Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the Feed the Future Strengthening Value Chains Activity (SVC)

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF

THE STRENGTHENING VALUE CHAINS (SVC)

ACTIVITY IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

OF THE CONGO

January 15, 2021

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF

THE STRENGTHENING VALUE CHAINS (SVC)

ACTIVITY IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

OF THE CONGO

January 15, 2021

Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development under USAID Contract Number:

AID-OAA-TO-16-00008

Submitted to:

USAID/DRC

Carter Hemphill

chemphill@usaid.gov

and

USAID/Bureau for Resilience and Food Security

Lesley Perlman

[email protected]v

Submitted by:

Della E. McMillan, Team Leader

James L. Seale, Jr., Agriculture Specialist/Value Chain Expert

Christopher Coffman, Evaluation Specialist

Dieudonné Bahati Shamamba, Agricultural Specialist

Dora Muhuku Salama, Gender, SBCC and Capacity Building Specialist

Pascal Kaboy Mupenda, Evaluation Field Coordinator

Contractor:

Program Evaluation for Effectiveness and Learning (PEEL)

ME&A

1020 19

Street NW, Suite 875

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 240-762-6296

Recommended citation:

Della E. McMillan, James L. Seale, Jr., Dieudonné Bahati Shamamba, Dora Muhuku Salama, Pascal Kaboy

Mupenda, Christopher Coffman. 2020. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the Strengthening Value

Chain (SVC) Activity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Bethesda, Md. Program Evaluation for

Effectiveness and Learning (PEEL) for USAID/DRC.

Photo Credit: Woman’s hands holding beans (left). Woman sorting coffee beans (right). Photo by Lucy

O’Bryan Photography. Images used with the permission of Tetra Tech.

DISCLAIMER

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.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The evaluation team (ET) would like to express its deep gratitude to the Strengthening Value Chain

Activity (SVC) team for its stolid backup at every stage of this evaluation.

SVC M&E Director, Ruben Bahavu Bihango provided strong back-up and helped develop simple tables that

distilled the activity’s considerable achievements. Special thanks are also due to Hubert Nkaotuli, Finance

Specialist, for providing summary tables on finance. In addition to accompanying the team on its initial pilot

testing of the forms, Gender Specialist Bertin Bisimwa Kabomboro provided reams of documents and

special tables on the SVC Gender Action Learning System (GALS) strategy that were much appreciated.

The ET would also like to extend a special note of gratitude to the Chief of Party’s principal assistant,

Guilain Kulimushi, who played a vital role in helping the Evaluation Field Coordinator, Pascal K. Mupenda,

track down hundreds of missing telephone and email addresses and initiate contact with the people to

explain who we were and why we wanted to interview them.

The ET would also like to thank its local partner, Research Initiative in Social Development (RISD), and

its Managing Director Emmanuel Kandate Musema and Senior Researcher Antoine Mmushagalusa Ciza.

We would also like to thank RISD Field Supervisor Rodrigue Salomona Bagabo who verified field

appointments and non-respondents to the initial invitation for online survey.

We also want to thank the USAID staff who played a key role in in this study. We are especially grateful

to the SVC Contracting Officer’s Representative Carter Hemphill and the SVC Agreement Officer’s

Representative Augustin Ngeleka who is the institutional memory for this activity and the Kivu Agriculture

and Nutrition Shared Results Framework and all of the previous agriculture and economic growth projects

that preceded SVC. Finally, we would like to thank Lesley Perlman at the Bureau for Resilience and Food

Security for her firm support throughout this process.

One of the things that made this exercise very different from a conventional Feed the Future evaluation

was the wide participation and support it enjoyed from other USAID program staff and funded projects.

For this we are grateful to the leadership of Marialice Ariens, the USAID/DRC Food for Peace Advisor,

and her team Marcel Ntumba and Dieudonne Mbuka and DFSA leaders like Anthony Koomsom, Dr.

Claude Nankam, and Filbert Leone Ahmat at Food for the Hungry and Jean Daniel at Mercy Corps.

The team also wishes to thank the PEEL staff who backstopped us down to the very end, especially Dr.

Gary Woller, PEEL Chief of Party; Lidia Awad, Senior Project Coordinator; Michelle Ghiselli, ME&A Senior

Editor; and Jessica Drew, Assistant Project Coordinator.

ABSTRACT

The USAID/Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Strengthen Value Chain Activity (SVC) activity aims to

increase agricultural production and incomes of small farmers in the dried bean, soybean, and coffee value

chains (VCs) in the DRC’s South Kivu province. The SVC mid-term performance evaluation sought to

identify achievements, performance issues, and constraints, focusing on SVC’s collaboration with Food for

Peace (FFP) and, from this, to identify a set of actionable recommendations to achieve activity goals and

objectives for the short, medium, and long-term.

Activity interventions contributed to the increased adoption of improved production and post-harvest

practices and increased production, quality, and sales, and to a lesser extent increased market linkages, in

the dried bean and coffee VCs. SVC’s gender activities further contributed to the increased adoption of

gender practices and gender outcomes by small farmers and their POs. However, numerous challenges

remain in the targeted VCs, chief among them the lack of access to quality inputs and finance, lack of

horizontal and vertical market linkages, and weak capacity of farmer producer organizations (POs).

SVC has struggled to achieve an integrated “one-team” approach with the FFP Development Food Security

Activities (DFSAs) owing to, among other things, different intervention priorities, contractual restrictions,

weak intra-project communication, and poor synchronization of implementation timelines.

The evaluation offers nine primary recommendations and 25 sub-recommendations for USAID/DRC

related to staffing and management, capacity building, access to inputs, access to finance, market

diversification, strengthening the enabling environment, inter-project coordination, gender, youth, and

social engagement, and strengthening VC best practices.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... i

1.0 EVALUATION OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Evaluation Purpose and Audience ........................................................................................ 1

1.2 Evaluation Questions ......................................................................................................... 1

2.0 ACTIVITY BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Mechanism Description ...................................................................................................... 1

2.1.1 Context ............................................................................................................... 1

2.1.2 Target Populations and Areas ................................................................................ 2

2.1.3 Activity Implementation Plan ................................................................................. 3

3.0 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................ 5

3.1 Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Methodological Limitations ................................................................................................. 6

4.0 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 7

4.1 EQ 1: To what extent is SVC meeting overall intended goals and objectives? ......................... 7

4.1.1 How can Tetra Tech improve its implementation and management approach to better

achieve results toward objectives? .......................................................................... 7

4.1.2 What are the notable areas of progress the activity has achieved in support of activity

objectives? .......................................................................................................... 10

4.1.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 20

4.2 EQ 2: In what ways has SVC’s collaboration with other USAID activities effectively contributed

to the Sub-IRs in the Shared Results Framework and the Shared Contract Target? .............. 21

4.2.1 What are some of the difficulties the activity has faced coordinating activities? ........ 21

4.2.2 For which Sub-IRs has the collaboration been most effective? ................................ 24

4.2.3 Are the results different between sites where collaboration has occurred versus sites

where SVC has been working independently? ........................................................ 24

4.2.4 How can the collaboration and identified gaps be improved? .................................. 25

4.2.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 26

4.3 EQ 3: To what extent did SVC address the issue of increased gender equality and increased

women’s economic empowerment in target communities? .................................................. 26

4.3.1 What approaches have been most effective? ......................................................... 26

4.3.2 How can SVC more effectively integrate cross-cutting sectors and gender

considerations into interventions? ........................................................................ 30

4.3.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 31

4.4 EQ 1-C: What are some of the challenges faced in meeting the intended goals, objectives, and

results? How effectively has the implementer dealt with those challenges? What can be changed

to better meet goals and objectives? / EQ 4: What are the internal and external threats to

sustainability beyond the life of the activity for the following components of SVC? What are the

biggest challenges that need to be addressed? What opportunities are there for the Mission to

better ensure sustainability? ............................................................................................. 31

4.4.1 Primary challenges and threats to Coffee and Agriculture/Agribusiness Sectors ....... 31

4.4.2 Predictable and unpredictable challenges and threats ............................................. 33

4.4.3 Component 1: Build capacity of vertical and horizontal actors in targeted VCs ........ 34

4.4.4 Component 2: Enhance coffee production ............................................................ 36

4.4.5

Component 3: Develop and implement public private partnerships ......................... 36

4.4.6 Component 4: Access to Finance (A2F) ................................................................ 37

4.4.7 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result (CCIR): Gender, Youth, and Social Inclusion ...... 37

4.4.8 Capacity Building Assistance ................................................................................ 38

4.4.9 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 39

4.5 EQ 5: What considerations should USAID/DRC consider in the future design of

Agriculture/EG Activities, particularly in regard to the IRs of the Shared Results Framework? . 40

4.5.1 IR 1: Improved agricultural livelihoods .................................................................. 40

4.5.2 IR 2: Expanded markets and trade ........................................................................ 41

4.5.3 IR 3: Improved uptake of essential nutrition behaviors and services ........................ 43

4.5.4 CCIR: Gender equality and social empowerment (SBCC and conflict mitigation) ..... 44

4.5.5 Improved collaboration with other USAID-funded projects ................................... 44

4.5.6 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 45

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 46

6.0 ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................................................... 50

Annex 1: Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................... 51

Annex 2: Summary Recommendations for the Current Life of Activity and Any Costed Extension

(*Indicates Activities That Will Require a Costed Extension) ................................... 53

Annex 3: Components and Partners by Territory ................................................................. 59

Annex 4: Nested Market Networks Collaborating With SVC ................................................ 60

Annex 5: Qualitative and Quantitative Data Sources for the Seven Categories of SVC Stakeholders

.......................................................................................................................... 64

Annex 6: Performance Indicator Tracking Table ................................................................... 65

Annex 7: Apex Groups and Producer Organizations in South Kivu ........................................ 73

Annex 8: Concessionaire Partners of SVC ........................................................................... 75

Annex 9: Apex Groups and Concessionaries Working on Soybeans Possibly Targeted for Support

in FY 2021 and FY 2022 ....................................................................................... 76

Annex 10: Evolution of SVC Support for Different Types of Finance (Through June 30, 2020) . 78

Annex 11: GALS Training Participants ................................................................................. 79

Annex 12: List of Stakeholders Interviewed ......................................................................... 82

Annex 13: Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 93

Annex 14: SVC Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Expression of Interest .............................. 95

Annex 15: Conflict of Interest Forms for ET Members ....................................................... 105

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Adoption of Improved Agricultural Practices in the Coffee VC (N=54) ........................................... 11

Table 2: Increased Use of Agricultural Production Inputs in the Coffee VC (N=54) ..................................... 12

Table 3: Adoption of Post-Harvest Practices in the Coffee VC (N=54) ............................................................ 13

Table 4: Market Linkage Outcomes in the Agriculture and Agribusiness VCs (N=120) ............................... 18

Table 5: Post-Harvest Outcomes in the Agriculture and Agribusiness VCs (N=120) ................................... 19

Table 6: Comparison of Outcomes for Dried Bean Farmers in North Kalehe and South Kalehe (N=432)

............................................................................................................................................................................. 25

Table 7: Effectiveness of GALS in Promoting Gender Outcomes ....................................................................... 29

Table 8: Perceived Sustainability of SVC Impacts – Online Survey Respondents (N=183) ........................... 32

Table 9: Primary Challenges and Threats – CATI Survey Respondents ............................................................ 32

Table 10: Primary Challenges and Threats – Online Survey Respondents ........................................................ 33

Table 11: Perceived Usefulness of SVC Capacity Building Assistance (N=26) ................................................. 38

Table 12: Evolution of DFSA VC Priorities Over the Life Cycle of a Five-Year Activity and Opportunities

for Market Systems Engagement in Three Predictable Time Frames ................................................ 45

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Kivu Agriculture and Nutrition Shared Results Framework (2013) .................................................... 2

Figure 2: FTF SVC and FSP Locations ........................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3: Co-Location Areas Between FSP and SVC Activities .............................................................................. 5

Figure 4: Trajectory of Dried Bean Sales Prices by Season and Territory ($US per Kilogram) ................... 16

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACRONYM

DESCRIPTION

A2F

Access to Finance

ACT

Association of Small Cross-Border Traders

AMELP

Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan

AMSA

Association des Multiplicateurs de Semences Améliorées

AOR

Agreement Officer’s Representative

ASOP

Action Sociale et d’Organisation Paysanne

AVEC

Associations Villageoises d'Épargne et de Crédits

B2B

Business to Business

CARG

Rural Agricultural Management Council

CATI

Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview

CBG

Community-Based Group

CCIR

Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result

CCKa

Kalehe Coffee Cooperative

CDCS

Country Development Cooperation Strategy

CDO

Community Development Officer

CFC

Coffee Farmer College

CLD

Communauté Locale de Développement

CMC

Community Marketing Center

COP

Chief of Party

COR

Contracting Officer’s Representative

COVID-19

Coronavirus Disease 2019

CPCK

La Coopérative des Producteurs du Café de Kabamba

CPEs

Concessionaires and Private Enterprises

CPR

Centre de Promotion Rurale/ Idjwi

CSP

Coffee Service Provider

CTAs

Collaborators and Technical Assistance Providers

DCA

Development Credit Authority

DFSA

Development Food Security Activity

DRC

Democratic Republic of the Congo

DTS

Deconcentrated Government Services

Economic Growth

Evaluation Question

Evaluation Team

ETD

Entité Territoriale Décentralisée

FBG

Farmer Business Group

FEC

Federation of Businesses of the Congo

FFP

Food for Peace

FFS

Farmer Field School

FGD

Focus Group Discussion

Food for the Hungry

Financial Institution

FODDR

Fondation Djuma Dominique Rwesi

FSP

Food Security Project

FTF

Feed the Future

Fiscal Year

GALS

Gender Action Learning System

GAP/K

Groupe Agricole Pastorale/Kivu

ACRONYM

DESCRIPTION

GDRC

Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

GYSI

Gender, Youth, and Social Inclusion

Hectare

Headquarters

Inter-Association

IGA

Integrated Governance Activity

IHP

Integrated Health Project

INERA

National Agricultural Study and Research Institute

Implementing Partner

Intermediate Result

IYDA

Integrated Youth Development Activity

KACCO

Kalehe Arabica Coffee Cooperative

Kilogram

KII

Key Informant Interview

Kilometer

Listening Club

LOA

Life of Activity

M&E

Monitoring and Evaluation

Mercy Corps

ME&A

ME&A, Inc.

MECC

Monitoring, Evaluation, Coordination, Contract

MFI

Microfinance Institution

MIS

Market Information System

MOU

Memorandum of Understanding

MSMEs

Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises

Metric Ton

OFTT

On-Farm Technical Trial

ONAPAC

Office Nationale des Produits Agricoles

PACE

Participatory Agricultural Cascade

PAV

Programme d’Appui aux Vulnérables

PEEL

Program Evaluation for Effectiveness and Learning

PHH

Post-Harvest Handling

PITT

Performance Indicator Tracking Table

Producer Organization

POSA

Producer Organization Sustainability Assessment Tool

PPP

Public-Private Partnership

RCPCA

Réseau des Coopératives des Producteurs de Café Cacao en RDC

RFS

Bureau for Resilience and Food Security

RISD

Research Initiative for Social Development

SBCC

Social and Behavior Change Communication

SCPNCK

Société Coopérative des Producteurs Novateurs du Café au Kivu

SFCG

Search for Common Ground

SIL

Soy Innovation Lab

Sub-IR

Sub-Intermediate Result

SVC

Strengthening Value Chains Activity

Technical Assistance

TIP

Trafficking in Persons

Transition Objective

TOT

Training of Trainers

UCB

Catholic University of Bukavu

ACRONYM

DESCRIPTION

UCOAKA

Union des Coopératives Agricoles de Kalehe

Umbrella Organization

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

USG

United States Government

Value Chain

VSLA

Village Savings and Loan Association

WCR

World Coffee Research

World Vision

ZOI

Zone of Influence

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This Executive Summary presents an overview of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations from

the midterm performance evaluation of the Feed the Future, Democratic Republic of the Congo,

Strengthening Value Chains (SVC) Activity. The evaluation’s purpose is to identify achievements,

performance issues, and constraints related to activity implementation and effectiveness, with a focus on

SVC’s collaboration with Food for Peace (FFP) in the same geographical zone, and, from this, to identify a

set of actionable recommendations to achieve activity goals and objectives for three time horizons—

short-term (one to two years); medium-term (three to four years); and long-term (greater than five years).

ACTIVITY BACKGROUND

In 2013, the United States Agency for International Development Democratic Republic of the Congo

(USAID/DRC) Country Development Cooperative Strategy (CDCS) committed USAID to support a new

model of integrated regional transition planning for Eastern Congo designed to shift assistance focus away

from humanitarian relief toward a market-led development as articulated in CDCS Transition Objective

(TO) 3. To achieve TO 3, USAID developed a regional strategy in which USAID-funded activities in South

Kivu would collaborate with one another to achieve the three principle objectives of the Kivu Agriculture

and Nutrition Shared Results Framework. SVC was originally conceptualized as one of three categories

of USAID-funded activities to achieve the Kivu Agricultural and Nutrition Shared Objective, “Reduce

extreme poverty and malnutrition in target populations.” The two other categories of programming included

the two FFP projects known as Development Food Security Activities (DFSAs) and other USAID-funded

projects that were active in the area. SVC’s stated purpose is to “increase household incomes and access to

nutrient-rich crops by linking smallholder farmers to strengthened and inclusive value chains and supportive market

chain services.”

Tetra Tech implements SVC in collaboration with five implementing partners (IPs): Banyan Global, J.E.

Austin Associates, Inc., Search for Common Ground (SFCG), TechnoServe, and World Coffee Research

(WCR). Together they work to build the capacity of vertical and horizontal actors working within the

dried bean, soybean, and coffee value chains (VCs) in the South Kivu territories of Kabare, Kalehe, and

Walungu. Contractually, SVC’s assistance to the dried bean and soybean VCs is limited to post-harvest to

market activities, while its assistance to the coffee VC covers the entire VC.

SVC is organized around six components: 1) build capacity of vertical and horizontal actors in targeted

VCs; 2) enhance coffee production; 3) develop and implement public-private partnerships (PPPs);

4) enhance access to finance; 5) gender, youth, and social inclusion (GYSI); and 6) social and behavior

change communication (SBCC) and resilience. The component teams were expected to work with the

DFSAs and other USAID projects to benefit diverse actors, including the provincial, territorial, and local

governments, producer organizations (POs), cooperatives, agro-dealers, concessionaires (large

landholders), collection centers, warehouses, wet mills, buyers, financial institutions (FIs), and smallholder

farmers. By June 2020, SVC was working with 45,291 direct beneficiaries, 50 percent more than its

contractual target of 30,000, and 61,000-92,000 indirect beneficiaries.

EVALUATION DESIGN AND LIMITATIONS

The evaluation sought to answer five primary evaluation questions (EQs) using a mixed-methods

evaluation design consisting of a document review; a review of SVC’s performance monitoring data;

133 key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with 292 participants across six

primary stakeholder groups; an online survey with 183 respondents across the same six stakeholder

groups; and a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey with 800 smallholder farmers

benefiting from activity production and post-harvest handling (PHH) support in the dried beans and coffee

VCs and 203 farmers participating in SVC’s Gender Action Learning System (GALS) trainings. Because of

government bans on travel outside of Bukavu, the evaluation team (ET), consisting of two international

consultants and three local consultants, conducted only 23 of their KIIs/FGDs in person and the rest using

remote interviewing methods, including telephone, Skype, Google Meet, and Zoom.

The SVC evaluation design included a number of methodological limitations. The principal limitation was,

due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the two international consultants were not

able to conduct field visits. The ET sought to minimize the impact of this limitation by taking additional

time to develop and refine the KII/FGD protocols and train the team in their use and adopting a

participatory process for decentralized management under the leadership of a qualified field coordinator.

Other limitations included the challenges involved in identifying and selecting participants in the KIIs and

FGDs and the two surveys both to minimize bias and ensure the independence of the evaluation. To

address these challenges, the ET collaborated closely with SVC to generate comprehensive lists (or

sampling frames) of stakeholders and then to either purposively (KIIs, FGDs, and online survey) or

randomly (CATI survey) select key informants to participate in the evaluation. The ET employed a variety

of processes to ensure that the selection process (responses) was as representative as possible.

Notwithstanding, the degree of female representation on the CATI survey fell below targets owing to

lower ownership/control of mobile phones by females compared to males.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

EQ 1: To what extent is the SVC meeting intended goals and objectives?

Findings

How can Tetra Tech improve its implementation and management approach to better

achieve results toward objectives? Key informants praised Tetra Tech’s flexible management

approach, which enabled it to make progress towards its objectives in the face of several major challenges.

Implementation challenges that SVC has faced are as follows:

∉ Difficulty developing a “one team” approach with the IPs because of SVC’s requirement to create and

report on IP component teams, which encouraged the teams to develop their own work plans in silos

before consolidation in a master work plan for execution and reporting by component teams.

∉ The common perception among activity stakeholders that SVC failed to incorporate local actors and

local concerns in activity planning and interventions, notwithstanding SVC’s efforts to involve local

partners it its annual planning and implementation activities.

∉ Misaligned provisions in the SVC contract and the DFSA cooperative agreements, which meant that

the DFSAs focused on different VCs than SVC, limited SVC to working on half the VC in the dried

bean and soybean VCs while providing full support for the specialty coffee VC, and adversely affected

SVC’s ability to backstop the DFSAs in developing the private sector seed supply needed to sustain

higher production levels.

∉ Lack of field staff, which affected SVC’s ability to provide the level of service required. This, together

with the above contractual requirement, made it difficult for SVC to support some emerging

community and DFSA initiatives and kept it tied to the soybean VC.

∉ Project contracts that did not include guidance on monitoring and reporting on joint activities.

∉ Most support for intra-project coordination with the DFSAs and other USAID projects in South Kivu

stopped after the security situation worsened in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018.

iii

What are the notable areas of progress the activity has achieved in support of activity

objectives?

Coffee Value Chain: Senior staff at USAID, SVC, the DFSAs, and other USAID projects cited the

successful scale-up of the SVC coffee model as SVC’s biggest success story. Notable areas of progress in

the coffee VC include:

Intermediate Result (IR) I: Improved agricultural livelihoods among targeted households: Eighty-seven

percent of coffee farmer college (CFC) participants in the CATI survey reported their coffee production

increased by a large or very large extent, and 67 percent increased their coffee sales to a large or very

large extent. FGD participants agreed that SVC is very effective in improving coffee production through

the CFC, while 94 percent of online survey respondents agreed that the quality of their coffee cherry had

improved after participating in the CFC. KII and FGD participants noted improvements in outcomes

related to production, quality, sales, and income.

Sub-Intermediate Result (Sub-IR) 1.1: Increased use of improved agricultural practices and inputs: Ninety-

two percent of CATI survey CFC participants said they implemented what they learned from the training

either to a large extent or very large extent. More than 90 percent of online survey farmer trainers and

focal farmers agreed that coffee farmers had adopted improved weeding, pest management, rejuvenation,

and pruning practices and increased the quality of their coffee production because of CFC.

IR 2: Expanded markets and trade: SVC helped POs, concessionaires, and private enterprises to access

credit and training to develop washing station infrastructure and quality control measures needed to be

competitive in international markets; attracted roasters to the Saveur du Kivu trade show and improved

the cupper training; targeted and monitored PO capacity building for managing washing stations; facilitated

the creation of the Network of Cocoa Coffee Producers Cooperatives in the DRC (RCPCA), the principal

national platform for coffee producers in the country; and encouraged a better enabling environment.

