
1=Commercial Bank
2=Relatives
3=Neighbor (non-relative)
4=Business Partner
5=Dealer/Trader/Aggregator
7=Processor/Suppliers
8=NGO (MFI)
9=Moneylender
10=Government institute/dept.
11=Groups loan fund/Association
12=Others ( specify)
Taka
1=Yes
2= No >>> Skip G7
1= Capital investment
2=Use as working capital
3=Purchase business equipment
4=To repay other loan
5= Others ( specify)
Module H: Knowledge and Skill Proposition
SL
H1
Questions
Did you receive any training for your profession?
H2
What type pf training(s) you received? [put training title]
H2
From where do you receive the training(s)?
H3
Did you receive any training during the last year?
Response
Code/Explanation
1=Yes
2= No >>> Skip H2, H3
1=Basic Business
operation
2=Entrepreneurship
Development
3=Accounting process
4=Semi processing
5=Post harvest
management
6=Packaging
1=DAE
2=Other Govt. Institute
3=Processing Company
3=NGOs
1=Yes
2= No >>> Skip H4
81
SL
H4
Questions
If yes, from where do you the receive training(s)?
Response
Code/Explanation
H5
What are the major issues concerned with the buyers when
you trade products with them?
H6
Are you able to meet their most frequently raised concerns?
1=Yes
2= No
H7
What are your main constraints to resolve the limitations you
are facing in your profession?
1=Product supply
2=Skill and knowledge
3=Financial
4=Manpower
5=They change their
requirement frequently
6=Others ( specify)
1=DAE
2=Other Govt. Institute
3=Processing Company
3=NGOs
1=Product quality
2=Product volume
3=Timeliness
4=Packaging
Module I: Record keeping and documentation
SL
I1
Questions
What type of register/record keeping do you maintain for
your business?
I2
Do you have a bank account for your business that is separate
from your own bank account?
Response
Code/Explanation
1=Sales register
2=Purchase book
3=Inventory
4=Daily cost ledger
5=No register used
1=Yes
2= No
Check Box
Interviewer
Supervisor
Data Entry Operator
Name:
Signature:
Date:
______/______/_________
______/______/ _________
______/______/_________
82
Form 7: AVC Training Attendance
Training Venue:
Name of Trainer:
Trainer contact No.:
GPS Reading:
Training Duration(No. of Hours):
Value Chain:
Union:
Product(s):
Training Topic/s:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Upazila:
District:
Name of Organization/Partner:
ID/SI
Name of Participant
Gender
M/F
Age
Contact Number(s)
Address (Village,
Holding no.)
Type of Participants:
Summary: No. of Male:
No. of Female:
Total :
Date : DD/MM/YYYY
Day1 Signature
Producers
Date :
DD/MM/YYYY
Day2 Signature
Date :
DD/MM/YYYY
Day3 Signature
Group Organizer Name:
Designation:
Sign:
Date:DD/MM/YYYY
Supervisor Name:
Designation:
Sign:
Date:DD/MM/YYYY
Verified by M&E Name:
Designation:
Sign:
Date:DD/MM/YYYY
First
time
training
with
AVC?
(√Yes/
No)
83
Form 8: Access to Loan Monitoring
Date:
Period of Performance (3 months): From______________________To______________________
Name of Organization/Partner:
Sex of Owner
ID/SI
Name
Source of Loan:
Informal/ Formal
Type of organization:
M/F/Joint
Address
Value Chain
Product(s)
*Type of
Enterprise
# of
employees
(*FTE)
Amount
of Loan
Interest
Rate (%)
Loan
Use For
Remark
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Data Collected by:
Designation:
Sign:
Date:DD/MM/YYYY
Supervisor Name:
Designation:
Sign:
Date:DD/MM/YYYY
Sign:
Date:DD/MM/YYYY
Verified by M&E:
Designation:
*Type Enterprise [Producer(farmer), Input supplier, Trader, Processors, Non-agriculture] and
FTE=Full Time-Equivalent
84
85

AGRICULTURAL VALUE CHAINS (AVC) PROJECT

Transcription

Similar documents

24 News

Horticulture Innovation Lab Regional Center at Zamorano in Honduras

Blitz Cinestar

DeMarker Strategy

Sound system for Aqua park ATLANTIS

BatFink indicator

wlfm-postcard starburst - Westland

DeMarker - ActFX Algorithmic Trading

EU VET STARS – Leonardo Partnership Project