Sub-IR 2.1: Improved market linkages and information systems: Activity internal tracking shows more

revenue per kilogram of exportable green and an upward trend in initial and second payments in the

percentage of the final price accruing to farmers. Tracking also shows an increase in the number of

containers of specialty coffee exported per year from South Kivu in the number of specialty coffee buyers.

Sub-IR 2.2: Improved post-harvest storage and processing: Ninety percent of online survey respondents

reported increased adoption of improved post-harvest practices. According to stakeholder interviews,

SVC was successful in relation to post-harvest practices and infrastructure.

Sub-IR 2.3: Improved access to finance: SVC surpassed its targets for increasing private sector investment

in the specialty coffee VC. SVC has provided basic training, retraining, and coaching that have increased

the FIs’ willingness and ability to make loans. To facilitate concessionaires’ co-investment in the target

VCs, SVC has provided SVC technical staff advice on improved agricultural practices and inputs and helped

develop the business plans they need to get credit.

Sub-IR 2.4: Increased capacity of agricultural-related producer groups, organizations, and enterprises: SVC

scaled up support to cooperatives and private enterprises managing the coffee washing stations from nine

in FY 2018 to 19 in FY 2020 managed by 15 operators, seven cooperatives and eight private enterprises.

Five cooperatives have reached the minimum level of capacity that they need to operative effectively, and

five cooperatives are managing the washing station satisfy SVC’s criteria for sustainability.

Sub-IR 2.5: Improved government service regulations and taxation for agricultural inputs and trade: Four

stakeholder interviews commended SVC for improving the global enabling environment for specialty

coffee production.

Sub-IR 3.2: Increased awareness of and commitment to essential nutrition promoting practices/Sub-IR 3.4:

Improved access to diverse and nutritious foods: SVC contributed to increasing the awareness of and

access to diverse and nutritious foods in the areas where it supports the specialty coffee VC by

broadcasting SBCC radio spots promoting the consumption of dried beans and soybean products on seven

rural radio stations that were monitored by 19 community-based listening groups.

Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result (CCIR): Gender, youth, and social inclusion: SVC integrated messages

on gender and youth inclusion in all its PO and CFC trainings, developed a GALS course for CFCs, and

incorporated a gender module in the core training for 13,089 CFC participants. Sixty-four percent of CFC

online survey respondents agreed that SVC contributed to improving gender equity and women’s socio-

economic empowerment.

Addressing community development needs: SVC held training for 160 coffee farmers on GALS, increasing

their access to knowledge, inputs, and financing for washing stations needed to diversify into specialty

coffee production and making available more land for bean production.

Dried Bean Value Chain: In January 2020, SVC signed capacity building memoranda of understanding

(MOUs) with 10 platform/apex organizations working in the VC, including apex groups working with the

bean and soybean POs, principal apex organizations working with the bean and soybean sellers, and

Association of Small Cross-Border Traders (ACT). Notable areas of progress include:

IR 1: Improved agriculture livelihoods among targeted households: Thirty-nine percent of CATI survey

bean farmers reported that they received some production training, 91 percent of whom reported that

this production training had a positive impact on sales. Prices have increased since 2018 because of higher

product quality, the market linkages facilitated by SVC, and aggregation at the point of sale. Seventy-eight

percent of bean farmers reported receiving higher bean prices than the previous year. Twenty-five

stakeholder interviews cited instances in which activity assistance had contributed to improved dried bean

production, quality, sales, and income.

Sub-IR 1.1: Increased use of improved agriculture practices and inputs: An internal study found yields of

350 to 450 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) on activity beneficiaries’ plots versus 1,025 kg/ha or higher on

demonstration plots, a result of weak access to improved seed and inputs, low adoption of improved

production practices, and limited application of fertilizers required due to low soil fertility. Only

48.3 percent of online respondents agreed or strongly agreed that farmers had increased their access to

quality inputs. The lack of access to inputs was cited as a persistent challenge across multiple KIIs/FGDs

and stakeholder groups. More positively, 86 percent of dried bean farmers in the CATI survey are

implementing their DFSA-supported production training in their fields, 96 percent have improved their

bean production, and 99 percent want to increase their bean production. In the online survey, 74.1 percent

of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that farmers had increased their product quality.

Sub-IR 2.1: Improved market linkages and information systems: Fifty-five percent of online survey

respondents reported that farmers had increased their number of commercial linkages or their access to

market information. Thirty stakeholder interviews cited forming new market linkages. More

concessionaires are facilitating leveraged sales for the beans grown adjacent to their concessions.

Sub-IR 2.2: Improved post-harvest storage and processing: Twenty-eight percent of CATI bean farmers

received formal post-harvest training, of which 86 percent reported implementing the training, 84 percent

said the training positively affected their production, and 82 percent said the training positively affected

their dried bean sales. Nearly 60 percent of online survey respondents reported that farmers had adopted

improved post-harvest practices. One-third of trained POs between 2018 and 2020 produced 27 percent

more beans for market.

Sub-IR 2.3: Improved access to finance: SVC helped leverage $3,169,630 in loans for SVC clients in the

coffee sector from FY 2017 through June FY 2020, principally to washing stations. The number of loans

from FIs with Development Credit Authority (DCA) loan guarantees increased from six in FY 2017 to 35

through June of FY 2020, albeit with the majority going to large agribusinesses. As of June 2020, 12 SVC-

supported concessionaires are working to receive (or have already received) loans for large infrastructure

investments, such as washing stations.

Sub-IR 2.4: Increased capacity of agriculture-related producer groups, organizations, and enterprises: Fifty-

two percent of POs included in SVC’s internal PO Sustainability Assessment Tool (POSA) survey had

attained the target of 61 percent of the basic capacity needed to organize group sales and member services.

Sub-IR 3.2: Increased awareness of and commitment to essential nutrition promoting practices: Ninety-

four percent of CATI survey respondents answering the question said that SVC’s SBCC messages were

incorporated into the PHH training and had increased their awareness of the nutritional benefits of

consuming biofortified beans. Further, 18 community-based stakeholder interviews stated that SVC SBCC

messaging on the radios had made them more aware of the health benefits of soybeans and dried beans.

Sub-IR 3.4: Improved access to diverse and nutritious foods: Twenty-one percent of CATI survey bean

farmers said they grew beans for household consumption, while 63 percent grew beans for both

household consumption and for sale. Bean farmers reserved 50.6 percent of their bean crop for home

consumption. SVC facilitated access to biofortified seeds for 6,800 of the most vulnerable households.

CCIR: Gender, youth, and social inclusion: Sixty percent of online survey respondents agreed that gender

equity and women’s socio-economic empowerment had improved in the agricultural and agribusiness

sectors, while 50.9 percent agreed that social inclusion had improved.

Soybean Value Chain: Since 2018, SVC has used the half VC strategy for the soybean VC to support

smallholders’ production of and access to soybeans. Soybean activities have included the following:

Sub-IR 1.1: Increased use of improved agricultural practices and inputs: SVC launched a public awareness

campaign to generate demand for improved bean and soybean seed; undertook missions to identify POs

interested in soy production; produced a cost of product study; and developed a handout of recommended

timing for agricultural inputs.

IR 2: Expanded markets and trade: SVC has conducted special studies of storage practices; explored and

facilitated institutional market opportunities to develop market linkages with SVC-supported POs and

concessionaires; facilitated linkages between local producers to supply local processors and buyers;

supported training in post-harvest processing and marketing; developed a fact sheet on soybean

production for banks and microfinance institutions (MFIs); and organized business to business (B2B) events

to promote soybean seed sales.

IR 3: Improved uptake of essential nutrition behaviors and services: SVC has promoted the nutritional

value of producing and consuming soybean products and supported SBCC radio spots. Ninety-three

percent of community-based producer groups who responded to the mini-survey on SBCC messaging

said that SVC’s investment in promoting soy had increased their interest in growing and consuming it.

Conclusions

SVC’s contract restrictions and budget adversely affected its ability to support the collaboration with

other projects needed to scale up initiatives. Promoting more or more effective coordination will require

better mechanisms for joint planning, execution, and co-reporting and reinstating some of the original

coordination mechanisms that USAID proposed.

SVC’s coffee strategy is increasing community-based stakeholders’ access to more diversified sources of

income by linking them to the specialty coffee VC. These activities are strengthening social inclusion by

facilitating women’s and youth’s access to CFC training and facilitating farmers’ access to nutritious foods.

SVC’s capacity building efforts are encouraging bean farmers in POs to consider additional investment in

yield-increasing production practices and strengthening smallholders’ access to dried beans for home

consumption.

Despite SVC’s efforts to promote soybean production, the scale-up and impact of these efforts has been

limited due to many of the same issues constraining dried bean sales, including low crop productivity and

limited access to higher-yielding seeds. Nonetheless, there is emerging interest in promoting soybean

production and processing in community-based bean producer groups because of SVC’s promotion.

EQ 2: In what ways is SVC’s collaboration with other United States Government (USG)

activities effectively contributing to the Sub-IRs in the shared results framework and the

shared contract target?

Findings

What are some of the difficulties the activity has faced coordinating activities? Collaboration

between USG-funded activities in the three locations for the achievement of the 13 Sub-IRs in the shared

results framework has been difficult because of 1) the lack of USAID backstopping for expected TO 3

collaboration; 2) the delayed and difficult start-up of other USAID-funded projects; 3) the lack of

synchronization with the DFSAs who were expected to be SVC’s principal partner in the dried bean and

soybean VCs; and 4) SVC’s lack of territory-level offices or territory-based staff.

For which Sub-IRs has the collaboration been most effective? There has been effective formal

collaboration and informal areas of overlap between SVC and the two DFSAs, most notably in the dried

bean VC where SVC is providing assistance contributing to IR 1 and Sub-IRs 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4, including

training the Food Security Project DFSA bean/soybean POs in post-harvest processing and collaboration

on GALS training. Successful formal collaboration includes training of DFSA staff on building PO capacity

on market principles and warehouse management, technical assistance (TA) for DFSA activities, GALS

training of DFSA staff and DFSA-supported village savings and loan association (VSLA) community agents,

and training for DFSA staff on helping POs access finance from MFIs and banks. Informal areas of overlap

include PO members attached to SVC-supported apex organizations that also work with the DFSAs,

geographical overlap between SVC and the DFSAs, CFC participants who also participate in DFSA

activities, overlapping participation in SVC POs and trainings between DFSA members and former

Development Food Assistance Program (DFAP)-supported VSLAs, and women beneficiaries of SVC who

are members of a DFSA VSLA, PO, or youth group.

Are the results different between sites where collaboration has occurred vs. sites where SVC

has been working independently? The DFSAs’ decision not to support soybean weakened the impact

of SVC’s efforts to link the most active concessionaires and cooperatives that wanted to develop their

soybean production to reliable national and international markets. While this overlap and collaboration

between SVC and the DFSAs helped in some cases, it was less effective in areas that graduated from

humanitarian aid and are no longer chronically food insecure.

How can the collaboration and identified gaps be improved? Stakeholder recommendations for

improving collaboration gaps, included better communication with the DFSAs, formal protocols for

collaboration with the DFSAs, a shared beneficiary database, grants for initiatives that strengthen VC

activities to encourage local banks to take an interest in POs and apex organizations, permission for SVC

to provide more support to dried bean and soybean production and other VCs, and new mechanisms to

ensure coordination between Feed the Future and FFP Contracting Officer’s Representatives/Agreement

Officer’s Representatives (COR/AORs) and DRC Mission staff.

Conclusions

SVC has not built the formal collaboration with the DFSAs envisioned in SVC’s original contract, but their

collaboration can complement the DFSAs’ investment to contribute to the achievement of the higher-

level goals in the shared results framework.

Many DFSA beneficiaries are becoming less food insecure, allowing them to invest in VC activities that

overlap with SVC post-harvest training and market linkages activities, which has linked smallholder farmers

to stronger VC activities and supportive market services. A primary challenge will be to make this overlap

more formal and strategic.

vii

EQ 3: To what extent did SVC address the issue of increased gender equality and increased

women’s socio-economic empowerment in target communities?

Findings

What approaches have been most effective? SVC has nearly reached its 50 percent target for

training participants who are women and has exceeded its 30 percent target for women in leadership

positions at targeted POs, cooperatives, and businesses. The online survey, CATI survey, and stakeholder

interviews revealed that most stakeholders in all stakeholder categories agreed that SVC has had a positive

impact on gender equity and women’s socio-economic empowerment.

Eighty percent of female farmer trainers responding to the online survey said the CFC training increased

their coffee production, 55 percent said it increased their sales and income, and 70 percent said it

improved gender equity and women’s socio-economic empowerment, while most women who responded

to the CATI survey reported increased coffee production and sales as a result of the CFC. Eighty percent

of 174 GALS participants responding to the CATI survey said the training increased sharing in household

decision-making, while 95 percent said they met with community members to help them better understand

gender relationships. SVC’s internal GALS assessment, which included interviews with 389 GALS

graduates, found that 49 percent of women surveyed reported increased access to productive assets to

participate in targeted VCs, and 43 percent said the training helped them start small businesses.

Interviewees reported women having greater say over how agricultural land is used, women’s increased

leadership in household and agricultural decision-making, a decrease in spousal domestic violence, greater

transparency around income and savings, and more active participation of youth in VCs. In KIIs and FGDs,

stakeholders ranked SVC’s record on gender integration as one of its top achievements. The evaluation

also found that GALS’ approach helped create 562 new micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises

(MSMEs), including 357 new livestock enterprises (38.4 percent woman-owned) and 205 sole-owner

market activities (47.3 percent woman-owned); 54 percent of the MSMEs were created by youth.

Stakeholders attributed SVC’s strong gender performance to 1) success in retaining women for activity

staff positions; 2) strict adherence to gender and youth training targets; 3) piloting and adjusting the GALS

methodology to DRC’s post-conflict context and scaling it up through trainings of trainers (TOTs); and

4) commitment to retraining. As of June 2020, SVC had provided GALS training to 103 senior government

officials, concessionaires, and USAID-funded project staff and 353 people in six territorial-level workshops.

How can SVC more effectively integrate cross-cutting sectors and gender considerations

into interventions? Reported in stakeholder interviews, constraints to SVC integrating cross-cutting

sectors and gender into activity interventions are limited access to finance to scale up action plans, lack of

follow-up from SVC, a limited number of persons trained, and high levels of illiteracy among women. The

biggest challenges are inadequate staffing and co-support from the DFSAs, failure to mainstream GALS

trainees at the DFSAs, and inadequate tracking of TOT and cascading training to other PO members and

CFC groups. Frequent recommendations from SVC and DFSA staff were additional training and incentives

for GALS champions, scaling up GALS training for POs, and increasing PO support for integrating youth

into existing POs.

Conclusions

There is evidence that the SVC GALS model 1) is an effective approach for empowering women; 2) is well

adapted to post-conflict transition economies; and 3) provides a scalable mechanism, through GALS

champions, for monitoring training and providing follow-up.

SVC’s ability to fully scale up and pilot test the GALS model has been hampered by a shortage in GYSI

staff, a lack of territorial-based field officers, and weak coordination with the DFSAs (see EQ 2).

Sustaining GALS achievements is not guaranteed since it will require a concerted effort to link GALS

champions and trainees to women members and leadership of POs and cooperatives.

viii

EQ I C: What are some of the challenges faced in meeting the intended goals, objectives,

and results? How effectively has the implementer dealt with those challenges? What can be

changed to better meet goals and objectives?

EQ 4: What are the internal and external threats to sustainability beyond the life of the

activity for the principal components of the SVC?

Findings

Primary Challenges and Threats to Coffee and Agriculture/Agribusiness Sectors: Only

58.1 percent of online respondents felt the conditions for ensuring sustainability of SVC’s results were

fully assured, due to several external and internal challenges. The online survey rated low prices and low

sales for farm products, access to finance, access to agricultural inputs, access to market information, lack

of price differentiation, limited opportunities to form commercial linkages, and lack of private investment

in agriculture as the greatest challenges in the coffee sector and access to finance, government policies

that inhibit markets, and opportunities to form commercial linkages as the greatest challenges in the

agricultural and agribusiness sectors. Coffee and dried bean farmers in the CATI survey rated lack of

access to finance and to tools and equipment as the biggest challenges.

Predictable and Unpredictable Challenges and Threats: The predictable external threat to

sustainability most frequently cited in stakeholder interviews was the humanitarian mindset of community-

based stakeholders and local governments more focused on meeting the immediate needs of vulnerable

farmer households than developing and expanding markets. Other predictable external threats frequently

mentioned are the different philosophical approaches taken by SVC and DFSAs, logistical challenges, and

conflict and insecurity. The most frequently cited unpredictable threats were natural causes (COVID-19,

Ebola, and climate change) and shifts in donor policies, i.e., trafficking in persons (TIP) sanctions.

Component 1: Build Capacity of Vertical and Horizontal Actors in Targeted VCs: The biggest

challenges and threats to sustainability in Component 1 are lack of access to quality agricultural inputs,

including tools and equipment for bean production; lack of access and willingness to buy quality seed;

government policies inhibiting markets; limited adoption of post-harvest practices; limited opportunities

to store or warehouse crops; weak organizational capacity of dried bean and soybean POs; limited

opportunities to form commercial linkages; lack of market linkages and markets to sell products; limited

private sector investment by concessionaires and private enterprises; lack of access to land use; limited

adoption of improved production practices; low productivity; and high production costs.

Component 2: Enhance Coffee Production: Principal challenges to sustainability of Component 2

are the weak capacity of POs, cooperatives, and RCPCA to facilitate services SVC provides community-

based coffee groups; limited adoption of recommended coffee practices to produce high-quality coffee;

lack of tools, equipment, and agricultural inputs; limited access to market information and opportunities

to form commercial linkages; monopolistic practices of cooperatives that manage washing stations; limited

access to finance for more washing stations; weak cupping capacity of washing stations; dependence of the

coffee sector on international roasters; and fluctuating prices.

Component 3: Develop and Implement PPPs: Component 3 sustainability challenges include

facilitating dialogue between private sector enterprises in targeted VCs and government; low capacity of

private sector organizations to engage in PPP dialogue with government officials; low government

responsiveness and involvement; lack of awareness and understanding of the PPP concept and approach;

lack of private investment in agriculture; and lack of SVC staff in Kinshasa to support policy initiatives and

develop the PPPs stakeholders have identified as best practices.

Component 4: Access to Finance: Key challenges to the sustainability of Component 4 activities are

the risk that FIs that benefited from DCA-guaranteed loans will not continue supporting larger VC

agribusinesses; USAID-funded loan guarantees mitigate but do not resolve the impact of external and

internal constraints; the lack of financial offerings that are adopted to rural-based POs and cooperatives;

and the weak financial literacy of cooperatives and POs.

CCIR: Gender, Youth, and Social Inclusion: The most pressing challenges to CCIR activity

sustainability are the need to intensify gender training and messaging, insufficient field staff and monitoring

and oversight of activities, low literacy levels among women, integration of gender messaging into VC

training and assistance activities, and limited youth engagement.

Staff and Partner Capacity: Examples of how SVC is succeeding in building the capacity of the activity

staff and local partners include capacity building on quality coffee production; improved post-harvest

practices; improved coffee farming practice; increased agriculture and agribusiness loans; training in

entrepreneurial management, strategic planning, and financial management; exchange visits with non-SVC

institutions and programs; and training on improved advocacy at different levels of government. Gaps in

sustainable capacity development include the lack of follow-up and mentorship on GALS training; an

inadequate training plan for community trainers; lack of central database to track capacity building; lack of

a tracking system for SVC TA; and weak capacity of SVC to track cross-cutting capacity building envisioned

in the shared results framework.

Conclusions

Stakeholders and SVC staff identified a number of external and internal challenges and threats and cross-

cutting and component-specific challenges and threats for SVC to address.

Two cross-cutting challenges are outside the SVC mandate: the limited productivity and production

support for the dried bean VC and limited access to finance for the larger infrastructure investments that

SVC needs to support the scale up of the specialty coffee and dried bean VCs.

While SVC can make significant progress to address component-specific challenges and threats and

strengthen its connections to the DFSAs to increase crop productivity, it is unlikely all of the conditions

needed to sustain many activities will be in place by SVC’s end date.

EQ 5: What considerations should USAID/DRC consider in the future design of

agriculture/economic growth (EG) activities, particularly in regard to the IRs in the shared

results framework and ways to improve collaboration/coordination between USG activities?

Findings

Below are 11 considerations for future USAID/DRC agriculture/EG programming, presented by IR.

IR 1: Improved Agricultural Livelihoods

1. Support full VCs (not half VCs).

2. Strengthen farmers’ access to quality inputs.

3. Encourage VC diversification and support.

4. Promote inclusive agri-business models.

IR 2: Expanded Markets and Trade

5. Promote TOT training to build POs’ capacity for post-harvest processing, warehouse management, and

market linkages for dried beans.

6. Anticipate the need for specialized investments to ensure the quality standards needed to access the

international specialty coffee market.

7. Facilitate increased access to finance.

8. Support an improved enabling environment for VC activities.

IR 3: Improved Uptake of Essential Nutrition Behaviors and Services

9. Promote increased awareness of and access to nutritious food.

CCIR: Gender Equality and Social Empowerment (SBCC and Conflict Mitigation)

10. Strengthen future programs’ support for gender equality and empowerment in South Kivu.

Improved Collaboration with Other USAID-Funded Projects

11. Improve intra-USAID coordination.

Conclusions

Senior stakeholders agree on the validity of the ongoing CDCS TO 3 strategy to help South Kivu transition

out of dependency on humanitarian aid and that the envisioned layering and sequencing of support by

USAID projects is the best mechanism to achieve the results outlined in the 2013 Kivu Agriculture and

Nutrition Shared Results Framework.

Poor roads, underfunded local governments, competing militias causing civil unrest, and poor government

agricultural policy remain in South Kivu, but this evaluation confirmed that 1) despite long odds, a growing

number of FFP and non-FFP SVC beneficiaries are taking steps toward the market, and 2) DFSA and SVC

activities helped facilitate this process.

The ET identified nine summary considerations to guide USAID/DRC’s future programming in South Kivu

and nine examples of best practices to consider in future program design in the region.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: Staffing and Management: Strengthen SVC’s ability to backstop targeted VCs.

Recommendation 2: Capacity Building: Strengthen SVC’s capacity to build technical and cross-

cutting capacities of stakeholder groups.

Recommendation 3: Inputs: Increase the direct beneficiaries of SVC and DFSAs and strengthen their

understanding of and access to the quality inputs to scale up and sustain VC activities.

Recommendation 4: Finance: Strengthen stakeholders’ access to finance for working capital and

investments and critical equipment and infrastructure.

Recommendation 5: Market Diversification (Specialty Coffee): Continue to scale up SVC’s efforts

to collaborate with RCPCA in promoting market diversification and quality control.

Recommendation 6: Enabling Environment: Continue to support and scale up SVC’s support for

promising Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo-led initiatives to improve the enabling

environment.

Recommendation 7: Coordination: Strengthen SVC’s internal capacity to support improved

coordination with the DFSAs.

Recommendation 8: Gender, Youth, and Social Integration: Continue to scale up SVC’s support

for youth and gender entrepreneurship in collaboration with the DFSAs.

Recommendation 9: Annotated Bibliography/Case Studies of SVC Best Practice: Facilitate

development of an annotated bibliography of existing data and technical reports on SVC best practices.

1.0 EVALUATION OVERVIEW

1.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE

The purpose of the Strengthening Value Chains Activity (SVC) mid-term performance evaluation is to

provide an independent examination of the activity’s progress and accomplishments. The evaluation

assessed the achievements, performance, and constraints related to activity implementation and

effectiveness, with a focus on the effectiveness of the collaboration with Food For Peace (FFP) in the same

geographical areas of focus. From this, the evaluation has identified results and lessons learned and a set

of actionable recommendations to ensure the achievement of activity objectives for three time horizons:

short-term (one to two years), medium-term (three to four years), and long-term (greater than five years).

The primary evaluation audience is the United States Agency for International Development/Democratic

Republic of the Congo (USAID/DRC), the Bureau for Resilience and Food Security (RFS), and activity

implementing partners (IPs). The evaluation will also be used by the Government of the Democratic

Republic of the Congo (GDRC), and FFP and other donor-funded projects in the DRC.

1.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS

The evaluation focused on answering the five primary evaluation questions (EQs) found below. (See

Annex 1 for the full list of EQs and sub-EQs.)

1. To what extent is SVC meeting overall intended goals and objectives?

2. In what ways is SVC’s collaboration with other United States Government (USG) activities

effectively contributing to the Sub-Intermediate Results (Sub-IRs) in the shared results frameworks

and the shared contract target?

3. To what extent did SVC address the issue of increased gender equality and increased women’s

socio-economic empowerment in target communities?

4. What are the internal and external threats to sustainability beyond the life of the activity for the

components of SVC? What are the biggest challenges that need to be addressed? What

opportunities are there for the Mission to better ensure sustainability?

5. What considerations should USAID/DRC consider in the future design of agriculture/Economic

Growth (EG) activities, particularly in regard to the Intermediate Results (IRs) of the shared

results framework?

2.0 ACTIVITY BACKGROUND

2.1 MECHANISM DESCRIPTION

2.1.1 Context

In 2013, the USAID/DRC Country Development Cooperative Strategy (CDCS) committed USAID to

support a new model of integrated regional transition planning for Eastern Congo designed to shift

assistance focus away from humanitarian relief toward a market-led development as articulated in CDCS

Transition Objective (TO) 3. To achieve TO 3, USAID developed a regional strategy in which USAID-

funded activities in South Kivu would collaborate with one another to achieve the three principle

objectives of the Kivu Agriculture and Nutrition Shared Results Framework (Figure 1).

SVC was originally conceptualized as one of three categories of USAID-funded activities to achieve the

Kivu Agricultural and Nutrition Shared Objective, “Reduce extreme poverty and malnutrition in target

populations.” The two other categories of programming included the two FFP projects known as

Development Food Security Activities (DFSAs) and other USAID-funded projects

that were active in the

area. SVC’s stated purpose is to “increase household incomes and access to nutrient-rich crops by linking

smallholder farmers to strengthened and inclusive value chains and supportive market chain services.”

Figure 1: Kivu Agriculture and Nutrition Shared Results Framework (2013)

Source: USAID/DRC. (2013). CDCS (Fiscal Year [FY] 2014-FY 2019), Kinshasa: USAID.

2.1.2 Target Populations and Areas

SVC seeks to contribute to USAID/DRC’s goal of a significant reduction in extreme poverty and

malnutrition in the Eastern Congo areas being targeted by the CDC TO 3 through building the capacity

of the vertical and horizontal actors working within the coffee, dried bean, and soybean value chains (VCs)

in the South Kivu territories of Kabare, Kalehe, and Walungu. Tetra Tech implements SVC in collaboration

with five IPs: Banyan Global, J.E. Austin Associates, Inc., Search for Common Ground (SFCG),

TechnoServe, and World Coffee Research (WCR). Contractually, SVC’s assistance to the dried bean and

soybean VCs is limited to post-harvest to market activities, while its assistance to the coffee VC covers

the entire VC.

Other USAID-funded programs include the Integrated Youth Development Activity (IYDA), Integrated Health Project (IHP),

Integrated Governance Activity (IGA), and the USAID-funded Development Credit Authority (DCA).

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, the activity started supporting light touch operations in the territory of Idjwi.

The three territories vary significantly in terms of the degree to which the crops targeted by SVC are

cultivated as well as other context issues (e.g., prevalence of mining, degree of donor dependence, and

level of insecurity and cross-border trade) that are likely to affect both the rollout and results of the SVC

interventions.

SVC is organized around five components: 1) build capacity of vertical and horizontal actors in targeted

VCs (Tetra Tech); 2) enhance coffee production (Technoserve and WCR); 3) develop and implement

public-private partnerships (PPPs) (J.E. Austin); 4) enhance access to finance (Banyan Global); 5) cross-

cutting initiatives, including 5a) gender, youth, and social inclusion (GYSI) (Banyan Global) and 5b) conflict

mitigation, resilience, and social and behavior change communication (SBCC) (SFCG). Components 3-4

are cross-cutting components and Components 5-6 are cross-cutting priorities. The component teams

were expected to work with the DFSAs and other USAID and non-USAID projects to benefit diverse

actors, including the provincial, territorial, and local governments, producer organizations (POs),

cooperatives, agro-dealers, concessionaires (large landholders), collection centers, warehouses, wet mills,

buyers, financial institutions (FIs), and smallholder farmers not attached to POs or cooperatives. By June

2020, SVC was working with 45,291 direct beneficiaries, 50 percent more than its contractual target of

30,000, and 61,000-92,000 indirect beneficiaries.

The actors that need capacity building are the national and local GDRC officials, POs, cooperatives, agro-

dealers, concessionaires, collection centers, warehouses, wet mills, buyers, FIs, and smallholder farmers.

Given the critical role of women in farming, trade, and the construction and maintenance of a more

durable peace, the issue of building women’s leadership capacity was a critical cross-cutting priority in all

of the capacity building activities.

2.1.3 Activity Implementation Plan

SVC interventions vary by VC and territory (see Figure 2). In the coffee VC, SVC has contractual

responsibility to develop the entire coffee VC in Kabare and Kalehe, and now in Idjwi, including working

to improve the management of small-scale coffee farms.

In the dried bean and soybean VCs, SVC is

strengthening horizontal and vertical linkages from post-harvest to market, while the FFP-funded DFSAs

are improving dried bean and soybean production and productivity in Kabare and Kalehe territories.

he two FFP-funded DFSAs vary in the type of support they provide. The Food Security Project (FSP)

DFSA, implemented by Mercy Corps (MC) in Kabare and its sub-contractor World Vision (WV) in South

Kalehe, works to strengthen production of bio-fortified beans but does not work in the soybean or non-

fortified dried bean VCs. The TUENDELEE PAMOJA Project DFSA, implemented by Food for the Hungry

(FH) in Walungu, targets the fortified bean and soybean VCs on the production side with a special focus

on supporting applied research on productive varieties.

SVC’s geographical areas overlap with the two DFSAs and with seven economic poles, defined as rural

aggregator markets SVC identified as dynamic with maximal capacity to benefit from its interventions and

services in its FY 2019 annual work plan.

The initial TechnoServe assessment indicated that the coffee VC was more developed in Kabare and Kalehe and by focusing

there, the target of 15,000 households could be reached. Idjwi was originally considered for inclusion but was removed by the

GRDC for political reasons. Requests for interventions resulted in Idjwi being reintegrated into SVC’s activities in FY 2020.

Figure 2: FTF SVC and FSP Locations

Figure 3: Co-Location Areas Between FSP and SVC Activities

3.0 EVALUATION METHODS AND

LIMITATIONS

The evaluation team (ET) adopted a mixed-methods approach to answer the EQs consisting of key

informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), online surveys, a computer-assisted

telephone interview (CATI) survey, and mini-surveys. Since these methods covered similar questions, this

enabled the ET to triangulate the evaluation findings from multiple qualitative and quantitative data sources.

3.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Document Review: The ET received a list of documents from SVC and then worked closely with SVC

to update the list. A complete list of documents reviewed can be in Annex 13.

KIIs/FGDs: The revised evaluation plan included eight KII and FGD guides for seven categories of

stakeholders in the DRC, Europe, and the United States. Given the importance of protecting the health

of the national consultants and stakeholders being interviewed, the plan anticipated how the KII and FGD

methodology could be adjusted to three different coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) scenarios.

The ET used a two-step process to select interviewees, starting by co-developing a database with SVC

ranking each stakeholder group by level of engagement. From this database, the ET selected interviewees

based on their level of engagement and its informed judgment about who would be able to answer the

EQs. While this selection was not random, the ET considered this purposive sample reasonably

representative since these are the chief persons familiar with SVC within their organizations. This color-

coded database provided the basis for the ET to choose a reasoned sample of groups to interview that

included 1) a representative sample of groups from different stakeholder categories in each region and

2) the ET’s actual or physical access to the group based on security bans and/or COVID-19 concerns.

Overall, the ET interviewed 292 people in Bukavu, Kinshasa, Europe, and the United States, including 33 in

KIIs and 259 in FGDs ranging from 2-13 people, with most between 2-4 persons due to the COVID safety

guidelines (see Annex 12). KII and FGD notes were analyzed using Atlas.ti to produce a frequency analysis

of key themes. Because of GDRC bans on travel outside of Bukavu, only 23 (29 percent) of the

96 interviews were in person, the remaining were done by telephone, Skype, Google Meet, or Zoom.

CATI Survey: SVC’s beneficiary smallholder farmers number in the thousands, thus only a fraction of

them can be accessed using KIIs and FGDs. To address this issue, ME&A’s subcontractor GeoPoll

conducted a CATI survey of beneficiary smallholder farmers. The survey sampling frame was the full list

of 2,589 smallholder farmers who participated in the field trainings and 417 who participated in the Gender

Action Learning System (GALS) workshop. GeoPoll randomly selected and surveyed 1,003 persons from

this call list consisting of 800 coffee, dried bean, and soybean farmers and 203 GALS participants.

Online Survey: The ET created versions of the online survey for six stakeholder groups not included in

the CATI survey including a set of standardized and customized Yes/No, categorical, Likert-scale, and

open-ended questions. To increase the survey response rate and control the problem of invalid email

addresses, the ET distributed an initial emailed letter of invitation to each targeted stakeholder. The English

letter of invitation for stakeholder categories I, III, and IV was co-signed by the SVC Contracting Officer’s

Representatives (CORs) and the USAID/DRC FFP manager; the French cover letter of invitation was from

the SVC Chief of Party (COP), since he was the person that stakeholders would know. A total of

277 stakeholders with listed Internet addresses were sent invitations to take the survey; 251 (91 percent)

accepted the invitation, and 183 (73 percent) of those who confirmed the invitation completed the survey.

Mini Surveys: The KII and FGD guides incorporated mini-surveys consisting of Yes/Know or Likert-scale

questions targeted to different stakeholder groups on topics such as capacity building, on-farm production,

SBCC, and gender/GALS.

Performance Indicator Tracking Table (PITT): To assist the ET in understanding SVC’s

performance, Tetra Tech developed a consolidated PITT which can be found in Annex 6.

3.2 METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS

One methodological limitation was that the two international consultants were unable to conduct field

visits due to COVID-19. The ET mitigated this limitation by forming a team with extensive experience in

francophone Africa and Feed the Future (FTF) evaluations and in online teaching and interviewing. It also

worked closely with its local subcontractor Research Initiative for Social Development (RISD) to conduct

an initial ten-day refinement and field testing of the KII and FGD guides and intake forms. A second

limitation was the COVID-19 pandemic. To manage this limitation, the evaluation plan anticipated the

need to support the research under three security scenarios. Developing these scenarios ahead of time

proved useful once GDRC decrees on June 13 necessitated remote interviews. Related to this, the remote

data collection limited the kinds of interpersonal interactions that make face-to-face interviewing and

group discussions more dynamic, such as the ability to read and react to body language and facial cues and

the back-and-forth exchanges among group participants that lend richness to FGDs.

Another limitation is the qualified generalizability of the CATI survey results. Although the survey was

completed by 33.4 percent of farmers in the client datafile, women were only 16.7 percent of the sample

(9.2 percent for coffee, 14.8 percent for dried bean, and 34.5 percent for GALS). Although women listed

phone numbers in the client datafile, many did not control the phone listed and/or had difficulty buying

the units needed to operate it. Also, mobile phone access is lower among the poorer clients, thus the

CATI survey results may not adequately reflect the views and experiences of this population sub-group.

Yet another limitation was the ET’s reliance on SVC staff to select key informants for KIIs and FGDs. The

ET sought to minimize the impact of this limitation by conducting independent audits through key contact

persons to verify that the lists were complete and included all relevant staff and their classifications and

then made a semi-random/reasoned choice of those to interview. A final limitation was the difficulty

attributing outcomes to SVC since it is only one of the food security initiatives working in South Kivu. For

this reason, each KII and FGD asked if and how respondents had interacted with other earlier and current

donor-funded activities. This question revealed that many POs working with SVC were also working with

other USAID-funded projects, like the DFSAs.

4.0 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS

4.1 EQ 1: TO WHAT EXTENT IS SVC MEETING OVERALL INTENDED GOALS

AND OBJECTIVES?

4.1.1 How Can Tetra Tech Improve its Implementation and Management Approach to

Better Achieve Results Toward Objectives?

Key informants widely lauded Tetra Tech’s flexible management approach, which enabled it to respond

creatively and make progress despite major challenges that included 1) trafficking in persons (TIP)

sanctions,

2) poor roads and rural infrastructure;

3) the COVID-19 pandemic and Ebola outbreaks;

4) routine insecurity and violence around elections and high-profile court cases;

and 5) a contract that

anticipated a level of collaboration with the DFSAs that was not realistic given the constraints they faced.

Of particular note, participants in 16 of the 23 KIIs/FGDs with 71 leaders of umbrella organizations (UOs)

cited the activity’s support (e.g., training, capacity building, contracts, strategic planning) in improving their

In presenting the findings from the KIIs and FGDs, this report indicates in the main text and in footnotes the number of

KIIs/FGDs in which a particular topic or theme was mentioned. The number of mentions are organized by the stakeholder groups

shown in Annex 6, as follows: Group 1-SVC implementing consortium staff in the DRC, home office, or elsewhere (20 KIIs/FGDs),

Group 2A-UOs (23 KIIs/FGDs), Groups 2B and 2C-community-based groups (CBGs) (18 KIIs/FGDs) and listening clubs (LCs)

(6 KIIs/FGDs); Group 2D-concessionaires and private enterprises (CPEs) (7 KIIs/FGDs); Group 2E-Coffee Farmer Colleges

(CFCs) (12 KIIs/FGDs); Groups 3A and 3B-IPs consisting of DFSAs and other USAID projects (10 KIIs/FGDS); Groups 4 and 5-

collaborators and technical assistance providers (CTAs) (7 KIIs/FGDs); Group 6-deconcentrated government services (DTS)

(5 KIIs/FGDs); and Group 7-USAID (6 KIIs/FGDs). In counting the number of mentions, it is important to note that the ET used

different KII/FGD guides covering different topics for different stakeholder groups. In addition, certain topics in these guides were

more relevant to some groups and less relevant to others, and some key informants had more information about topics or were

more qualified to discuss them than others. Finally, given the dynamics of the interview process, certain topics received more

emphasis with some stakeholders and in some interviews/discussions than in others.

1/20 SVC, 1/5 DTS, 2/6 USAID; 4/31 total.

1/20 SVC, 3/23 UOs, 3/18 CBGs, 4/10 IPs; 11/61 total.

6/20 SVC, 7/23 UOs, 9/18 CBGs, 1/7 CPEs, 4/12 CFCs, 4/10 IPs, 2/7 CTAs; 33/87 total.

2/20 SVC, 4/10 IPs, 2/7 CTAs; 8/37 total.

organizational capacity, functioning, and expansion. All senior USAID staff interviewed gave the activity

high marks on its quarterly and annual reports and for its commitment to biweekly detailed briefings with

the COR. Nonetheless, they noted that, given the activity’s complexity and the large number of IPs, SVC

should consider supplementing the biweekly briefings with a planning matrix to help the COR track

activities by VC and upcoming collaborations with the GDRC and other USAID-funded projects.

On the negative side, key informants uniformly rated collaboration between SVC and the DFSAs as poor.

They attributed this to a variety of factors, two in particular. The first was that SVC and the DFSAs took

fundamentally different programming approaches with the DFSAs being primarily focused (especially in the

first three years) on local markets and ensuring farmers met their basic nutritional needs and SVC being

primarily concerned with expanding markets and linking small farmers and producers with larger and

higher value-added market actors.

The second factor was poor coordination/synchronization between

the SVC, DFSAs, and other USAID projects in areas like joint strategy planning and execution, and inter-

project communication about each project’s activities and major stakeholder groups.

When asked how well SVC was addressing the challenges facing the coffee and agricultural/agribusiness

sectors, 70.6 percent of 183 online survey respondents said that the activity had done either a good

(49.4 percent) or very good (21.2 percent) job. Another 74.4 percent said that SVC’s approach for

managing the challenges in each sector were either appropriate (52.4 percent) or very appropriate

(21.8 percent). Respondents, however, expressed lower levels of overall satisfaction with SVC;

27.6 percent were satisfied or very satisfied, 22.9 percent were neutral, and 49.5 percent were either

unsatisfied (24.6 percent) or very unsatisfied (24.9 percent). Notwithstanding, three-quarters of

respondents received either a good (41.2 percent) or great benefit (33.0 percent) from the activity.

Implementation Challenges

Developing a “one team” approach with the IPs: SVC’s contract required it to create and report

on five components and each component’s contribution to the three priority VCs. An unintended

consequence of this structure—and the contractual obligations that each IP was responsible for a semi-

autonomous work plan and PITT targets—was to make it difficult for Tetra Tech to create a one team

management approach. The consensus among SVC staff was that this structure encouraged the

development of component silos in which each of component team developed and reported on its own

work plan. Three of seven KIIs/FGDs with DFSA staff noted that SVC’s emphasis on component reporting

made it hard for private sector partners and other USAID projects to understand 1) the full package of

activities and collaboration that SVC was providing to different VCs, 2) which were the most critical

geographical gaps, and 3) what points of entry might exist for the SVC to support its other VC activities.

To develop a more cohesive one team approach, Tetra Tech facilitated an annual planning process

between 2018 and 2010 with IPs and local partners. SVC technical assistance (TA) plans incorporated

studies and assessments undertaken by the activity and other actors, problems/constraints identified

during capacity building and training activities, findings from monitoring visits, and recommendations by

activity clients and technical partners. Also, SVC’s relationship with territorial Rural Agricultural

Management Councils (CARGs) and Provincial Agriculture Coordinating Councils, which are mixed

GRDC and civil society decentralized structures, incorporated monitoring activities, feedback, and

sounding board recommendations into the activity’s operational execution of activities. A number of SVC

and IP backup staff and private sector (e.g., the Network of Cocoa Coffee Producers Cooperatives in the

DRC, or RCPCA) and GDRC stakeholders identified the FY 2019 participatory planning process as an

example of best practice that improved their understanding of SVC and their roles in it.

Perceived weak involvement of stakeholders in joint planning: Notwithstanding the participatory

planning process described above, multiple stakeholders asserted that SVC failed to incorporate local

6/20 SVC, 5/10 IPs, 2/6 USAID; 13/36 total.

5/20 SVC, 2/12 CFCs, 4/10 IPs, 4/6 USAID; 15/48 total.

actors and local concerns in its planning and implementation.

The following quote from a local

government official exemplifies this sentiment: “The project was designed elsewhere rather than working with

local stakeholders to identify the real problems of increasing production and improving quality to help producers

improve their incomes. Instead of initially working together, SVC came to impose ideas conceived elsewhere, which

are not necessarily in harmony with local needs.”

ontractual restrictions: A second major challenge identified by a majority of interviewed SVC, DFSA,

and USAID staff was a set of contractual restrictions that constrained how and where SVC could operate

and made collaboration with the DFSAs more difficult. These restrictions are described below.

Contractual restrictions on VC support: SVC’s contractual language restricted it to working on the post-

harvest to market end of the dried bean and soybean VCs, while the DFSAs supported VC activities up

to and including harvesting. These restrictions had implications for activity design, staffing, and

responsibility that adversely affected its ability to respond to emerging constraints and opportunities. For

example, 12 of 22 KIIs/FGDs with SVC and IPs cited SVC’s lack of field staff (i.e., “boots on the ground”)

as an important challenge affecting its ability to provide the required level of service, both initial and follow-

up. Most importantly, the SVC contract was approved with no budget line for field staff in the dried bean

and soybean VCs because it was expected that these services would be provided by the DFSAs. The

activity’s lean staffing structure in turn had three downstream impacts by making it dependent on DFSA

staff in the bean and soybean VCs, who were already committed to an approved work plan. To manage

this situation, SVC hired a number of qualified business development services providers to support their

dried bean VC activities and relied on training of trainers (TOT) models to reach the POs.

Contractual restrictions that limited flexibility: The same contractual restriction and lack of field-based staff to

support the dried bean VC made it difficult for SVC to support some emerging community and DFSA-

specific initiatives, like horticultural production (vegetables, onions, etc.) and kept it tied to the soybean

VC even after the MC/WV DFSA withdrew its production support for that VC.

Contract restrictions on activity management: Because SVC was considered innovative, USAID/DRC decided

to execute the activity as a contract, not as a cooperative agreement. The unintended consequence of this

was that it 1) required high levels of USAID oversight and concurrence for even small budget expenditures

and hiring decisions, 2) placed restrictions on recruiting and promoting qualified staff that made it difficult

to attract and retain qualified market systems experts in a local market where their services are in high

demand, and 3) did not include a “conflict modifier” like the DFSAs have that made it difficult to make the

kind of day-to-day adaptations required to keep training and TA going through the rapid contextual shifts

that have characterized business in South Kivu. A majority of USAID and SVC senior staff interviewed

agreed that Tetra Tech’s ability to manage these challenges was negatively affected by the rapid turnover

of the CORs (three CORs in three years). Mitigating this negative impact were the stability of the alternate

COR who had extensive experience in earlier VC activities in South Kivu and the fact that the two Tetra

Tech COPs had extensive experience in USAID contract management.

Contractual issues affecting DFSA collaboration: These contractual restrictions negatively affected SVC’s ability

to backstop the DFSAs in developing the private sector seed supply needed to sustain higher production

levels and to help anticipate post-harvesting storage and marketing issues. Key areas negatively affected

included building the capacity of POs to produce products compliant with local, provincial, and

international quality standards; negotiating contracts; using the new market information systems (MIS) that

SVC developed to improve understanding of market requirements and prices; and managing warehouse

transport and stocking needed to time their group sales to when prices are higher.

3/7 CPEs, 4/12 CFCs, 2/10 IPs, 5/7 CTAs, 3/5 DTS; 17/41 total.

6/20 SVC, 1/23 UOs, 2/10 IPs, a3/6 USAID; 12/59 total.

This contractual issue was identified as a constraint and or lessons learned/recommendation for future projects in 29 KIIs/FGDs.

Missing intra-USAID/DRC coordination: Although the SVC contract required it to collaborate with

the two DFSAs and other USAID-funded projects in South Kivu and identified a list of mechanisms

intended to support this coordination, most support for intra-project coordination stopped after the

security situation worsened in FY 2018. USAID, DFSA, and SVC staff noted that the initial support USAID

provided to organizing quarterly meetings helped improve communication between projects in South Kivu;

however, the quarterly meetings were discontinued after FY 2018.

The same USAID and SVC staff noted

that a promising opportunity to improve the Mission’s coordinated backstopping of the USAID projects

in South Kivu was its creation of a “resilience coordinator” position in 2019 to oversee Mission activities

to achieve TO 3 of the Mission CDCS. This type of higher-level management coordination is critical to

ensure that contract language and targets support the common objective of layering and sequencing.

A final problem identified by the SVC and DFSA COPs was that USAID never developed clear guidelines

on how proposed collaborations between SVC and the DFSAs should be presented in work plans or co-

reported in the quarterly and/or annual report that they are contractually obligated to produce.

4.1.2 What Are the Notable Areas of Progress the Activity Has Achieved in Support of

Activity Objectives?

To build the synergies between USAID investments envisioned in the CDCS, USAID developed a regional

strategy in which USAID activities in South Kivu would collaborate to achieve the three principle

objectives of the Kivu Agriculture and Nutrition Shared Results Framework. The two DFSAs were tasked

with facilitating the transition of chronically food insecure populations toward sustainable food security.

SVC was expected to collaborate with the DFSAs and other USAID-funded projects in the Development

Focus Area to implement VC activities by “linking smallholder farmers [both those targeted by the DFSAs as

well as others]” to “strengthen inclusive value chains and supportive market chain services.” The activity was

expected to address some of the “key constraints or opportunities to support greater efficiencies and market

access” for three VCs (specialty coffee, dried beans, and soybeans). It was also expected that “by the end

of the activity, improvements in the value chains and market systems should be self-sustaining and key market

actors should have the capacity to continue self-improvement with minimal further support.”

When SVC was designed, it adopted a work plan organized into five component teams to achieve eight of

the 13 sub-IRs in the Kivu Agricultural and Nutrition Shared Results Framework for the coffee, dried

beans, and soybean VCs. Although SVC was responsible for the full specialty coffee VC, it was contractually

restricted to post-harvest activities (i.e., half VC support) for dried beans and soybean VCs. This

contractual requirement incorrectly assumed that the two USAID-funded DFSAs would support the other

USAID projects to achieve certain aspects of the results framework, like increased productivity, quality of

production, and improved health and nutrition that are critical to the achievement of the activity’s purpose.

Coffee Value Chain

Compared to SVC’s original target of 30,000 direct beneficiary households, Tetra Tech estimates that by

June 2020, the SVC coffee strategy had 38,309 direct beneficiaries and that it would eventually count the

51,482 members of 23 South Kivu cooperatives belonging to the RCPCA.

Senior USAID, SVC, DFSA, and

USAID project staff cited the scale-up of the SVC coffee model as its most notable success story.

IR 1: Improved agricultural livelihoods among targeted households: Eighty-seven percent of the

517 Coffee Farmer College (CFC) participants in the CATI survey reported their coffee production

increased by a large or very large extent, and 67 percent increased their coffee sales to a large or very

large extent. These findings are corroborated by the online survey where 92 percent of the

54 respondents said they had increased their coffee production, 72 percent said they had increased their

coffee sales, and 72 percent said they had increased their profits earned from coffee production.

9/10 IPs, 3/6 USAID; 12/16 total.

This evidence of successful progress is also reflected in the FGD responses and in SVC’s PITT, tracking

data, and reports. In the first case, respondents in 12 of 12 of FGDs with CFC participants agreed with

the statement that “SVC is very effective in improving coffee production through the CFC.” In the second case,

SVC’s internal tracking data reports that the average yields received by a representative sample of the

CFC farmers for specialty coffee cherry increased from 1.1 kilograms (kg)/tree to 1.8 kg/tree and to as

high a 3.2 kg/tree if they used the recommended full package of innovations, and the number of additional

seasonal worker positions created in the specialty coffee VC increased from 190 in FY 2018 to 2,110 in

FY 2019 (422 percent of target) and to 2,469 in FY 2020 (320 percent of target).

Ninety-four percent of 54 online survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that coffee cherry quality

had improved after participating in the CFC. Key informants across multiple KIIs/FGDs also noted

improvements in coffee cherry among CFC participants.

Whereas 99 percent of 610 coffee farmers in

the CATI survey expressed a desire to expand their coffee production, only 53 percent of 457 CFC

participants said it was now easier to sell coffee, and only 30 percent were receiving better prices.

Despite the persistent problems that some farmers have in marketing their crops and receiving higher

prices, the KIIs/FGDs offer additional corroboration of the activity’s positive results in the specialty coffee

VC. Several KII/FGD participants across multiple stakeholder groups noted improvements in farming

outcomes for coffee farmers related to coffee production, quality, sales, and income.

Although far from

universal among small coffee farmers, the evidence indicates that activity interventions in the specialty

coffee VC were generating positive results related to each of the higher-level objectives in the shared

results framework as well as the eight sub-IRs that the SVC was designed to support.

Sub-IR 1.1: Increased use of improved agricultural practices and inputs: The coffee sector

increased its adoption of improved agricultural practices through the rapid scale-up of CFCs to

13,089 trainees in Kabare and Kalehe. Ninety-two percent of the 517 CFC participants in the CATI survey

implemented what they learned from the training either to a large or very large extent. These CATI results

are corroborated by the approximately three-quarters or more of 54 CFC trainers/focal farmers in the

online survey who reported adopting improved soil erosion, sustainable farm management, composting,

shade management, mulching, and planting practices. One innovative feature of SVC’s coffee strategy that

has helped coffee farmers adapt better bean production practices was its support (through WCR) of on-

farm technical trials (OFTTs) with smallholders and concessionaires in 30 communities in Kabare and

Kalehe. To date, however, this has not been scaled up widely.

As seen in Table 1, more than 90 percent of 54 CFC farmer trainers and focal farmers in the online survey

agreed or strongly agreed that coffee farmers had adopted improved weeding, pest management,

rejuvenation, and pruning practices and increased the quality of their coffee production as a result of their

participation in the CFC. Approximately three-quarters or more agreed or strongly agreed that they had

adopted improved soil erosion, sustainable farm management, composting, shade management, mulching,

and planting practices. Finally, fewer than 50 percent agreed that they had diversified into different types

of coffee trees or adopted improved marketing or management and business practices. KIIs and FGDs

with multiple key informants across multiple stakeholder groups provided a third source of evidence

supporting the finding that CFC participants increased their adoption of a range of improved practices.

5/20 SVC, 3/23 UOs, 2/7 CPEs, 5/12 CFCs; 15/62 total. Note that among the 23 UOs interviewed, 7 work in coffee only;

3 work in coffee, dried beans, and soybeans; 1 works in coffee and dried beans; 8 work in dried beans and soybeans; 1 works in

dried beans only; and 3 have no particular VC focus. Among the 17 CBGs, 7 work in coffee and dried beans, 9 work in dried

beans and soybeans, and 1 has no particular VC focus. None of the 6 LCs interviewed have a particular VC focus.

11/20 SVC, 10/23 UOs, 2/7 CPEs, 5/12 CFCs; 28/62 total.

5/12 CFCs.

5/20 SVC, 11/23 UOs, 7/18 CBGs, 3/7 CPEs, 4/12 CFCs; 30/80 total.

Table 1: Adoption of Improved Agricultural Practices in the Coffee VC (N=54)

Improved Practices

Adopted

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

Don’t

Know

Weeding 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 36.5% 61.5% 0.0%

Pest management 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 64.2% 30.2% 0.0%

Rejuvenation 7.5% 0.0% 1.9% 54.7% 35.8% 0.0%

Pruning 5.8% 0.0% 3.8% 50.0% 40.4% 0.0%

Product quality 0.0% 1.9% 1.9% 59.6% 34.6% 1.9%

Soil erosion 1.9% 1.9% 7.5% 39.6% 49.1% 0.0%

Farm management 7.7% 0.0% 3.8% 61.5% 26.9% 0.0%

Composting practices 9.4% 0.0% 7.5% 47.2% 35.8% 0.0%

Shade management 9.4% 0.0% 7.5% 52.8% 30.2% 0.0%

Mulching 10.2% 0.0% 8.2% 57.1% 24.5% 0.0%

Coffee planting 3.8% 3.8% 9.4% 43.4% 30.2% 9.4%

Marketing 7.7% 26.9% 15.4% 38.5% 1.9% 9.6%

Diversification of coffee trees 4.1% 26.5% 14.3% 34.7% 14.3% 6.1%

Source: Online survey with farmer trainers and focal farmers.

In contrast to high adoption rates of improved practices among CFC participants, the use of production

inputs showed much less improvement (Table 2). While 80 percent of 54 online survey respondents said

coffee farmers had increased their use of fertilizer, less than one-half said farmers had increased their use

of agricultural inputs overall (49.1 percent), quality seeds (37.7 percent), chemicals (30 percent), and

machinery and equipment (17.3 percent). Access to production inputs and improved seeds were routinely

cited by stakeholders in KIIs and FGDs as primary challenges facing the coffee sector.

An identical

38.5 percent either strongly disagreed or disagreed or agreed or strongly agreed that small coffee farmers

had increased investment in their coffee farms. Thus, despite evidence of increased coffee production,

sales, and income, this has yet to translate into increased investment in their small farming enterprises.

Table 2: Increased Use of Agricultural Production Inputs in the Coffee VC (N=54)

Production Inputs

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

Don’t

Know

Fertilizer 3.8% 5.8% 7.7% 59.6% 21.2% 1.9%

Access to agricultural inputs 20.8% 20.8% 9.4% 43.4% 5.7% 0.0%

Quality seeds 26.4% 28.3% 3.8% 24.5% 13.2% 3.8%

Chemicals 22.5% 42.5% 5.0% 27.5% 2.5% 0.0%

Machinery and equipment 34.6% 30.8% 9.6% 11.5% 5.8% 7.7%

Source: Online survey with farmer trainers and focal farmers.

Ninety-two percent of CFC participants in the CATI survey rated their CFC instructors as good or very

good, 91 percent rated the relevance of the CFC topics as good or very good, and 89 percent rated the

overall quality of the CFC as good or very good. These results tracked closely with the online survey

where 88.5 percent of farmer trainers rated the CFC training as appropriate or very appropriate,

79.2 percent said the CFC training had a good or great impact, 88.8 percent said they derived good or

great benefit from the CFC training, and 81.4 percent said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the

training.

IR 2: Expanded markets and trade: SVC contributed to expanding markets and trade for the specialty

coffee VC by 1) helping qualified POs, concessionaires, and private enterprises access credit and training

to develop washing station infrastructure and quality control measures; 2) using Technoserve’s and Tetra

Tech’s international connections to attract and retain a wider audience of roasters to the annual Saveur

5/20 SVC, 6/23 UOs, 3/7 CPEs, 6/12 CFCs; 20/62 total.

du Kivu trade show and improving the quality of the trade show and the cupper training leading up to it;

3) using the Producer Organization Sustainability Assessment Tool (POSA) to target and monitor the

impact of PO capacity building for managing washing stations; 4) facilitating the creation of RCPCA; and

5) facilitating the South Kivu provincial government to develop the DRC’s first provincial-level coffee

strategy for coffee; and 6) forming an anti-fraud, harassment, and corruption committee linking the police

with private sector coffee actors through the RCPCA to reduce criminal activity in the coffee sector. The

committee is a working group whose members include representatives from the Ministries of Interior,

Agriculture, and Commerce, Federations of Businesses of the Congo, and RCPCA. The committee meets

quarterly to review complaints and to determine corrective actions.

Sub-IR 2.1: Improved market linkages and information systems: One-quarter of 54 online survey

respondents said that participation in the CFC had increased farmers’ access to market information, while

only 20.8 percent said it had helped farmers create new market linkages. Among CATI respondents,

59 percent of coffee farmers continue to sell at the farm gate or in local markets, and only 10 percent sell

to a wet mill, although 61 percent also sell to an association (possibly part of bulk sales transactions).

In contrast, SVC’s internal tracking results show a steady increase in the average revenue per kilogram of

exportable green from $0.37/kg in 2018 to $0.71 in 2020 and a gradual upward trend from 2018 to 2020

in the percentage of the final price accruing to farmers. Internal tracking data also show a substantial

increase in the number of containers of specialty coffee exported per year from South Kivu

from 15 in

FY 2017 to 37 in FY 2018 and 49 in FY 2019. Another positive indicator of success has been the steady

increase in the number and diversity of specialty coffee buyers.

Several KII and FGD participants cited

examples in which the activity helped them forge new market linkages,

as reflected in the following quote

by an activity collaborator illustrates, “SVC has played the role of the catalyst for collaboration with all coffee

players, ONAPAC [Office Nationale des Produits Agricoles], WCR [World Coffee Research], coffee farmers’

cooperatives, coffee farmers, etc. In the absence of SVC, it would have been difficult to interact with all the players.”

Sub-IR 2.2: Improved post-harvest storage and processing: Approximately 90 percent of 54 online

survey respondents reported increased adoption of improved post-harvest practices, and just over

50 percent reported increased adoption of new value-added activities (Table 3). Specific examples of the

activity’s success related to post-harvest practices, promoting coffee washing stations and offering TA to

those interested in constructing them, and the Saveur du Kivu trade show and cupper training were

mentioned 19 times across the 17 KIIs/FGDs with SVC staff and 22 KIIs/FGDs with apex organization

staff. In contrast, only 32.7 percent of farmer trainers reported increased bulking of products and

11.7 percent reported increased storage and warehousing.

Table 3: Adoption of Post-Harvest Practices in the Coffee VC (N=54)

Improved Practices

Adopted

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

Don’t

Know

Post-harvest practices

1.9%

44.2%

46.2%

3.8%

New value-added activities

11.5%

21.2%

3.8%

38.5%

13.5%

11.5%

Bulking

11.5%

34.6%

17.3%

23.1%

9.6%

3.8%

One of WCR’s strengths is its strong international and national connections with the coffee industry, roasters, and importers.

These connections were critical in helping SVC to predict emerging trends in the specialty coffee VC and incorporating them into

the research trials.

The total exceeds 100 percent as farmers can sell to more than one buyer.

Not all from SVC-assisted wet mills.

The current list of international roasters that have bought from SVC client wet mills since the start of the activity are Café

Maango, EFICO, Might Peace Coffee, Tropicore, Worldwide Coffee, Sucafina, Nespresso, Starbucks, Ethiquable via Maison P. Job,

Humberg Coffee, Lemark, and This Side Up (Source: SVC).

6/20 SVC, 9/23 UOs, 2/18 CBGs, 5/7 CPEs, 3/12 CFCs, 3/10 IPs, 1/7 CTAs, 1/5 DTS; 30/103 total.

The CFC does not have post-harvest bulking or storage as part of their curriculum. This is left to business advisors assisting

the coffee washing stations and SVC’s post-harvest handling (PHH) specialist.

Improved Practices

Adopted

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

Don’t

Know

Storage and warehousing

13.7%

43.1%

21.6%

7.8%

3.9%

9.8%

Source: Online survey with farmer trainers and focal farmers.

Sub-IR 2.3: Improved access to finance: Coffee farmers are not able to access credit, whether from

formal lenders (i.e., banks or micro-finance institutions [MFIs]) or from their POs. Only 11.3 percent of

54 online survey respondents said coffee farmers had increased access to finance compared to 5 percent

of coffee farmers in the CATI survey who have never received credit from a bank or MFI.

Nonetheless, washing stations are accessing credit and buying more coffee cherry from farmers. Most

credit to the coffee sector is used for coffee washing station operations. SVC’s internal tracking data show

that the activity surpassed its original investment targets. Since FY 2017, this amount has grown from

$99,000 to $5,908,280 in June FY 2020, $3,169,630 (54 percent) of which has been allocated as loans to

SVC clients and $2,738,650 (46 percent) as loans to non-SVC clients. SVC has further provided basic

training and retraining and coaching to more than 268 people as of June 2020—55.5 percent of them at

banking institutions, 19 percent at the DFSAs and other USAID projects, 13 percent at POs and farmer

business groups (FBGs), and 12.5 percent in private enterprises—which has increased the FIs’ willingness

and ability to make agricultural loans and VC actors to get these loans.

Activity records show a steady increase in the number of loans from the two South Kivu institutions that

received Development Credit Authority (DCA) loan guarantees (FINCA and Equity Bank) from six in

FY 2017 to 27 in FY 2018, 34 in FY 2019, and 35 in the first half (through June) of FY 2020. The majority

of this bank support was (with a few notable exceptions

) given to large agri-businesses with the smaller

loans to POs coming mostly from the social investment organizations and VC companies like Caffe Lac,

Nespresso/Virunga, Sucafina, and TWIN. Bank officers responding to the online survey and in the KIIs

attributed this to management’s and the board’s reluctance to lend to rural producers and POs, their

failure to develop appropriate lending policies and products, and the lack of branch banks outside major

urban centers. On the positive side, all eight bank officers that responded to the online survey stated that

the repayment rate on SVC-facilitated loans was the same as other loans made by their institution.

In the post-conflict economic environment of South Kivu, concessionaires are among the most important

private sector actors who have cash for major infrastructure investment (e.g., warehouses, washing

stations, transportation equipment, winnowing machines) and who have established commercial networks

in South Kivu and internationally for dried beans, soybeans, and coffee. To facilitate their co-investment

in the target VCs, SVC has provided technical advice on improved agricultural practices and inputs and

help to develop the business plans they need to get credit. As of June 2020, 12 are working to receive (or

have already received) loans for large infrastructure investments such as washing stations.

Sub-IR 2.4: Increased capacity of agricultural-related producer groups, organizations, and

enterprises: A major activity achievement has been its scale-up of support to the cooperatives and

private enterprises managing the coffee washing stations from nine in FY 2018, to 12 in FY 2019, and to

19 in FY 2020 managed by 15 operators—seven cooperatives and eight private enterprises.

As of

September 2020, five of the seven cooperatives had already reached the target POSA score of 61, which

is the level that the SVC considers to be the minimum level of capacity that they need to operate

effectively. Five of the seven cooperatives managing the washing stations satisfy the activity’s criteria for

sustainability (i.e., offering the minimum level of quality member services that make it likely that members

would continue to support the cooperative through membership fees and other contributions).

One association, Kalehe Arabica Coffee Cooperative (KACCO), received a credit of $300,000 from Equity Bank with a DCA

grantee over three years from 2018 to 2020.

Seven of these have been assisted since 2019, and eight have been assisted since 2020.

Evidence from the CATI survey, however, suggests that improvements in PO capacity may not necessarily

be translating into improved member services. Although 75 percent of the 610 farmers in the CATI survey

and 42 percent of the CFC farmer trainers and focal farmers who responded to the online survey belong

to a PO, only 39 percent of the 457 CATI PO members said their PO is providing more services than

before SVC, and 78 percent of the CFC lead trainers and focal farmers said that the limited managerial or

governance capacity of the PO was a challenge (67 percent said it was a big challenge) for the next phase.

Sub-IR 2.5: Improved government service regulations, and taxation for agricultural inputs

and trade: Four KIIs/FGDs—two with SVC staff and two RCPCA staff, the principal national platform

for coffee producers in the country—commended SVC for its efforts to improve the global enabling

environment for specialty coffee production and identified many instances in which these efforts have

already had an important impact.

However these same stakeholders emphasized that many of the most

critical activities, like the South Kivu government’s provincial coffee strategy, are just getting adopted and

need additional support to be properly scaled up. This attitude was echoed by 74 percent of the

54 community-based CFC lead trainers and focal farmers in the online survey who said that government

policies that inhibit markets remain a challenge or serious challenge for the specialty coffee VC.

ub-IR 3.2: Increased awareness of and commitment to essential nutrition promoting

practices/Sub-IR 3.4: Improved access to diverse and nutritious foods: SVC contributed to

increasing awareness of and access to diverse and nutritious foods by broadcasting SBCC radio spots

promoting the consumption of dried beans and soybean products on seven rural radio stations that were

monitored by 19 “listening clubs” (LCs) for content relevance. Although SVC never developed an internal

system for tracking the impact of these groups (beyond the 19 listening groups), 26 of the 28 community-

based groups (CBGs) who responded to the ET’s mini survey said that the messaging was useful.

Cross-Cutting IR: Gender, youth, and social inclusion: SVC integrated messages on gender and

youth inclusion in all its coffee PO and CFC trainings and aimed to ensure that 50 percent of all the CFC

trainees were women. It further developed a special course on GALS to train 160 CFC trainees and

incorporated a gender module in the core training for 13,089 CFC participants in Kabare and Kalehe.

Sixty-four percent of the 54 CFC online survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that SVC

contributed to improved gender equity and women’s socio-economic empowerment. Similarly, seven of

the 12 FGDs with CFC participants reported that the CFC had increased their appreciation of gender

issues. Despite the SVC’s commitment to 50 percent youth participation in the CFC, the share of youth

participants in the CFC was lower than expected. SVC staff attributed this to the fact that the coffee VC

activities were not the type of “fast money” activities attractive to underemployed or unemployed youth,

which enable the youth to earn money throughout the year (e.g., irrigated gardening, trade, or transport

services).

Conflict sensitivity/addressing community development needs: SVC contributed to reducing

conflict by 1) training 160 coffee farmers on GALS, which emphasizes conflict management in addition to

gender and youth empowerment;

2) increasing farmers’ access to knowledge, inputs, and financing for

washing stations; and 3) making available more land for bean production (as an intercrop on the

concessions) through the facilitation of 1,700 land leases on large concessions growing coffee. Participants

in 10 of 12 FGDs with CFC trainees said their participation in the CFC made them and their families more

Several cooperatives and platform leaders said that the RCPCA-led working group on crime in the coffee VC was already

reducing crime and illegal taxation of coffee in some areas. Others highlighted various ways that the development of the South

Kivu Coffee Strategy had increased the effectiveness of the private sector leaders’ willingness and ability to lobby for the

government executing some of the key policy reforms they needed that had been formally adopted but never executed.

This included 150 persons from four of the 22 large cooperatives that belong to the RCPCA (La Coopérative des Producteurs du

Café de Kabamba [CPCK], Société Coopérative des Producteurs Novateurs du café au Kivu [SCPNCK], COCAL, and ALPHA NEW

with 5,486 members), ten focal points in one large cooperative (Solidarité pour la paix et le développement [SOPADE] with 1,323

members), and four smaller cooperatives that belong to the larger cooperatives (COCASCA, AMKA, AMANI, and CAPECKI).

resilient. In nine of the same 12 FGDs, participants agreed that the CFC had increased their ability and

opportunity to express their opinions in a public or professional setting.

Dried Bean Value Chain

It was initially expected that SVC’s principal local partners would be its direct beneficiaries. Since the

DFSAs were focused on rebuilding basic food security (not production for the market), SVC shifted the

focus of its outreach to the POs and businesses producing and marketing dried beans, including the

Association of Small Cross-Border Traders (ACT). While this approach was effective in linking POs to

new buyers, it was not scalable. To increase potential for scale-up, and plant the seeds for the long-term

sustainability, SVC shifted its capacity building from individual market actors to UOs to provide market

systems support to their members. In January 2020, SVC signed capacity building memoranda of

understanding (MOUs) with ten of the most important platform/apex organizations working in the VC.

This included nine apex groups working with the bean and soybean POs, the principal apex organizations

(or platforms) working with the bean and soybean sellers, and ACT.

Early evidence of progress in the dried bean sector by IR and sub-IR is summarized below, including results

from the KIIs/FGDs, CATI survey, and online survey of 120 key informants at SVC implementers, DFSAs,

other USAID projects, concessionaires and private enterprises, deconcentrated government services

(DTS) officials, and USAID.

IR 1: Improved agriculture livelihoods among targeted households: Thirty-nine percent of the

491

CATI bean farmers reported receiving production training.

Of these, 91 percent said this production

training (from the different sources) had a positive impact on their sales. Online survey respondents

similarly agreed or strongly agreed that sales had increased, albeit only 53.5 percent of 120 respondents.

Evidence of the impact of SVC’s nested/apex strategy is the progressive increase in the price received for

dried beans at the nine platforms/apex organizations with MOUs (Annex 4). The SVC data show that,

although the profit margins were not large (especially for products sold immediately after harvest), prices

have been stable and have increased slightly since 2018. SVC’s second quarter report in 2020

attributed these higher prices to three factors: 1) higher product quality due to the adoption of

proper drying, cleaning, winnowing, and calibration prior to storage in clean sacks on raised pallets with

an offset distance from the warehouse walls and rafters; 2) market linkages facilitated by SVC, which

enabled buyers to understand and take into account production costs; and 3) aggregation at the point of

sale, which increased producers’ bargaining power by allowing buyers to purchase in bulk, thereby

reducing their transport

costs, and eliminating of the need for market intermediaries.

The 120 online survey respondents do not include FIs or agro-dealers, who were asked a different battery of questions than

other stakeholder groups. The questions specifically asked about, among other things, challenges and outcomes in the agricultural

and agribusiness sectors. As the large majority of these 120 respondents were working in the dried bean VC, in addition to some

who were also working in the coffee and soybean VCs, their responses are considered an adequate proxy for perceptions about

the dried bean VC.

It is unclear how much of this training was provided by the DFSA, other projects, or CFC focal farmers and farmer trainers

since improved practices for intercropping with beans were an integral part of the CFC curriculum.

Figure 4: Trajectory of Dried Bean Sales Prices by Season and Territory ($US per Kilogram)

Source: SVC.

The above findings were corroborated by the 491 bean farmers responding to the CATI Survey,

78 percent of whom reported receiving higher bean prices than the previous year. CATI survey findings

also indicate that activity support—combined with other USAID and non-USAID-funded initiatives that

are promoting dried bean production—is encouraging bean farmers to consider investing in yield

increasing production practices (predominantly through village savings and loan associations [VSLAs] and

bank credit) and strengthening their access to dried beans for home consumption. In contrast, only

28.8 percent of 120 online survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that prices in the sector had

increased.

Participants in 25 KIIs/FGDs cited a number of instances in which they claimed activity assistance had

contributed to improved performance at the farm level in terms of dried bean production, quality, sales,

and income. These instances were not universal across KII/FGD participants but occurred with sufficient

frequency to suggest that some traction was being achieved under IR 1 by the evaluation mid-term.

Sub-IR 1.1: Increased use of improved agriculture practices and inputs: A recent SVC internal

study estimated the average SVC beneficiary’s yields at 350 to 450 kg/ha versus more intensive

demonstration plots with yields of 1,025 kg/hectare (ha) or higher on some of the National Agricultural

Study and Research Institute (INERA) field trials. DFSA and SVC staff attributed this result to farmers’

weak access to improved seed, inputs (including land, equipment, tools, seeds, and chemicals), and

improved production practices and the limited application of appropriate fertilizers (either chemical or

organic), which are required due to degraded soil fertility. Since bean production is a DFSA responsibility,

SVC is not required to track bean yields. SVC staff, however, report that yields average 350 to 450 kg/ha

with local varieties. Since most dried bean production in South Kivu is intercropped, these values would

likely be higher. Staff report that the best producing bean variety, RWR 1668, registered an average yield

of 1,336 kg/ha in demonstration trials. In demo plots, HM21-7 yields averaged just over 1 metric ton

(MT)/ha (1,025 kg/ha), while the same variety in farmer’s fields averages only 400 kg/ha, which staff

attribute to an issue with seed.

Among CATI survey respondents, 86 percent of 491 dried bean farmers who received production training

reported that they were implementing this training, 96 percent reported that the training has improved

their bean production, and 99 percent indicated an interest in increasing their bean production. In the

online survey, 74.1 percent of 120 respondents agreed or strongly agreed that farmers had increased their

product quality. Less positively, only 48.3 percent of 120 online respondents agreed or strongly agreed

11/20 SVC, 12/23 UOs, 2/7 CPEs; 25/50 total.

that farmers had increased their access to quality inputs. Evidence that inputs access and usage in the VC

was increasing in the KIIs/FGDs was limited to seven KIIs/FGDs,

rather lack of access to inputs was cited

as a persistent challenge across multiple KIIs/FGDs and stakeholder groups.

Sub-IR 2.1: Improved market linkages and information systems: Fifty-five percent of 120 online

survey respondents reported that farmers had increased their number of commercial linkages or their

access to market information (Table 4). Thirty-eight percent reported that farmers had increased the

number or diversity of markets where they were selling or were being rewarded for higher quality with

higher prices. In the same vein, the majority of the 491 CATI survey respondents continue to sell to low

value-added buyers, including 29 percent to traders at the farm gate and 65 percent in local markets. Only

24 percent sold their beans via bulk managed sales through an association and 2 percent to a processor.

Table 4: Market Linkage Outcomes in the Agriculture and Agribusiness VCs (N=120)

Improved Market Linkage

Outcomes

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

Don’t

Know

Commercial linkages 5.0% 10.9% 21.0% 37.8% 17.6% 7.6%

Access to market information

4.2%

16.0%

24.4%

34.5%

10.9%

10.1%

Number/diversity of markets

4.2%

20.3%

27.1%

34.7%

3.4%

10.2%

Prices for higher quality

7.6%

16.1%

24.6%

32.2%

5.9%

13.6%

Source: Online survey with SVC, IPs, USAID, collaborators, and clients receiving TA.

Participants in 30 KIIs/FGDs did indicate a number of instances in which they were able to form new

market linkages indicating that the activity has made at least limited inroads in this area (although the lack

of commercial linkages was a persistently cited challenge among KII/FGD respondents).

The crop

records that SVC has used to monitor the facilitated sales and crop storage activities of its cooperatives

and concessionaires with signed MOUs show that there are a growing number of concessionaires that are

facilitating leveraged sales for the beans grown adjacent to their concessions.

Sub-IR 2.2: Improved post-harvest storage and processing: Twenty-eight percent of 491 CATI

bean farmers reported receiving formal post-harvest training.

Of these, 86 percent reported

implementing the training, 84 percent said training positively affected their production, and 82 percent

said the training positively affected their dried bean sales. Sixty percent of 120 online survey respondents

said farmers had adopted improved post-harvest practices compared to 36.5 percent who said that

farmers had increased storage and warehousing or the bulking of products for sale (Table 5).

Evidence about the short-term impact (3-5 years) of SVC model of cascade training (i.e., one individual

from a group is trained and then cascades this training to other members of his or her PO) comes from

SVC’s monitoring of post-harvest training and retraining of focal persons working with the FSP DFSA.

Data on 20 POs trained and retrained between 2018 and 2020 showed that one-third of the trained POs

produced 27 percent more beans for market, a 250 percent increase (on average) for the POs.

2/20 SVC, 4/23 UOs, 1/7 CPEs; 7/50 total.

5/20 SVC, 13/23 UOs, 2/18 CBGs, 5/7 CPEs, 3/10 IPs, 1/7 CTAs, 1/5 DTS; 30/90 total.

Some of the PHH training farmers reported receiving was the training provided by the CFC; 97 of the 136 farmers who received

PHH training also reported participating in the CFC. It is also possible that farmers’ participation in the CFC has built their

understanding of market systems in a way that is cross-benefiting other VC activities (like dried beans) in the farming system.

Table 5: Post-Harvest Outcomes in the Agriculture and Agribusiness VCs (N=120)

Improved Post-Harvest

Practices Adopted

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree

Don’t

Know

Post-harvest practices overall

1.7%

12.0%

16.2%

47.0%

12.8%

10.3%

Storage and warehousing

7.6%

13.6%

31.4%

5.1%

11.0%

Bulking

7.6%

18.6%

23.7%

33.1%

3.4%

13.6%

Source: Online survey with SVC, IPs, USAID, collaborators, and clients receiving TA.

Sub-IR 2.3: Improved access to finance: Seventeen percent of 120 online survey respondents agreed

or strongly agreed that farmers had increased their access to finance, while only 5 percent of 491 CATI

respondents have received a loan from a bank or MFI. More positively, SVC assisted 19 concessionaires

with which it has an MOU to develop business plans for large infrastructure investments in the dried bean

sector. One concessionaire with a reportedly good chance of being funded in FY 2021 has the potential

to sell to the growing urban semi-processed bean market in the DRC, the first from South Kivu to do so.

To date, only one non-coffee client, Programme d’Appui aux Vulnérables (PAV), has received a loan of

$11,000 from Equity Bank through the DCA guarantee. SVC has assisted one concessionaire to prepare

a plan for a large industrial bean processing plant that has a good chance of being funded, which SVC is

optimistic will—if fully operationalized—open a new range of value-added processing options (and higher

prices) for its current dried bean clients. FINCA’s preferred clients are market women, transporters, and

value-added processors within a 30 to 50 kilometer (km) radius of their nearest branch offices

Sub-IR 2.4: Increased capacity of agriculture-related producer groups, organizations, and

enterprises: Of the 457 coffee farmers who belong to a PO, their PO is providing more services than

before the CFC in 39 percent of cases, fewer services in 49 percent of cases, and the same amount of

services in 10 percent of cases. At the same time, 45.5 percent of online survey respondents agreed or

strongly agreed that management and governance of the VC has improved, while one-third of respondents

agreed or strongly agreed that investment within the VC had increased.

There is, however, evidence that PO capacity is developing in certain cases. Out of 49 POs that were

included in the recent (September 2009) POSA survey, 52 percent had already attained the activity target

of 61 percent of the basic capacity needed to organize group sales and services for their members and an

additional 30 percent were approaching that goal. In contrast, only four of the 22 (18 percent) POs with

a POSA score of 61 or over had 75 percent or more of their members contributing to the financial

operation of the group, which is the SVC’s threshold to ensuring long-term organizational sustainability.

Sub-IR 3.2: Increased awareness of and commitment to essential nutrition-promoting

practices: Ninety-four percent of the 136 CATI survey respondents answering the question said that

SVC’s SBCC messages were incorporated into the post-harvest handling (PHH) training and had increased

their awareness of the nutritional benefits of consuming biofortified beans. Further, participants in 18 of

the 22 community-based FGDs stated that SVC SBCC messaging on the radios had made them more

aware of the health benefits of consuming soybeans and dried beans.

Sub-IR 3.4: Improved access to diverse and nutritious foods: Twenty percent of the 491 bean

farmers in the CATI survey grow beans for household consumption, while 63 percent grow for household

consumption and sale. On average, the bean farmers reserve 50.6 percent of their bean crop for home

consumption. SVC facilitated access to biofortified seeds for 6,800 of the territory’s most vulnerable

households, including three-year land leases that appear to be increasing the sharecroppers access to food

and income from SVC-facilitated sales.

Since the ET was unable to interview any sharecroppers directly, this statement is based on typed excerpts from the logbooks

the concessionaire managers are keeping and interviews with the SVC and Federation of Businesses of the Congo (FEC) staff who

had face-to-face contact with the sharecroppers they were training and assisting.

Cross-Cutting IR: Gender, youth, and social inclusion: Sixty percent of 129 online survey

respondents agreed or strongly agreed that gender equity and women’s socio-economic had improved in

the agricultural and agribusiness sector related to dried bean production, while just over one-half

(50.9 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that social inclusion had improved in the sector.

Soybean Value Chain

Since 2018, SVC has used the same half VC strategy (focused on post-harvest support) for the soybean

VC to support smallholders’ production of and access to soybeans, the second nutritious food that SVC

was contractually obligated to support. USAID’s interest in including soybeans in the three targeted VCs

was motivated by its nutritional potential and evidence for successful scale-up in adjacent countries.

Soybean activities included

mapping the key soybean actors (i.e., producers, processors, national and

international sellers) in the three territories in addition to the following.

IR 1.1: 1) Debriefing research findings with input suppliers on deficits in agricultural inputs (e.g., fertilizer

and seed); 2) launching a public awareness campaign with MC, PAV, and COOPANYA to generate demand

for improved bean and soybean seed; 3) identifying POs interested in developing soybean production;

4) producing a cost of production study showing that unit costs in the DRC were high and uncompetitive

in regional markets; and 5) developing a handout recommending timing for agricultural inputs.

IR 2: 1) Conducting studies of storage practices and other key constraints and opportunities; 2) exploring

institutional market opportunities with the World Food Programme (WFP), Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), large mining companies, and the army as

a basis for developing market linkages with SVC-supported POs and concessionaires,

3) organizing

studies to explore opportunities in the poultry industry and facilitation of sales contracts with poultry

producers; 4) facilitating linkages between local producers to supply local processors and buyers (including

a trade fair); 5) supporting POs and cooperative training in post-harvest processing and marketing,

including warehouse management; 6) developing a fact sheet on dried bean and soybean production for

banks and MFIs; and 7) organizing business to business (B2B) events to promote soybean seed sales.

3: 1) Promoting the nutritional value of producing and consuming dried bean and soybean products in

trainings and B2B events; and 2) supporting SBCC radio spots to promote the nutritional value of

producing and consuming dried bean and soybean products, monitored by 19 LCs.

As of the second quarter of FY 2020, 18 market actors (concessionaires, POs, and cooperatives) produced

41,209 kg of soybeans and sold 30,780 kg; 86 percent of these sales were from one apex organization,

Communauté Locale de Développement (CLD) Birava. Over the same period, these 18 actors produced

76.4 MT of dried beans, 57 percent of which were sold, and 30 percent of which were stored for later

sale.

Despite this limited scale-up in soybean production and sales, 93 percent of 28 community-based producer

groups who responded to the “mini-survey” on SBCC messaging stated that SVC’s promotion of soybeans

in PHH trainings and SBCC radio spots had increased their interest in growing and consuming soybeans.

4.1.3 Conclusions

Although SVC’s organization into components has helped it to pilot and scale up a number of promising

initiatives in the face of major external challenges, the same structure is less adapted to developing the

types of rapid scale-up and stakeholder collaboration that will be needed during the activity’s next phase.

That SVC’s contract restrictions and budget were inadequate to support all of the field activities they

were expected to perform, because it was expected that these services would co-supported by the DFSA

and other USAID-funded projects, was perhaps the most important cross-cutting factor that adversely

This led in FY 2018 Q3 to the development of a PPP that contacted private companies and public institutions to develop bean

and soybean partnerships.

affected its effective collaboration with other USG-funded projects. Promoting more effective

coordination and collaboration with other USAID-funded projects will require hiring additional field staff

as well as developing better mechanisms for joint planning, executing, and co-reporting and reinstating

some of the original mechanisms that USAID had proposed to facilitate interproject coordination and

collaboration.

SVC’s coffee strategy is increasing community-based stakeholders’ access to more diversified sources of

income by linking them to the specialty coffee VC, which has higher, more stable prices than conventional

coffee production in the DRC. These activities strengthen social inclusion in the VC by facilitating women’s

and youth’s access to the CFC training. They further facilitate farmers’ access to nutritious foods via

improved biofortified seed for use in intercropping. SVC is promoting biofortified seed as a critical element

of its proposed package of intensive organic production practices and is reinforcing through SBCC

messaging (via radio and trainings about the nutritional benefits of consuming beans and soy products).

SVC’s support for building bean farmers’ capacity for post-harvest processing and marketing—combined

with other USG-funded projects that are promoting dried bean production—is encouraging bean farmers

in SVC-supported POs to consider additional investment in yield increasing production practices (through

VSLAs and bank credit) and strengthening smallholders’ access to dried beans for home consumption.

Despite SVC’s efforts to promote the soybean VC in parallel to the dried bean VC, the scale-up and

impact of these efforts on smallholder income and livelihoods have been limited due many of the same

issues that constrain dried bean sales, including low crop productivity and limited access to higher yielding

seeds. Other soybean-specific constraints include the fact that, unlike dried beans, soybeans are almost

exclusively grown for sale, there is very little access to the types of processing equipment that smallholders

would need to access the domestic market in DRC, and soybean production issues are not currently a

priority of the DFSA or any other donor-funded project in the Eastern Congo. Nonetheless, there appears

to be emerging interest in promoting soybean production and processing in some of the community-based

bean producer groups because of SVC’s active promotion of the nutritional returns to farmers growing

and consuming soybean products during all SVC training workshops and SBCC radio spots.

4.2 EQ 2: IN WHAT WAYS HAS SVC’S COLLABORATION WITH OTHER USAID

ACTIVITIES EFFECTIVELY CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUB-IRS IN THE SHARED

RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND THE SHARED CONTRACT TARGET?

The USAID/DRC TO 3 strategy for South Kivu anticipated that all USAID-funded activities would be co-

located in Kabare, Kalehe, and Walungu and would collaborate for the achievement of the 13 Sub-IRs in

the shared results framework. Collaboration among the various parties, however, has not unfolded as

envisioned. In the online survey, 62.5 percent of 76 respondents representing activity IPs, DFSAs, other

USAID projects, and USAID agreed or strongly agreed that SVC was collaborating with the DFSAs,

although fewer (56.9 percent) felt that this collaboration was contributing to activity objectives.

Respondents were more pessimistic about the extent and usefulness of collaboration between SVC and

other USAID projects, with 44.5 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing that they were collaborating and

46.5 percent agreeing or strongly agreeing that this collaboration was contributing to activity objectives.

(About 20-25 percent were neutral.) KII and FGD participants from the same stakeholder groups also

characterized SVC/DFSA collaboration as poor, attributing it to different programming approaches at SVC

and the DFSAs and to poor communication/synchronization between them, in addition to other factors.

4.2.1 What Are Some of the Difficulties the Activity Has Faced Coordinating Activities?

Lack of USAID TO 3 coordination: USAID/DRC did not establish an internal mechanism to

coordinate activities across its TO 3 portfolio.

It anticipated establishing a TO 3 coordination unit to

facilitate joint programming, coordination, and monitoring and opening a sub-office in the Eastern DRC

2/20 SVC, 3/6 USAID; 5/26 total.

staffed with provincial coordinators. This sub-office was expected to act as USAID’s relationship manager

with provincial governments, civil society, and faith-based and private-sector leaders and coordinate

interactions between provincial authorities, TO 3 IP working groups, and TO 3-level field monitoring and

evaluation (M&E) staff. USAID anticipated backstopping this TO 3 collaboration by 1) hosting quarterly bi-

annual IP meetings by province, including GDRC representatives, and periodic thematic meetings for IPs

implementing activities in the same or similar technical sectors; 2) sharing French translations of all IP

quarterly and annual reports and work plan summaries with the GDRC during IP bi-annual meetings;

3) coordinating IP data collection; and 4) conducting joint monitoring trips in the field with representatives

of different operating units.

The TO 3 team, however, was never formalized. The satellite office was never opened, and provincial

representatives were never recruited. Security protocols limited Mission personnel travel to Goma.

Responsibility for monitoring and coordinating activities reverted to the Monitoring, Evaluation,

Coordination, Contract (MECC) contractor in South Kivu, until it closed its operations there in 2018 and

reverted to remote third-party monitoring from Kinshasa. Early in the activity, USAID did facilitate

meetings with IPs, but did not do so regularly with provincial governments and deconcentrated technical

services as it expected IPs to host these meetings. Multiple attempts were made by SVC and the DFSAs

to organize these meetings, but they never gained traction. The lack of central coordination made it

difficult to facilitate the envisioned coordination between SVC and the DFSAs.

Delayed and difficult project start-ups and TIP sanctions:

The lack of coordination was

exacerbated by two factors. First, the Integrated Youth Development Activity (IYDA), Integrated

Governance Activity (IGA), and Integrated Health Project (IHP) each had delayed and difficult start-ups.

Second, the USG’s sudden imposition of TIP sanctions in early FY 2019 forced IGA and IHP (SVC’s key

partners for Sub-IRs 2.5, 3.1, and 3.3) to shut down for four to six months, temporarily suspending

collaboration with key provincial technical services, while they recentered their activities from providing

direct support to the GDRC. This created unanticipated challenges for SVC’s relationship with the

provincial government since the USG never sent an official communication on the sanctions nor explained

why certain projects (like the DFSAs) were exempted but SVC was not.

Lack of synchronization with the DFSAs:

In the original SVC contract, the two DFSAs were

expected to be SVC’s closest partners and the principal agencies responsible for activity interventions in

the dried bean and soybean VCs. This collaboration was made difficult by several factors:

∉ The DFSAs’ initial focus was on building household food security for vulnerable populations, not

on increasing the households’ commercial production and market engagement. This was very

different from the initial focus and activity targets that USAID/DRC set for the SVC contract.

∉ Neither DFSA included a market systems expert. This made it difficult for them to anticipate the

types of support and collaboration needed during the early activity phases to expand beneficiaries’

access to VC support once the stakeholders had attained a certain level of basic food security.

∉ The DFSAs started one year before SVC and, during that time, made decisions about which VCs

they would support, which were out of sync with the three targeted VCs in the SVC contract.

2/20 SVC, 1/10 IPs, 1/5 DTS, 2/6 USAID; 6/41 total.

Although the TIP sanctions were imposed in November 2018, the projects did not feel their effects until March 2019. A waiver

was issued in FY 2020 for Eastern DRC, principally due to the Ebola Outbreak. DRC was reclassified from Tier 3 to Tier 2 for

TIP in July 2020 (Source: Personal communication SVC Staff). Three of the six FGDs with local, regional, and provincial DTS felt

(in large part because of the TIPS sanctions) that they were insufficiently involved in the SVC strategy, planning, and on-the-ground

activities in their areas.

5/20 SVC, 2/12 CFCs, 3/10 IPs, 4/6 USAID; 14/48 total.

∉ The SVC contract was never amended to reflect the shifts in DFSA priorities in terms of targeted

VCs. The DFSAs’ decision not to support soybeans weakened the impact SVC’s post-harvest

support for soybeans since no other project was addressing the low productivity of the VC.

∉ The SVC contract was approved with no budget line for field staff in the dried bean and soybean

VCs because it was expected that these services would be provided by the DFSAs. Since the

SVC’s targets, priorities and annual work plan targets were very different from the DFSAs’, the

DFSAs were not always willing to accommodate this support.

∉ Neither partner had clear guidance in its contract about how this partnership would be managed

nor the processes that would be used to co-report or receive credit for this collaboration.

∉ The implementation areas for SVC and the DFSAs only partially overlapped (see Figure 3), which

shows the geographical overlap between the five groups of “nested” apex organizations

collaborating with SVC on market systems development and the DFSAs).

Lack of territory-based field staff and offices:

Another factor impeding collaboration was that SVC

did not have territory-level offices or staff, except the 20 coffee development officers (CDOs) supporting

the coffee VC in South Kalehe and Kabare. The DFSAs’ administrative and training staff agreed that this

made it difficult for SVC to follow up on its trainings and made field coordination more difficult. Despite

the difficulties involving collaboration, the ET found evidence for both formal collaboration and informal

areas of overlap between SVC and the two DFSAs that are likely to “increase household incomes and access

to nutrient rich crops by linking smallholder farms to strengthened and supportive market chains services.”

ormal Collaboration

Linkages between SVC and DFSA through TA and Training: Since FY 2018, SVC has 1) supported

the training and retraining of 50 staff from other USAID-funded projects to help them work more

effectively with FIs (Annex 10); 2) supported basic training of 47 FSP DFSA staff associated and two

FH DFSA staff on post-harvest processing and market linkages; and 3) supported the training and retraining

of 31 FSP DFSA staff in GALS between FY 2018 and June 2020 (Annex 11). Although SVC staff facilitated

other PO trainings, most of these were not co-tracked by the DFSAs and SVC, the exception being the

training and retraining of 54 POs with the FSP DFSA that included 1,865 direct beneficiaries. SVC has since

experimented four times since with MC and/or WV on sharing funds to train POs in Kabare and Kalehe.

Linkages between the SVC GALS training and the DFSAs: Since SVC expected to work with the

DFSAs on gender, a number of the first generation GALS trainees included DFSA staff and community

agents from the DFSA-supported VSLAs.

Linkages between the SVC’s financial training for MFIs and banks and capacity building for

DFSA POs: Since FY 2018, SVC has organized training workshops for 50 DFSA staff and other USAID

projects on helping the POs they support to access loans from the two banks covered by the USAID-

funded DCA. To date, however, few of these groups have benefited from improved access.

Informal Areas of Overlap

DFSA beneficiaries associated with SVC supported bean/soybean apex groups: A recent SVC

internal study estimated that 20 percent of the 208 POs attached to the nine SVC-supported apex

organizations have members who are also working with a DFSA. There exists geographical overlap

between SVC and the DFSAs in the six market poles (or aggregator markets) that have been the focus of

Although SVC’s decision to push its coffee support into North Kalehe made sense because this is one of the most developed

areas in South Kivu for coffee, this is an area where there is no DFSA. This decision left the Walungu territory (which had a DFSA

but a less developed coffee sector) with no direct SVC support for coffee. Two-thirds of the FH DFSA is in the territory of

Tanganyika where SVC was not slated to work.

4/20 SVC, 3/10 IPs, 2/6 USAID; 9/36 total.

SVC’s technical support (see Figure 3). Specifically, five of seven trader associations belonging to ACT and

working with SVC overlap with the two DFSAs; seven of nine SVC-supported cooperatives with signed

MOUs overlap with the DFSAs; and eight of 15 cooperatives belonging to RCPCA overlap with a DFSA.

All 20 of these groups (and their member POs) are close to and/or based in the six market poles.

DFSA beneficiaries are associated with the SVC CFCs: A second SVC internal study found that

40.6 percent of CFCs in Kabare have members participating in DFSA activities. Twenty-four percent of

CFC participants are DFSA clients and 4.4 percent have participated in a DFSA farmer field school (FFS).

In South Kalehe, 82.7 percent of CFCs have members participating in DFSA activities; 83 percent of

CFC participants are DFSA clients, 25.2 percent have participated in a DFSA FFS, and 26 percent belong

to a DFSA-supported cooperative or PO.

DFSA members and former Development Food Assistance Program (DFAP)-supported

VSLAs are participating in the SVC POs and trainings: Both the CATI and online surveys found

evidence of overlapping participation and synergies between the DFSA VSLAs and the 1) SVC-supported

CFC activities and 2) SVC-supported dried bean VC activities. Eighty-seven percent of the CFC farmer

trainers and focal farmers reported belonging to VSLAs, while 61 percent of the 491 bean farmers in the

CATI survey also belong a VSLA of whom 81 percent use VSLA funds to support their VC activities.

Linkages between the DFSAs and the SVC gender strategy: The January 2020 SVC internal

assessment found that 85 percent of 389 women interviewed were members of a DFSA VSLA, PO, or

youth group, and 54 percent of 112 active and 200+ trained but inactive GALS champions were living in

the DFSA implementation areas.

4.2.2 For Which Sub-IRs Has the Collaboration Been Most Effective?

Evidence for effective informal layering and sequencing can be found in the dried bean VC where SVC is

providing assistance contributing to IR 1 and Sub-IRs 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4 (see Annex 4).

Formal Collaboration: Two examples of effective formal collaboration in the dried bean VC include

1) SVC’s training and retraining 54 FSP DFSA bean/soybean POs in post-harvest processing and marketing;

and 2) collaboration on GALS training. In the first case, the DFSA team cascaded the training to the other

PO members and supported SVC’s efforts to link these groups to better markets. SVC and the DFSA

remained in close contact after the initial training, which enabled SVC to backstop the POs in post-harvest

washing, storage and transportation, and market strategies. The impact has been a 47 percent increase in

beans per sale from 2019 to 2020. Since FY 2018, SVC has continued to train GALS champions that also

work with the DFSAs, although the two DFSAs never developed formal protocols to structure or track

the short-term impacts of the training on entrepreneurship or women’s empowerment.

Informal Overlap: Based on seven FGDs with SVC-supported POs with DFSA members, the primary

motivation to participate in the activity is to fetch higher bean prices. The motivation to participate in the

SVC concessionaire strategy for landless sharecroppers benefiting from a DFSA is to increase their access

to land by getting one of the SVC-facilitated land leases, access improved bean seed, receive more intensive

crop extension support, and increase market access. The primary motivation for VSLA membership is to

diversify income sources and use VSLA proceeds to invest in VC activities to increase and diversify income.

Finally, the SVC SBCC messaging via radio spots and other activity training promoted the nutritional value

of consuming beans and soy products, which was complementary to the themes being promoted by the

DFSA SBCC messaging in the areas where the two programs overlapped.

4.2.3 Are the results different between sites where collaboration has occurred versus

sites where SVC has been working independently?

Soybean VC: The DFSAs’ decision not to support the soybean VC weakened SVC’s efforts to link the

more active concessionaires and POs growing soybeans with national and international markets.

North Kalehe vs. South Kalehe: While this type of DFSA-SVC overlap is critical in some areas, like

South Kalehe, it is less critical in other areas, like North Kalehe, which, relative to South Kalehe, benefited

from a series of earlier food security projects, possesses superior agricultural potential, enjoy better

access to a major market in Goma, and did not qualify for FFP assistance. In North Kalehe, SVC supported

all three VCs but did not support a CFC or collaborate with a DFSA. In South Kalehe it supported the full

package of SVC activities and collaborated with the MC/WV DFSA.

Not surprisingly, a disaggregated analysis of the CATI survey found that outcomes among dried bean

farmers were, for the most part, the same or higher in North Kalehe than in South Kalehe, where many

of the beneficiaries were also working with a DFSA (Table 6). The two exceptions where South Kalehe

performed better were the percentage of farmers selling greater than 50 percent of their bean production

and selling to an association, which can be attributed to the extensive collaboration between the FSP DFSA

and SVC on post-harvest processing and marketing.

Table 6: Comparison of Outcomes for Dried Bean Farmers in North Kalehe and South Kalehe

(N=432)

Outcome

South Kalehe

North Kalehe

Participate in a VSLA

32%

45%

VSLA is sufficient to sustain or expand production

27%

39%

Interested in biofortified beans

12%

19%

Member of PO

22%

34%

Participated in post-harvest training

11%

21%

Implemented post-harvest training

11%

14%

Post-harvest training increased production

10%

13%

PHH training increased sales to a great or very great extent

10%

Sold 50% or more of their dried bean production

74%

65%

Sold to an association

31%

Sold to a trader at farm gate or the local market

58%

60%

4.2.4 How Can the Collaboration and Identified Gaps Be Improved?

Frequently cited recommendations for improving the current gaps in collaboration are found below.

● Develop better communication channels between SVC and the DFSAs.

● Create signed protocols between SVC and the DFSAs that clarify modes of collaboration, who

pays for what, and how the collaboration is tracked and reported to USAID/DRC.

● Give SVC permission to provide more complementary, full support for dried bean and soybean

production and other VCs (e.g., vegetables and livestock) the DFSAs consider to be important.

● Add an SVC grant component to complement the small grants program (maximum $500) for

qualified DFSA and non-DFSA initiatives with potential to strengthen VC activities to encourage

local banks to take more of an interest in the emerging producer groups and apex organizations.

● Require SVC and the two DFSAs to share their beneficiary databases as was expected in the

original SVC contract.

● Ask USAID to reinstate mechanisms for facilitating collaboration by ensuring high levels of

coordination between the FTF and FFP CORs and Agreement Officer’s Representatives (AORs)

Unfortunately, the CATI survey results made it difficult to find an area where the DFSAs did not overlap with SVC as a basis

of comparison. The best proxy found to distinguish the two groups was Kalehe households that received production training

(probably from a DFSA) with those that did not.

These VSLAs were supported under previous USAID and non-USAID projects, not one of the current DFSAs.

The CFC in Kalehe promoted trainees using biofortified beans for coffee intercropping.

and other USAID Kinshasa-based offices that oversee other USAID projects, which are

increasingly reengaged in the territories (i.e., the IHP, IGA, IYDI, and USAID loan guarantees).

4.2.5 Conclusions

To date, SVC has not been successful in building the types of formal collaboration with the DFSAs that

were envisioned in SVC’s original contract. There is evidence, however, from areas where SVC

successfully developed this type of structured joint programming (with the FSP DFSA for post-harvest

training and GALS training) that this type of collaboration can complement the DFSA’s investment in ways

that can contribute to the achievement of the higher-level goals in the shared results framework. Where

these income diversification activities have overlapped with SVC training in post-harvest processing and

market linkage training, this has contributed to the activities objectives by linking smallholder farmers to

stronger and more inclusive VC activities and supportive market services. One of the primary challenges

of the next phase will be to accelerate and potentially scale up this type of overlap by making it more

formal and strategic as originally envisioned in the USAID/DRC CDCS and the SVC contract.

4.3 EQ 3: TO WHAT EXTENT DID SVC ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF INCREASED

GENDER EQUALITY AND INCREASED WOMEN’S ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT IN

TARGET COMMUNITIES?

4.3.1 What Approaches Have Been Most Effective?

SVC’s original goal was to double the number of women in leadership positions in supported organizations

through trainings, awareness raising, focused advocacy, and targeted mentoring activities. Consequently,

SVC targeted organizations open to women in leadership positions and helped them build women’s

leadership capacity with organizational capacity support, which it reports on quarterly and annually.

Following examples of best practice in other countries, the SVC model used a two-workshop process for

training community-based leaders, or GALS champions. During each workshop, SVC’s GYSI team engages

trainees in participatory exercises to identify the root causes of inequalities. Participants identify social

norms related to women’s and men’s roles, responsibilities, rights to resources, and abilities to make

strategic decisions as key limiting factors. Through a visioning exercise, men and women identify pathways

to challenge norms about gender roles, responsibilities, and unequal access to and control of resources.

In FY 2018 and FY 2019, the first two workshops were offered one year apart with monitoring/mentoring

at the six-month mark. Starting in FY 2020, SVC compressed the timeline to six-month intervals with

monitoring/mentoring at the three-month mark.

As of June 2020, SVC’s Component 5 team had provided GALS training to 103 senior government officials,

concessionaires, and USAID-funded project staff, including 39 SVC staff and 31 staff from the FSP MC

DFSA. In the coffee sector, farmer trainers received gender sensitivity training as part of CFC training for

Cohort 1 (Kabare) and Cohort 2 (Kalehe), while GALS training was offered to members of the following

coffee cooperatives: La Coopérative des Producteurs du Café de Kabamba (CPCK), Société Coopérative des

Producteurs Novateurs du café au Kivu (SCPNCK), Rebuild Women’s Hope Cooperative (RWH), COCAII,

Kalehe Arabica Coffee Cooperative (KACCO), Kalehe Coffee Cooperative (CCKa), Muungano, Bosco-

Mkwidja Women’s Coffee, Regroupement des Agriculteurs et Eleveurs de Kabare (RAEK), TCC, RUJECAF,

Umoja, MABI coffee, and Alpha New.

SVC also trained 353 people in six territorial-level workshops, with 112 of these trainees becoming GALS

champions. The GALS champions in turn trained another 1,669 people (65 percent women). SVC has

relied on this network of 112 GALS champions (and another 200+ GALS champions trained but not

working as TOT trainers) to stay in touch with former trainees to facilitate their integration into SVC

activities and to track their progress implementing the action plans developed during the GALS training.

With regards to SVC’s gender objectives more generally, the activity has reached or exceeded its life of

activity (LOA) targets for the following two gender indicators:

∉ Indicator 28: As of June 2020, 49 percent of the 15,403 people who participated in the SVC-

sponsored trainings were women (98 percent of the LOA target of 50 percent).

∉ Indicator 29: As of September 2020, the percentage of women in leadership positions in targeted

POs, cooperatives, and businesses was 35 percent (117 percent of the LOA target of 30 percent).

The recently completed POSA of 51 POs and cooperatives found that 183 of 522 leaders

(35 percent) were women, and of these, 113 (62 percent) held top five key posts in their

organization.

Online survey: Sixty-four percent of 189 online survey respondents—including 68 percent of 76 survey

respondents affiliated with SVC, other USAID projects, and USAID—agreed or strongly agreed that the

activity has positively impacted gender equity and socio-economic empowerment, which ranked as the

fourth (out of 20) in the list of impacts identified by online survey respondents who agreed or strongly

agreed that the activity had improved gender equity.

Of the 20 female farmer trainers responding to the online survey, 80 percent said that the CFC training

had increased their coffee production (compared to 88 percent of men), 55 percent said the training had

increased their sales (compared to 74 percent of men), 55 percent said the training had increased their

income from coffee production (compared to 74 percent of men), and 70 percent said the training had

improved gender equity and women’s socio-economic empowerment (compared to 65 percent of men).

CATI survey: The CATI survey asked 174 GALS participants to rank the short to medium-term impacts

of the GALS training. Their responses are summarized below.

Effect of GALS Training on Intra-Household and Community Empowerment

∉ Eighty percent said the training increased sharing in household decision-making.

∉ Sixty-four percent said the training increased sharing of domestic and agricultural tasks.

∉ Sixty-one percent said the training changed how the household interacts with the community.

∉ One hundred percent said the workshops had helped them to better understand how they and

their families could personally benefit from the SVC project.

Effect of GALS Training on the Community

∉ Seventy-four percent said the training increased shared financial decision-making in farming

families.

∉ Sixty-five percent said the training had increased labor equity within farming families.

∉ Sixty-eight percent said women are no longer noticeably absent and removed from the produce

sales that sustain their families, despite their performing a majority of the home and farm labor.

Sharing Gender Messages

∉ Ninety-five percent met with other community members to help them understand gender

relationships, approximately 25 percent with 1-10 people, 30 percent with 11-30 people, and

40 percent with more than 30 people.

∉ T

wenty-seven percent of those who met with other people to discuss gender relationships did so

during workshops they organized, 50 percent did so through face-to-face discussions, and

72 percent did so at community meetings.

Percentages omit approximately 5 percent of respondents who answered, “don’t know.”

Percentages include people who used two more methods to share gender messages.

Farming and Other Outcomes

∉ A majority of women (and, in most cases, well in excess of a majority) increased coffee production

and sales as a result of their participation in the CFC and bean production and post-harvest

training. Overall, women in the CATI survey did neither better nor worse than the men. In some

cases, the women underperformed the men (i.e., coffee sales and bean production and sales after

production training), and in some cases they outperformed the men (i.e., coffee production and

bean sales after post-harvest training). Other results of interest include the low PO membership

among both sexes in the bean VC, relatively low female VSLA membership in the bean VC, and

women’s relatively high use of VSLA funds to invest in their coffee production.

Internal SVC GALS assessment: In January 2020, SVC conducted an internal assessment of its GALS

training for which it interviewed 389 GALS graduates at 12 sites, including 104 in Kabare, 147 in Kalehe,

and 138 in Walungu.

Sex-aggregated FGDs were used to compare men’s, women’s, youth’s, and adults’

perspectives on whether gender roles and relations had shifted and their perception about those changes.

One-half of 286 women surveyed reported increased access to productive assets (e.g., land and inputs) to

participate in targeted VCs. Text Box 1 summarizes the principal findings in five key domains.

Text Box 1: Key Findings of the SVC Internal GALS Assessment

Women’s access to and control of productive resources to participate in VCs: Twelve of 117 women interviewed

purchased land to build a home. Women reported having greater say over how agricultural land is used. In

Walungu, one-

quarter of the 104 women have greater input about which crops to plant, including more

permanent crops like bananas. Women in the other two target territories, reported similar decision-making

patterns regarding decisions about which crops—including dried beans and soybeans—to keep, sell, or donate.

Women’s leadership and ability to make and act on strategic decisions previously denied to them: Both men and women

emphasized the significance of women’s increased leadership in household and agricultural decision-making. Over

one-third of women across the territories said their husbands were now amenable to making joint decisions

about purchasing plots of land, joining VSLAs, and selling or donating food. The same proportion of women said

they can now make decisions about starting a commercial activity, joining a VSLA, and paying school fees.

More women generate, access, control, and manage income: More than half of men and 61 percent of women reported

greater transparency around income and savings, which enabled them to work together towards mutual goals.

More than half of GALS participants now invest in agricultural activities that strengthen their resilience, and

43 percent of women started small businesses to generate income. Nearly all women and most men started

raising small ruminants and poultry. In Kalehe, women have greater access to income to purchase food and

clothing.

Greater sense of dignity among women: Sixteen percent of the 286 women surveyed reported a decrease in spousal

domestic violence and public humiliation. This change gave them a greater sense of dignity and self-confidence.

More active participation of youth in VCs: After participating in GALS, youth are overcoming constraints to access

productive assets to participate in SVC VCs. Nearly one-third of 185 youth, including 33 women and 25 men,

began commercial agriculture endeavors. To this end, youth negotiated with parents to access land to grow beans,

fruits, and other vegetables to sell in local markets. Additionally, 18 members of the youth business group AJP

established relationships with Equity Bank to open savings accounts to invest in their agricultural business. GALS

participants, with other members of their groups, opened 35 individual accounts and one organizational account.

KIIs/FGDs: SVC’s gender achievements were tied for fourth place (with the joint SVC-DFSA trainings of

the FSP DFSA) as the most frequently cited success story across the KIIs/FGDs with SVC, other USAID

projects, and USAID staff.

The activity’s record on gender integration was ranked as one of its top

Caitlin Nordehn and Bertain Bisimwa Kabomboro. 2020. Technical Brief: Transforming Gender and Social Norms to Increase

Economic Growth in South Kivu. Bukavu: SVC for USAID. August 2020.

The most frequently cited were the FSP DFSA market training and the coffee VC support for local organizational capacity

building.

achievements in 13 KIIs/FGDs with UOs, 15 KIIs/FGDs with CBGs and LCs, and all five of provincial,

territorial, and local government officials who were interviewed.

Twenty-nine KIIs/FGDs with UOs and CBGs completed a mini-survey asking participants whether GALS

was effective in promoting different gender outcomes. Their responses, shown in Table 7, track closely

with the results of SVC’s internal GALS assessment and the CATI survey discussed above. Note that the

responses in the table reflect the consensus of the group, not individual responses.

Table 7: Effectiveness of GALS in Promoting Gender Outcomes

Gender Outcome

Yes

Don’t Know

Providing a participatory learning system

Strengthening the facilitation, monitoring, and planning capabilities of GALS

champions

18 1 10

Introduction of GALS for targeted players in the VC

Supporting VC players to achieve individual, household, and group visions

Integration of gender and social inclusion in coffee-washing station activities

through POs

22 1 6

Strengthening women’s leadership and ability to make business and household

decisions

24 1 4

Strengthen women’s ability to generate, access, and control income

Significant change in women's strategic decision-making and empowerment

Source: Mini-surveys with UOs and CBGs.

New enterprise development: SVC internal records indicate that, as of April 2020, SVC’s GALS

participants created 562 new micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), including 357 new

livestock enterprises and 205 sole-owner commercial activities. Livestock enterprises started small with

guinea pigs, rabbits, ducks, and poultry and progressed to pigs, goats, and cows.

Employment creation for women: Of the 357 new livestock enterprises and 205 MSME commercial

activities, 38.4 percent and 47.3 percent, respectively, are women owned. Commercial activities are

mostly food related, with the selling of beignets, bread, fish (both fresh and salted), cassava flour, beans,

and soybeans as the top activities. In Walungu, commercial activities are centered on horticultural crops.

Women along trafficked roads also began selling fuel products, such as gasoline and diesel fuel.

Employment creation for youth aged 34 or younger (male and female): Of the 562 new MSMEs

created, 54 percent were created by youth, including 169 new livestock enterprises,

94 new commercial

activities,

and 10 new farming enterprises (land purchases).

Access to finance: The above achievements are notable in that none of the start-up capital for these

MSMEs was provided by SVC. Some youth and women started their activities with money from a DFSA-

funded VSLA, some used the cash they received as a per diem for the training sessions, and some used

savings generated by lifestyle changes. This start-up capital was usually small (less than $50 per person)

that participants invested and then compounded over time by reinvesting monies earned in one economic

activity into the expansion of that activity or diversification into other income-generating opportunities.

Savings: GALS training also impacted saving behavior. According to SVC’s internal tracking, the training

encouraged 80 youth to join a VSLAs, including 29 (25 percent) of 117 youth interviewed in Walungu,

Guinea pigs, rabbits, ducks, pigs, and goats, 53 in Kabare, 64 in Kalehe, and 52 in Walungu.

Trade in milk, beans, donuts, bread, dried and grilled fish, drinks, cassava flour, soybeans, vegetables, and fruits, 28 in Kabare,

40 in Kalehe, and 26 in Walungu.

Two in Kabare, six in Kalehe, and two in Walungu.

35 (24 percent) of 146 youth interviewed in Kabare, and 26 (18 percent) of 147 youth interviewed in

Kalehe.

Women’s empowerment: Out of the 171 CATI survey respondents who participated in the GALS

training, 80 percent said the training reduced conflict within their household by promoting increased

sharing in household financial and decision-making. Another 65 percent said the training has increased

labor equity within farming families; and 68 percent said women are no longer noticeably absent from the

produce sales, which sustain their families despite performing a majority of the home and farm labor.

KII/FGD respondents attributed SVC’s strong gender performance to two factors. First was the activity’s

successful record in recruiting and retaining women for both its Bukavu and non-Bukavu-based staffed

positions. Thirty-three percent of activity staff, 40 percent of its technical positions, 32 percent of its field

positions, and 50 percent of its senior administrative positions (for national staff) are held by women.

Second was the activity’s strict adherence (and monitoring) of gender targets and, when possible, youth

targets for its trainings.

4.3.2 How Can SVC More Effectively Integrate Cross-Cutting Sectors and Gender

Considerations into Interventions?

Based on KII and FGD responses and the results of SVC’s assessment of the GALS training, the ET

identified five cross-cutting challenges to integrating gender considerations into the SVC activities.

Challenge 1: Inadequate staffing and co-support from the DFSAs: There was a lack of back up

of GALS champions and trainees due to inadequate core staffing for gender and inadequate coordination

with DFSA gender experts. When the activity started, there was only one gender expert given the

expectation that this individual would coordinate with gender experts at the two DFSAs. SVC’s response

was to rely heavily on the TOT model offering GALS basic training and results monitoring, identify

outstanding trainees to be champions, and offer them training to become TOT trainers themselves.

Challenge 2: Failure to mainstream GALS trainees at the DFSAs: Since the DFSA gender experts

were struggling to design and execute their gender strategies in FY 2018, they accepted SVC’s offer to

provide GALS training for their emerging leaders. Nonetheless, they did not mainstream these leaders

into their gender strategies nor communicate or coordinate with SVC after FY 2018, despite SVC’s

ongoing efforts to scale up its collaboration with the DFSAs on gender.

Challenge 3: Inadequate tracking of TOT and cascading training to other PO members and

CFC groups: SVC’s M&E system focused on tracking contractually required indicators. A training

database exists and is retained by the SVC M&E team. However, tracking the cascading training by GALS

champions has suffered from data validation issues meaning that the depth and breadth of the gender

outreach is underreported. This made it difficult for the 20 field agents backstopping the CFCs and senior

staff backstopping apex training programs in dried beans and soybeans to determine whether SVC’s TOTs

in gender were being cascaded. It also made it difficult to document how the GALS training was overlapping

with other USAID projects. The problem was further complicated because the DFSAs did not share their

beneficiary group information with SVC as mandated in SVC’s contract. (It is unclear, however, how this

information would have been managed and used for strategic planning until the two DFSAs and SVC

developed a shared database system with linked global positioning system [GPS] coordinates.)

Challenge 4: Inadequate PO leadership’s support for youth’s visions: Many youth (both male and

female) were frustrated by the lack of PO leadership’s support for youth’s visions and limited support for

women and youth to advance within their POs.

Bertain Bisimwa Kabomboro and Lyliane Bahati. 2020. Rapport des Rencontres de suivi (follow up) des anciennes formations Gender

Action Learning System (GALS) organisées en territoires de Walungu, Kalehe et Kabare (dès 2018-2019). Bukavu: SVC for USAID/DRC,

p. 10.

Challenge 5: Disproportionately high levels of illiteracy among women PO members:

Women’s relatively high illiteracy levels are another cross-cutting factor limiting their ability to assume

senior positions in POs. Unfortunately, none of the tools (including the POSA) used to track group

capacity assess literacy levels, as this was not a core area where SVC was expected to intervene.

Senior SVC staff and DFSA staff knowledgeable about GALS made the following four recommendations:

1. Invest in GALS champions’ capacities to sustain the gains made through GALS via additional

training and incentivizing the champions to continue their voluntary work.

2. Strengthen the enabling environment for women and youth to achieve their visions by scaling up

GALS training for POs and developing better systems for monitoring their progress toward

gender equality and social inclusion.

3. Increase PO leadership support for youth to facilitate their integration into the existing POs,

which is a more feasible way for youth to access resources than creating their own POs, which

typically have less capital, smaller social networks, and fewer skills than existing POs.

4. Pilot test new ways that POs and cooperatives can offer literacy training to their members.

4.3.3 Conclusions

The evidence summarized above indicates that SVC’s GALS methodology is an effective approach for

empowering women and youth in areas such as access to and control of productive resources; leadership

and ability to make and act on strategic decisions; generating, accessing, controlling, and managing income;

promoting participation in agricultural VCs; and creating a greater sense of personal dignity. SVC’s GALS

methodology is well adapted to the DRC’s post-conflict transition context because it helps facilitate

women and youth and their communities to reimagine gender roles and opportunities, and because it

provides a scalable mechanism through the creation of an emerging network of GALS champions for

monitoring the effectiveness of the training and providing follow-up mentoring.

SVC’s ability to scale up and pilot its GALS methodology has been hampered by 1) a shortage in GYSI staff

(only two positions), 2) the lack of territorial-based field officers, and 3) the weak model for coordinating

with the DFSAs. The conditions for sustaining achievements by GALS are not guaranteed since they will

require a concerted effort to link GALS champions and trainees to women members and leadership of

POs and cooperatives and the gender sub-groups of these organizations in cases where they exist.

4.4 EQ 1-C: WHAT ARE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES FACED IN MEETING THE

INTENDED GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND RESULTS? HOW EFFECTIVELY HAS THE

IMPLEMENTER DEALT WITH THOSE CHALLENGES? WHAT CAN BE CHANGED TO

BETTER MEET GOALS AND OBJECTIVES? / EQ 4: WHAT ARE THE INTERNAL AND

EXTERNAL THREATS TO SUSTAINABILITY BEYOND THE LIFE OF THE ACTIVITY

FOR THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS OF SVC? WHAT ARE THE BIGGEST

CHALLENGES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED? WHAT OPPORTUNITIES ARE THERE

FOR THE MISSION TO BETTER ENSURE SUSTAINABILITY?

4.4.1 Primary Challenges and Threats to Coffee and Agriculture/Agribusiness Sectors

Although 74.2 percent of 183 online survey respondents said they were receiving a good or great benefit

from working with SVC, and another 74 percent said that SVC’s approach to addressing identified

challenges was appropriate, only 58.1 percent of respondents felt the conditions for ensuring the

Many of these recommendations were also made in the SVC final assessment of its GALS training. See Bertain Bisimwa

Kabomboro and Lyliane Bahati. 2020. Rapport des Rencontres de suivi (follow up) des anciennes formations Gender Action

Learning System (GALS) organisées en territoires de Walungu, Kalehe et Kabare (dès 2018-2019). Bukavu: SVC for USAID/DRC.

See also Caitin Nordehn and Bertain Bismwa Kabomboro. 2020. Technical Brief: Transforming Gender and Social Norms to

Increase Economic Growth in South Kivu. Bukavu: SVC for USAID. August 2020).

sustainability of the SVC’s results beyond the life of activity were assured (Table 8) due to a number of

external and internal challenges that pose threats to the sustainability of activity interventions and results.

Table 8: Perceived Sustainability of SVC Impacts – Online Survey Respondents (N=183)

Not Long

Lasting

Not Much

Long Lasting

Somewhat

Long Lasting

More Long

Lasting

Very Long

Lasting

Don’t Know

4.7%

11.0%

20.3%

30.2%

27.9%

5.8%

Tables 9 and 10 summarize the primary challenges and threats to sustainability identified by both CATI

and online respondents. A notable finding in the tables is the broad similarity of responses both between

groups for each survey methodology and across the two survey methodologies. Running a Pearson

correlation test on the values in Columns 3 and 5 of Table 9 yielded a correlation value of .59 with a

statistical significance of .01, indicating a moderately large and statistically significant positive correlation

between how farmer trainers and focal farmers ranked the challenges in the coffee sector and how all

other stakeholders ranked the challenges in the agricultural and agribusiness sectors more generally.

Table 9: Primary Challenges and Threats – CATI Survey Respondents

Challenge/Threat

Percentage Coffee

(N=602)

Percentage Dried Beans

(N=491)

Lack of access to finance

78%

80%

Lack of access to tools and equipment

69%

60%

Lack of access to land

22%

32%

Lack of agricultural training

30%

18%

Lack of credit facilities (soft loans)

Running additional Pearson correlation tests on the percentage of respondents rating a challenge as big or

very big and the percentage agreeing or strongly agreeing that SVC has successfully addressed the challenge

yielded correlation values of -.75 with a statistical significance of .001 among CFC participants and -.70

with a statistical significance of .001 for stakeholders in the agricultural/agribusiness sector. In other words,

the more serious a challenge is perceived to be, the less respondents agreed that SVC successfully

addressed it. An in-depth discussion of the challenges and threats facing the coffee and

agricultural/agribusiness (dried bean and soybean) sectors, together with qualitative evidence from the

KIIs and FGDs, is presented below.

Table 10: Primary Challenges and Threats – Online Survey Respondents

Challenge IR/Sub-IR

Importance

Ranking

Importance

Ranking

Coffee

(N=54)

Ag & Ag-

business

(N=120)

Low prices for farm products

IR 1

96.1%

64.1%

Limited access to agricultural finance

Sub-IR 2.3

88.7%

92.1%

Lack of access to quality agricultural inputs

Sub IR 1.1

85.2%

69.0%

Lack of access to market information

Sub-IR 2.1

85.2%

73.9%

Low sales of farm products

IR 1

83.3%

43.2%

Lack of price differentiation

Sub-IR 2.1

83.3%

61.0%

Limited opportunities to form commercial linkages

Sub-IR 2.1

77.8%

76.3%

Lack of private investment in agriculture

Sub-IR 2.4

76.5%

70.1%

Lack of capacity or opportunity to bulk crops

Sub-IR 2.2

74.1%

65.8%

Limited opportunities to store or warehouse crops

Sub-IR 2.2

68.5%

66.9%

Limited managerial or governance capacity

Sub-IR 2.4

66.7%

Government policies that inhibit markets

Sub-IR 2.5

59.3%

81.9%

Lack social inclusion

CCIR

54.7%

56.0%

Low on-farm productivity

IR 1

51.9%

56.1%

Lack of gender equity/socio-economic empowerment

CCIR

45.3%

56.0%

Limited adoption of improved production practices

Sub-IR 1.1

30.8%

41.1%

Limited adoption of improved post-harvest practices

Sub-IR 2.2

24.1%

43.3%

4.4.2 Predictable and Unpredictable Challenges and Threats

The most frequently cited predictable external threat to sustainability was the humanitarian mindset of

community-based stakeholders and local governments who are more focused on meeting the immediate

needs of vulnerable farmer households than developing and expanding markets.

This entails the implied

expectation that inputs will be provided free of charge by humanitarian aid agencies, which disincentivizes

sustainable market development and entrepreneurship. According to one IP, “It is difficult to establish market

strategies in a community that continues to benefit from humanitarian aid. The POs supervised by SVC are partly

supervised at the same time by DFSA partners that provide humanitarian aid. This does not facilitate the process

of directing the same beneficiaries in the field of sustainability.”

In a similar vein, 14 KIIs

reported the different philosophical approaches taken by SVC and DFSAs to be

a significant sustainability challenge; SVC is more focused on expanding markets and linking with larger

and higher value-added market actors, while the DFSAs are more focused on local markets and ensuring

farmers are meeting their basic nutritional needs. Other frequently mentioned predictable external threats

were logistical challenges related to inadequate transportation infrastructure, such as problems getting

products to market (11 interviews

), and conflict and insecurity (9 interviews

9/20 SVC, 3/10 IPs, 1/7 CTAs, 2/6 USAID; 15/43 total.

6/20 SVC, 1/23 UOs, 5/10 IPs, 2/6 USAID; 14/59 total.

1/20 SVC, 3/23 UOs, 3/18 CBGs, and 4/10 IPs; 11/71 total.

2/20 SVC, 3/23 UOs, and 4/10 IPs; 9/53 total.

The most frequently cited unpredictable threats were natural causes, including COVID-19, Ebola, and

climate change (33 interviews

) and shifts in donor policies like TIP sanctions (4 interviews

), which

adversely affected activity implementation and coordination with other USG-funded projects in South

Kivu, in part by imposing a delay in start-up of IGA and IHP.

4.4.3 Component 1: Build Capacity of Vertical and Horizontal Actors in Targeted VCs

Three-quarters of 183 online survey respondents said the lack of access to quality agricultural inputs, such

as equipment and seeds, is a big or very big challenge, including 16 of 21 clients (76.2 percent) who received

TA from SVC, while 39 stakeholder interviews

reported access to inputs as a constraint. In addition,

59.6 percent of 488 CATI survey respondents said the lack of tools and equipment is a constraint to bean

production. Separately, 20 stakeholder interviews

reported the lack of access to quality (i.e., certified)

seeds to be a challenge, in part owing to 20 years of free seed and tool distributions by humanitarian aid

organizations. According to these same key informants, the long-standing practice of free seed and tool

distribution means that farmers are at the margin less willing to invest their own money in improved seeds.

Another constraint is that the biofortified bean variety that both the DFSAs and SVC are promoting is

neither a high-yielding variety nor in demand in the domestic and international dried bean markets.

Furthermore, 127 online survey respondents (74.7 percent) reported that government policies or the lack

of policies (e.g., GDRC’s failure to operationalize the 2011 agricultural law reforming the private-seed

sector in DRC) are big or very big challenges, including 17 of 21 clients (81 percent) receiving activity TA.

Twelve KIIs/FGDs

cited the low capacity for government engagement and advocacy as a threat, as

government buy-in of VC activities is critical to sustaining them once activity funding ends.

Sixty-eight percent of 115 online survey respondents reported that the limited adoption of post-harvest

practices and limited opportunities to store or warehouse crops are big or very big challenges, including

18 of 21 clients (85.7 percent) who received activity TA, while 44 KIIs/FGDs

reported that promoting

improved post-harvest practices and infrastructure pose sustainability challenges. Reasons include 1) the

limited number of POs trained in post-harvest processing due to a lack of activity staff to conduct these

trainings or follow-up on the TOT trainings and 2) the limited warehouse infrastructure in many

communities; the issue of inadequate training in warehouse management was discussed in six stakeholder

interviews. Sixty-eight percent of online survey respondents said that the lack of capacity or opportunity

to bulk crops was still a big or very big challenge. The weak capacity of the POs to organize bulk sales was

further identified as a constraint by 84 percent of the online survey respondents.

Although 41 percent of the stakeholder interviews identified SVC’s impact on capacity building as one of

its principal achievements, evidence from the recent SVC POSA assessment (September 2020) indicates

that the core capacity of community-based POs is still insufficient to provide the extension, training, and

marketing support that the POs will require once SVC and DFA funding ends.

Thirteen stakeholder

interviews

reported weak organizational capacity and transparency of dried bean and soybean POs to

be a threat to sustainability. In addition, ten KIIs

reported challenges related to business capacity

necessary for organizations to function, build, and expand, such as inventory management,

documentation/record keeping and accounting, computer skills, and strategic business planning.

6/20 SVC, 7/23 UOs, 9/18 CBGs, 1/7 CPEs, 4/12 CFCs, 4/10 IPs, 2/7 CTAs; 33/97 total.

1/20 SVC, 1/5 DTS, 2/6 USAID; 4/31 total.

7/20 SVC, 5/23 UOs, 11/18 CBGs, 1/7 CPEs, 10/12 CFCs, 3/10 IPs, 2/7 CTAs; 39/97 total.

3/20 SVC, 2/23 UOs, 7/18 CBGs, 1/7 CPEs, 5/12 CFCs, 1/10 IPs, 1/7 CTAs; 20/97 total.

3/20 SVC, 1/7 CPE, 4/10 IPs, 2/7 CTAs, 1/5 DTS, 1/6 USAID; 12/55 total.

6/20 SVC, 15/23 UOs, 12/18 CBGs, 3/7 CPEs, 4/12 CFCs, 1/10 IPs, 1/7 CTAs; 44/97 total.

The SVC POSA determined that, as of September 2020, only 10 of the 51 POs and cooperatives that it was monitoring are

able to provide a level of services to their members that would justify the members contributing to the financial support of the

organization.

6/20 SVC, 4/23 UOs, 1/18 CBGs, 1/12 CFCs, 1/10 IPs; 13/83 total.

2/20 SVC, 5/23 UOs, 3/18 CBGs; 10/61 total.

Thirty percent of 261 bean PO members in the CATI survey said their PO is providing fewer services

than before SVC compared to 39 percent who said it is providing more.

Ninety-one percent of 156 online survey respondents, including all 21 clients who received TA, reported

limited opportunities to form commercial linkages as a significant challenge, and 94 respondents

(55.3 percent), including 18 clients who received assistance, reported a lack of markets to sell farm

products. Meanwhile, 37 stakeholder KIIs

reported the challenge of linking farmers to markets and

market actors. Despite extensive investment of SVC in B2B events to link bean and soybean farmers to

sellers linked with ACT and to reliable institutional partners (e.g., the military, mining companies, hospitals,

schools) and bean/soybean aggregators in SVC’s seven major economic poles or aggregator markets, most

producer groups cited weak capacity to identify, negotiate, and deliver on managed bulk sales and

negotiated contracts. This issue emerged in seven of 12 FGDs with community-based producer groups

working in the dried bean and soybean VCs. Only 22 of the 491 bean farmers in the CATI survey

(4.5 percent) sell through an association or cooperative, compared to 281 of 457 (61.5 percent) coffee

farmers, although in the latter case, only 45 (10 percent) of coffee farmers are selling to a wet mill.

vidence from the activity reports and KIIs with senior SVC staff and concessionaire managers indicates

that SVC’s concessionaire strategy is has two major impacts. First, the strategy is facilitating investment in

critical infrastructure like washing stations, bean processing plants, warehouses, and group sales of dried

beans that benefit their companies, sharecroppers, and even nearby villagers. Second, the conditionalities

of SVC’s assistance to the concessionaires—which include their support to strengthen the food security

and livelihoods of their sharecroppers by improving their access to improved seed, land leases, and

extension advice—is increasing the sharecroppers’ income and access to food, as well as the productivity

of the concession.

Nonetheless, interviews with the same senior SVC staff and concessionaire managers indicate that

investment levels in the targeted VCs remain low. Many of the “win-win” agreements with the

concessionaires described above are just starting and the conditions for sustaining them through the

Federation of Businesses of the Congo (FEC) have not been fully developed, in large part because of the

same staff shortages that have hampered SVC’s capacity to adequately backstop the DFSAs. Seventy-

two percent of the 183 stakeholders who responded to the online survey identified the current and

projected lack of private sector investment in the targeted VCs as a big or very big challenge to

sustainability.

Twelve stakeholder interviews

reported that lack of access to land use for agricultural livelihood

activities, due to land prices or the difficulty of entering into contracts with landowners/dealers, poses a

sustainability threat. This includes the challenge of advocating for improved land access for small producers

and awareness raising regarding land access and land rights issues, such as discrimination against women.

cross-cutting challenge that affects the sustainability of all Component 1 technical areas is farmers’

limited adoption of improved production practices, which contributes to low productivity and high

production costs. Stakeholders attributed this to two reasons. First is the SVC contract, which precludes

SVC interventions in bean production. Second, the two FSP DFSAs did not start scaling-up support for

dried bean production through the FFS and Participatory Agricultural Cascade (PACE) trainings until

FY 2019. The primary factors limiting production reported by 488 CATI bean farmers were the lack of

access to finance (80 percent), lack of access to seeds and tools (60 percent), and lack of training in

improved technologies (30 percent). Sixteen stakeholder interviews

stressed that boosting the

productivity, sales, and income of farmers and cooperatives/POs is important for ensuring sustainability.

6/20 SVC, 13/23 UOs, 7/18 CBGs, 3/7 CPEs, 3/12 CFCs, 2/10 IPs, 3/7 CTAs, 1/5 DTS; 39/97 total.

3/23 UOs, 2/18 CBGs, 2/12 CFCs, 5/10 IPs; 12/63 total.

2/20 SVC, 9/23 UOs, 4/18 CBGs, 1/10 IPs; 12/71 total.

4.4.4 Component 2: Enhance Coffee Production

A challenge to sustaining enhanced coffee production is that POs, cooperatives, and the RCPCA have

weak capacity to implement activity training in improved coffee practices, improved inputs, market

linkages, advocacy efforts, and strategic planning. It will thus be difficult for small coffee producers to grow

and sell the quality of coffee demanded by the international market. Among CATI respondents belonging

to a coffee PO, association, or cooperative, 269 of 457 (58.9 percent) reported that it provides about the

same as (10.1 percent) or fewer services than (48.8 percent) before SVC indicating that SVC’s provision

of services to these organizations does not necessarily translate to increased member services.

Given this capacity challenge, it is not surprising that 35 of 54 CFC respondents (63.6 percent), reported

that the limited adoption of recommended coffee practices to produce the quality of specialty coffee

demanded by international markets is a challenge. Highlighting this constraint is smallholder and larger-

scale commercial producers’ limited knowledge about improved seedling varieties and cropping strategies

being developed by SVC’s applied research with INERA. Only 13 percent of the 602 farmers who

responded to the CATI survey were aware of the new coffee varieties.

Of 610 CATI respondents, 418 respondents (69.4 percent) reported that a lack of tools and equipment

is a limiting factor to increased coffee production, while 46 of 54 online survey CFC respondents

(85.2 percent) rated lack of access to quality agricultural inputs as a challenge or very big challenge. Of

54 CFC participants in the online survey, 46 (85.2 percent) reported the limited access to market

information as a big or very big challenge, while 42 (77.8 percent) reported limited opportunities to form

commercial linkages as a big or very big challenge.

The monopolistic practices of the cooperatives that manage the washing stations (with which the

international coffee service providers [CSPs] and roasters have agreements) was a challenge widely cited

by SVC staff working in the coffee sector as a major factor limiting smallholders’ access to better prices.

CFC online survey respondents reported the following as primary challenges: limited access to finance for

the creation of more washing stations and micro-washing stations, especially in underserved areas like

Kabare, critical to the creation of a more competitive market environment; the weak cupping capacity of

washing stations’ cooperatives, which inhibits their ability to do quality control; the sector’s heavy

dependence on a small number of international roasters; and fluctuating coffee prices (coffee prices are

set internationally and exchange rates can be volatile). The latter issue was raised as a constraint in

13 stakeholder interviews

and identified by 60 percent of the 457 CFC participants in the CATI survey.

4.4.5 Component 3: Develop and Implement Public Private Partnerships

Thirteen stakeholder interviews

cited the challenge of facilitating dialogue between private sector

enterprises and the government to advocate for policy reforms to improve the business enabling

environment. One such policy reform, PPP advocacy for more favorable tax structures, was cited as a

specific challenge in seven stakeholder interviews. The dialogue challenge is augmented by the low capacity

of private sector organizations to engage in PPP dialogue with government officials and low responsiveness

and involvement of the GDRC, including the provincial and local governments.

ecause PPP is new in DRC, the lack of awareness and understanding of the PPP concept and approach

among both private and public sector actors pose a challenge to sustainability. Contributing to this

challenge is that SVC is a regional activity and does not have staff in Kinshasa to support policy initiatives,

which is why SVC seeks to strengthen its relationship with the IGA Project in FY 2021.

Another challenge is the development of PPPs that stakeholders have identified as examples of best

practices, for example 1) helping the RCPCA become a registered platform to strengthen policy dialogue

1/20 SVC, 5/23 UOs, 1/12 CFC, 2/10 IPs, 3/7 CTAs; 12/73 total.

6/20 SVC, 3/23 UOs, 1/18 CBG, 1/7 CPE, 2/10 IPs; 13/78 total.

with the government; 2) facilitating the provincial government to hold policy meetings to discuss crime

and how to reduce it (for the coffee sector); 3) developing the coffee strategy for south Kivu, (yet to be

rolled out); and 4) helping the ACT anti-crime monitoring activities for dried beans and soybeans.

4.4.6 Component 4: Access to Finance (A2F)

The online survey responses from eight bank employees and three banks that have worked closely with

SVC illuminated two challenges to sustaining the results of SVC’s support for A2F. One sustainability

challenge is the risk that the two FIs that benefited from the DCA-guaranteed loans will be unable (or

unwilling) to continue supporting the larger VC agribusinesses if the loan guarantees are removed. A

second challenge is that the USAID-funded loan guarantees have helped mitigate, but not resolve, the

impact of some of the external (e.g., constrictive banking laws) and internal (e.g., reticent board members,

limited understanding of agribusiness, lack of branch offices) constraints and the lack of appropriate

financial offerings that are adopted to rural-based POs and cooperatives.

A third sustainability challenge is the weak financial literacy of the cooperatives and POs about how to

apply for and manage bank credit and the weak capacity of the apex groups to provide this type of financial

literacy training for their members. The issue of building the capacity of the apex organizations for this

type of service provision was identified in four FGDs (3 with SVC staff and 1 UO). The issue of building

the capacity of POs and cooperatives to offer this and other services was addressed in 13 FGDs.

4.4.7 Cross-Cutting Intermediate Result (CCIR): Gender, Youth, and Social Inclusion

Forty-four stakeholder interviews

reported that the failures to follow up on gender training and scale

up gender activities to more individuals and sites pose challenges to the sustainability of SVC’s training and

TA. As a DTS interviewee noted,

“SVC trained only 50 to 60 people in GALS out of a population of 310,000 instead of, for example,

training 100 people in all 83 villages. If we train 100 people in each village and identify enough people

who could train the rest of the population, this could help sustainability. Also, when SVC trains, they return

three to four months later and many people have forgotten what they learned. Some people who were

trained before do not even return.”

Contributing to this challenge is SVC’s lack of field staff (discussed above) for strengthening capacity

building, including gender training. In addition, nine interviews

emphasized the lack of monitoring and

oversight of activities.

Low literacy emerged in seven stakeholder interviews

as a major constraint to women’s ability to

capitalize on capacity building/training and translate the training into leadership positions in the POs and

cooperatives, especially the washing station cooperatives where the ability to read and write is essential

to carrying out management and financial duties. Women are often completely excluded from roles within

these organizations based on literacy.

Nine KIIs/FGDs cited the weak integration of gender messaging and training into the main technical

trainings under Components 1 and 2 as a challenge, with GALS training noted as a more standalone gender

activity, absent a gender mainstreaming approach in collaboration with other SVC technical leads. Five

stakeholder interviews further reported limited youth engagement

as a challenge, as only 17 percent of

participants in SVC activities in FY 2019 and 19 percent of participants in FY 2020 (up to June 2020) were

youth. A challenge to engaging youth is that SVC’s contract precludes its supporting the VC activities

1/20 SVC, 3/23 UOs, 1/18 CBG, /12 CFCs, 3/10 IPs, 3/7 CTAs; 13/90 total.

3/20 SVC, 10/23 UOs, 16/18 CBGs, 2/7 CPEs, 5/12 CFCs, 1/10 IPs, 3/7 CTAs, 1/5 DTS, 3/6 USAID; 44/108 total.

5/20 SVC, 1/18 CBG, 1/10 IPs, 2/7 CTAs; 9/55 total.

3/20 SVC, 2/23 UOs, 2/10 IPs; 7/53 total.

2/20 SVC, 1/23 UO, 1/18 CBGs, 1/5 DTS; 5/66 total.

where youth are active (e.g., irrigated gardening and livestock) and does not allow a budget line for “grants”

that might use to support the types of businesses that are attractive to youth.

4.4.8 Capacity Building Assistance

Evidence indicates that SVC is having success building the capacity of activity staff and local partners, a key

component of SVC’s transition/sustainability plan. Following are examples of how SVC is succeeding.

Perceived usefulness of SVC capacity building assistance for activity partners: In the online

survey, 26 of 76 (34.2 percent) SVC partners (i.e., SVC, DFSA, USAID project, and USAID staff) reported

receiving capacity building assistance from SVC. Of these, 25 (96.2 percent) said that the capacity building

assistance was useful, and 17 (65.4 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that it had increased their

organization’s capacity. Respondents ranked mentorship as the most useful type of assistance followed by

in-class training, site/exchange visits, and support to attend trainings by activity partners (Table 11).

Table 11: Perceived Usefulness of SVC Capacity Building Assistance (N=26)

Type of SVC Capacity

Building Assistance

Not at

all Useful

Not

Useful

Neutral Useful

Very

Useful

Don’t

Know

Overall

0.0%

3.8%

42.3%

53.8%

0.0%

Mentorship

0.0%

11.5%

30.8%

46.2%

11.5%

In-class training

0.0%

19.2%

30.8%

38.5%

11.5%

Site/exchange visits

0.0%

23.1%

19.2%

46.2%

11.5%

Support to attend trainings

0.0%

3.8%

15.4%

30.8%

19.2%

Source: Online survey with SVC, DFSAs, other USAID-funded projects, and USAID.

Perceived usefulness of SVC capacity building assistance for activity beneficiaries: SVC’s

capacity building achievements were corroborated in stakeholder interviews, including 14 of 23 interviews

with UOs and 18 of 24 interviews with CBGs. SVC implementing consortium staff and cooperatives/farmer

groups cited the particular success of capacity building on quality coffee production and certification,

improved post-harvest practices, including warehouse management and washing stations,

and improved

coffee farming practices.

Stakeholders at cooperatives and UOs cited SVC’s training for contributing to improved government

advocacy (4 interviews), including support for implementating the national agricultural law and agricultural

development fund, implementating the South Kivu coffee strategy through the Provincial Advisory Council

of Agriculture, and strengthening the advocacy capacity of the CARGs and chiefdoms.

Cooperatives/farmer groups and business advisors noted the helpfulness of SVC’s organizational capacity

building, including entrepreneurial management and governance,

strategic planning,

financing,

and

financial management.

Seven stakeholder interviews

found exchange visits with non-SVC institutions and programs particularly

noteworthy, for example trips to countries in the region where specialty coffee processing is practiced.

One IP said: “In 2019, business advisors had visited washing stations and coffee dry mills in Burundi to understand

how the processing chain works, which has helped improve things. The same goes for the exchange visit to Ethiopia

on the processing of specialty coffee and other visits to Uganda, etc., in order to strengthen staff capacity.”

2/20 SVC, 3/23 UOs, 2/18 CBGs; 7/61 total.

2/20 SVC, 2/23 UOs, 2/18 CBGs; 6/61 total.

1/20 SVC, 2/23 UOs, 1/18 CBGs; 4/61 total.

3/20 SVC, 4/23 UOs, 2/18 CBGs; 9/61 total.

3/20 SVC, 2/23 UOs, 1/18 CBGs; 6/61 total.

2/20 SVC, 1/23 UOs, 3/18 CBGs; 6/61 total.

1/20 SVC, 1/23 UOs, 3/18 CBGs; 5/61 total.

3/20 SVC, 4/23 UOs; 7/43 total.

Perceived usefulness of SVC capacity building assistance for financial institutions: Four of the

eight bank and MFI staff who responded to the online survey said that SVC training helped them increase

the number and value of agriculture and agribusinesses loans, while four of the six institutions participating

in the DCA loan guarantee program said it helped increase their agriculture/agribusiness lending a good

or great deal. Two key areas where respondents requested more assistance were developing policies and

products specific to agricultural credit and increasing customer demand. FIs also appreciated training

designed to better understand VCs and their actors, which was reported in three interviews.

Perceived gaps in SVC capacity building assistance: There are capacity building assistance gaps

cited by stakeholders, which partners and USAID should address to support sustainable capacity

development.

∉ A principal criticism was the lack of structured follow-up and mentorship in the GALS training,

which SVC implementing consortium staff attributed to staff shortages. Implementing consortium

staff also reported that the GALS training lacks trainers and does not reach enough groups in

gender activities beyond women, including community leaders, youth, men, and couples.

∉ Two interviews with SVC implementing consortium staff reported that SVC does not provide a

training plan for community trainers to ensure the sustainability of training in communities,

suggesting that it was a product of SVC not emphasizing follow-up support to communities after

training is completed.

∉ There is weak capacity at SVC to track the cross-cutting capacity building envisioned under Sub-

IR 2.4 in the shared results framework because there is 1) no dedicated SVC staff member

backstopping the activity’s capacity building activities for its two technical and four cross-cutting

components, and 2) little co-reporting on the joint capacity building with the two DFSAs or

exchange of information about beneficiary groups that might benefit from joint training.

4.4.9 Conclusions

Although SVC has achieved or surpassed almost all of its original targets for VC development, stakeholders

and SVC staff identified a number of predictable challenges/threats (e.g., bad roads, insecurity, petty

government harassment) and unpredictable challenges/threats (e.g., COVID-19, Ebola outbreaks, election

unrest) and cross-cutting and component-specific challenges that SVC faces over its remaining LOA.

Two of the biggest cross-cutting challenges and threats lie outside of SVC’s mandate. These include 1) the

limited productivity and production support for the dried bean VC, and 2) limited access to finance for

market infrastructure investments that SVC needs to support some of the large infrastructure investments

needed to scale up the specialty coffee and dried bean VCs.

While it is likely that the activity can make significant progress toward addressing the component-specific

challenges and threats and strengthening its connections to the DFSAs in ways to increase crop

productivity, it is unlikely that the full set of conditions needed to sustain these activities will be in place

by the current activity end date since certain key activities (like the concessionaire activity) are relatively

new. It is therefore critical for USAID/DRC to 1) consider ways it can strengthen SVC’s effectiveness by

adding addressing the key challenges negatively affecting its impact (like staff shortages at the field level),

and/or 2) anticipate what types of layering and sequencing of support will be needed to ensure appropriate

follow-up after the activity ends.

1/20 SVC staff, 2/6 USAID; 3/26 total.

2/20 SVC staff, 2/23 UOs, 1/18 CBGs; 5/61 total.

4.5 EQ 5: WHAT CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD USAID/DRC CONSIDER IN THE

FUTURE DESIGN OF AGRICULTURE/EG ACTIVITIES, PARTICULARLY IN REGARD TO

THE IRS OF THE SHARED RESULTS FRAMEWORK?

This section presents 11 considerations for the future design of USAID/DRC agriculture/EG activities

together with nine of the most frequently cited examples of “best practices” in agriculture/EG

programming (indicated by an *x).

4.5.1 IR 1: Improved Agricultural Livelihoods

1. Support full VCs (not half VCs).

∉ Empower future VC activities to support the POs and cooperatives to improve farming techniques

(e.g., agronomic practices, soil management, seed selection, land preparation, and crop calendars)

and post-harvest processing, storage, and marketing.

∉ SVC’s coffee strategy illustrates the contribution a flexibly managed full VC initiative can make to

strengthen a commercial VC that has been damaged by successive years of conflict. (*1)

2. Strengthen farmers’ access to quality inputs.

∉ E

ncourage USG-funded projects (e.g., DFSAs) to avoid free seed or input distributions that can

inadvertently create high levels of beneficiary dependence and weaken private sector agro-dealers

and the seed/input sectors in ways that are hard to revitalize in transition and development

programs.

o Facilitate access to high yielding seed varieties demanded by the market by 1) developing joint

agreements with national and international agricultural research institutions to conduct

adaptive on-farm trials of new varieties before promoting them, and 2) anticipating the need

for guiding private sector agro-dealers and seed companies to engage in sustainable outreach

to farmers and engage other sector actors instead of relying on a traditional farmer extension

approach to communicate the potential benefits of the new varieties being developed.

o Anticipate which private sector distribution systems will be needed to ensure that farmers

interested in getting the new seed varieties can access them.

∉ Identify ways that field programs in South Kivu can collaborate with USAID policy programs to

facilitate governments addressing policy constraints to redeveloping the private seed sector.

∉ Examples of best practice that were identified in the interviews include the following:

o The SVC seed distribution program by which concessionaires facilitated B2B activities,

procured improved seed, and then on-lent to their sharecroppers, recovering 1.5 kg of seed

at harvest for every kilogram of seed distributed, thus acting as an intermediate market for

the sharecropper production. Through this activity, the 19 concessionaries with MOUs

distributed bio-fortified seed to 6,800 sharecroppers in South Kivu (*2).

The issue of needing to invest in improved farming techniques, related to agronomy, soil management, seed selection, land

preparation, and crop calendars, as well as post-harvest processing and marketing was recommended in six of the FGDS in the

context of the dried bean VCs. The issue of amending the SVC contract to allow it to support the full bean VC and highlight the

importance of doing this in future projects was identified in two KIIs/FGDs. The issue of strengthening farmers’ understanding of

the importance of producing products that respond to the quality standards (and varietal standards) of the market was

recommended in eight KIIs/FGDs in response to the observation (made in 10 KIIs/FGDs) that SVC’s positive impact on the quality

of products being produced by the trained POs and cooperatives was one of the major SVC achievements.

2/20 SVC, 1/18 CBGs, 2/7 CPEs, 8/12 CFCs; 14/57 total.

The SVC facilitated the concessionaires making bulk purchases of improved seed from Harvest Plus that were distributed to

their sharecroppers who then reimbursed the concessionaire manager with an equivalent amount of improved grain after

harvesting.

o SVC’s contract with INERA, which supports a pilot program in two communities using

demonstration trials to promote higher yielding dried bean varieties found in INERA’s seed

catalogue (*4). This helped facilitate the rollout of the higher yielding dried bean varieties

most in demand by domestic and international markets that could be more easily scaled up.

o SVC’s joint agreements (through WCR) with INERA and Catholic University of Bukavu (UCB)

to conduct demonstration trials for new seedling varietals demanded by international coffee

buyers and test new varietals through the OFTTs and multi-location agronomy trials (MLATs)

(*3). The quality of the trials and the partnership arrangement with two key local institutions

and WCR has strong international and national connections with the coffee industry, roasters,

and importers. The chief constraint to this model, which will hopefully be addressed in the

next phase, is the inadequate communication of the results of the trials to local beneficiaries.

3. Encourage VC diversification and support.

∉ A

void predetermining which value chains a VC activity can support as this can 1) tie the activity

to a VC (e.g., soybean) with little short-term market potential, 2) make it difficult for the activity

to support the evolving VC interventions of the other USAID projects, and 3) make it difficult for

the activity to support youth in “quick money” VCs (e.g., irrigated gardening and livestock).

4. Promote inclusive agri-business models, which facilitate private sector investment in the

development of more inclusive VCs.

∉ S

ince 2018, the SVC concessionaire strategy has negotiated 22 win-win agreements with

concessionaires that are in the early stages of 1) increasing private sector investment in VC

infrastructure and on-farm income, which in turn benefits the entire VC, and 2) improving the

living standards of at least 6,800 sharecroppers that have benefited from SVC assistance (approved

by the landowner as one of the conditions of the MOU) in increasing their dried bean production

through a seed distribution program, land leases, and extension training (*2).

The concessionaire

strategy needs to be consolidated and scaled up to a larger percentage of the concessionaires, and

it needs a viable sustainability plan. There is also a critical need for additional research to

determine the short and longer-term impacts of the concessionaire strategy on the sharecroppers

and the surrounding areas before USAID/DRC recommends a more broad-based scale-up.

4.5.2 IR 2: Expanded Markets and Trade

1. Promote TOT training to build POs’ capacity for post-harvest processing, warehouse

management, and market linkages for dried beans.

∉ S

cale up TOTs to ensure that the POs adopt post-harvest quality standards for cleaning and

transport that they need to get better prices.

4/20 SVC, 3/7 CPEs, 5/12 CFC, 1/10 IPs, 1/7 CTAs, 4/6 USAID; 18/62 total.

This recommendation was made in three KIIs/FGDs.

6/20 SVC, 6/7 CPEs; 13/27 total. Despite evidence that the model is working, SVC has not had the means to study the field-

level impact of the concessionaire model to a great extent. The issue of facilitating land leases was recommended in six KIIs/FGDs

to respond to the chronic issue of insufficient access to land for smallholders which was identified in 22 of the KIIs/FGDs.

The bio-fortified seed buy-back program mentioned discussed under Recommendation 1 was pilot tested under the SVC

concessionaire strategy, see Recommendation 2.

The recommendation for scaling up post-harvest training in transportation and processing was a top priority recommendation

in 12 KIIs/FGDs with 23 UOs groups and 15 KIIs/FGDs with 18 CBGs. The more specific recommendation of linking this training

to warehouse development—including the DFSAs’ interest in building Community Marketing Center (CMC) warehouses in the

areas where they work—were mentioned in 2 KIIs/FGDs. The recommendation for ensuring that all TOT processing and

warehouse training include “training intensification” (i.e., follow up) by appropriate project staff was identified in 10/23 KIIs/FGDs

with UOs, 6/18 KIIs/FGDs with CBGs, and 2/12 KIIs/FGDs with CFCs.

∉ Ensure that each TOT is “intensified” with appropriate follow-up by the DFSA/activity staff to

ensure that the TOT trainer is cascading the skills that s/he learned to the other PO members

and that the activity provides POs with the TA needed to identify and deliver on contracts with a

reliable set of pre-vetted buyers.

∉ Support POs (and their associated apex organizations) to develop simple stakeholder databases

to track training targeting and outcomes. SVC staff noted that it was not always easy to determine

which groups had received training or whether the training had been cascaded. Common

complaints were 1) only one person had been trained, 2) this person did not share the training

with others, and 3) SVC did not follow up on the training (through staff visits) to reinforce it.

∉ T

he dramatic increase in marketed production that resulted from SVC’s co-training of 54 POs

(with 1,865 members) linked to the FSP DFSA shows the value added of combining TOTs in post-

harvest management and warehouse management with 1) conducting follow-up by DFSA or

activity staff to ensure that the training is cascaded to other PO members, and 2) assisting the

POs to deliver on contracts (*5).

2. Anticipate the need for certain specialized investments to ensure the quality standards

needed to access the international specialty coffee market (*1) by facilitating initiatives

started under SVC that are unlikely to be fully scaled up or sustainable by the end of the activity.

∉ Create or rehabilitate washing station infrastructure to increase farmers’ access to these facilities

and prevent a small number of washing stations from dominating the market, thereby increasing

competition between the washing stations and reducing the risk of monopsony.

∉ W

ork with the private sector to plan, sponsor, and facilitate the Saveur du Kivu trade show, which

is a critical B2B event linking washing station representatives to the international and regional

market for their products. This should be in collaboration with ONAPAC and with light touch

sponsorship/support from the provincial government.

∉ Train cupping experts at the washing stations to ensure that the washing stations are able to

deliver a product consistent with the one that they presented at the Saveur du Kivu trade show.

∉ Continue to scale up RCPCA’s promotion of coffee consumption in the DRC so that producers

have a viable domestic alternative to international markets.

3. Facilitate increased access to finance. Strengthen access to finance and private sector investment

in market systems activities through the following four-pronged approach.

∉ Increase FIs’ willingness and ability to support market systems activities via the following:

o Loan Guarantees: Facilitate close collaboration with the USAID-funded loan guarantee program

that is helping the banks and MFIs to expand their agricultural lending.

o Other External and Internal Constraints: Partner with USAID and non-USAID initiatives to

address the impact of external (e.g., constrictive banking laws) and internal (e.g., reticent bank

members, limited understanding of agribusiness, or lack of branch offices) constraints and

support the development of financial offerings adapted to rural-based POs and cooperatives.

This recommendation for strengthening monitoring, oversight, and supervision was made in 15 KIIs/FGDs.

The recommendation about anticipating the need to facilitate private sector (e.g., concessionaire) and bank financing of washing

station infrastructure was mentioned in 11 KIIs/FGDs. These same discussions identified the need for other supports like

1) certifying more washing station staff in cupping, 2) increasing GRDC support for the trade show, e.g., in facilitating visas for

the foreign cuppers (which was a major issue in 2019), and 3) creating a sustainable business model for the trade show.

The recommendation that future projects continue to scale up the RCPCA and other organizations’ efforts to promote

domestic coffee consumption was made in two KIIs/FGDs. This issue was often an unstated sub-theme in KII/FGD participants’

concern with price volatility, which was mentioned as a key constraint in 13 KIIs/FGDs.

o Grant Activities: Provide grant opportunities of up to $10,000 to local organizations to leverage

additional funding from banks for standalone investments in basic infrastructure (e.g., washing

stations, warehouses, or transportation) or other types of businesses (e.g., processing and

cleaning) that are critical to creating stronger VCs. Currently the DFSAs are only able to fund

small grants of up to $500. Grants are also seen by many stakeholders as a way to develop

the organizational capacity of women and youth and facilitated their inclusion in targeted VCs.

∉ Strengthen the RCPCA’s ability to serve as a liaison between the SVC-supported cooperatives

and the CSPs (e.g., Café Lac, NESPRESSO/Virunga, Sucafina, and TWIN) for working capital and

credit for larger infrastructure investments for the specialty coffee VC.

∉ Facilitate private sector investment by large businesses and concessionaires through leveraged

finance from banks that benefit the entire VC considering the lessons learned from the SVC pilot

concessionaire strategy (see Recommendation 4 in Section 4.5.1 above).

∉ Strengthen the emerging networks of VSLAs in South Kivu by providing technical and financial

literacy training to strengthen their ability to access bank or MFI financial services.

Examples of best practice that future activities should consider include SVC: 1) collaborating with the

USAID DCA program and its provision of training and support to FINCA and Equity Bank, which

attracted $5,908,000 of funding for agri-businesses (as of June 2020) (*6); 2) leveraging preexisting

contracts of Tetra Tech and Technoserve to attract $1,190,630 of support for working capital and

infrastructure (as of June 2020) (*7); and 3) supporting 19 concessionaires with signed MOUs to

access bank loans and use their personal wealth to invest in infrastructure and facilitate group sales

that are benefiting a wide range of VC actors (as of June 2020) (*2).

4. Support an improved enabling environment for VC activities.

∉ C

ontinue to support SVC’s ongoing initiatives and GDRC/DTS stakeholders’ participation in them

as a tool for building this support (*8).

∉ Strengthen GRDC/DTS partners’ understanding of VC activities through short-term internships

and exchange visits.

∉ Collaborate with other USAID/DRC-funded initiatives that are working on policy reform in

Kinshasa to address the bigger policy issues that constrain VC activities.

∉ Support actions (e.g., the provincial government’s new coffee strategy, ACT’s WhatsApp group

to control illegal taxes in the bean trade, and the RCPCA-facilitated crime working group) that

help improve the business climate (*8).

4.5.3 IR 3: Improved Uptake of Essential Nutrition Behaviors and Services

1. Promote increased awareness of and access to nutritious food (Sub-IR 3.2 and Sub-

IR 3.3).

∉ Improve harmonization of USAID-funded initiatives to support a smaller set of key messages that

are compatible with the Ministry of Health’s Scaling Up Nutrition Initiative rather than having each

program support its own SBCC activities.

100

∉ I

mprove integration of nutritional themes into mainstream VC training rather than implementing

the SBCC activities (e.g., radio spots, LCs, and theater) as a semi-autonomous cross-cutting

This recommendation was made in six KIIs/FGDs. In another 11 KIIs/FGDs, respondents stated that the weak buy-in of the

local government officials for improving the business enabling environment (including tax structures, tariffs, and harassment by

authorities) was a major constraint and recommended that future USAID projects.

100

This recommendation (not always with the specific cross-reference to the Ministry of Health) was made in 11 KIIs/FGDS.

component. This recommendation was made in 13 KIIs/FGDs. Thirty-seven of 41 KIIs/FGDs

discussing SBCC reported that the SVC’s SBCC messaging had increased their understanding of

the nutritional benefits of soybean and beans, 39 appreciated the radio show, 36 were aware of

the public interest ads, and 35 thought the SVC-supported theater productions were useful SBCC

tools. It was clear, however, from the KIIs/FGDs that most CBGs could not distinguish between

the SBCC messages they were getting from different groups.

4.5.4 CCIR: Gender Equality and Social Empowerment (SBCC and Conflict Mitigation)

1. Strengthen future programs’ support for gender equality and empowerment in South

Kivu.

∉ Scale up TOTs in the GALS methodology as part of future programs’ gender strategies, both in

terms of the number of overall number of people trained and the number of people trained within

individual organizations, POs, cooperatives, etc. (*9).

101

∉ Complement the GALS scale-up with intensive monitoring by activity staff (not solely GALS

champions) to reinforce the GALS action plans elaborated by individuals and their POs.

∉ Consider ways that the GALS training methodology and other types of gender messaging and

training (including those developed by TechnoServe for coffee) can be better integrated into VC

production and post-harvest training and assistance.

102

∉ Consider ways that future projects can improve the integration of income generating activities

and VSLAs together with technical and financial literacy training to strengthen vulnerable

households’ A2F in Components 1 and 2.

103

∉ Facilitate GALS and other gender training for a wider range of actors, including PO and

cooperative leadership,

104

couples, and youth.

105

4.5.5 Improved Collaboration with Other USAID-Funded Projects

1. Improve intra-USAID coordination.

∉ Consider which types of intra-USAID coordination, guidance, tracking, and reporting are needed

to backstop coordination between USAID-funded projects, including coordination meetings and

a clear set of guidance on the Mission’s expectations for how collaboration will be planned in the

annual activity work plans and reported on in the quarterly and annual reports to USAID/DRC.

106

∉ Anticipate that the different approaches and priorities of the DFSAs may limit their willingness

and ability to collaborate with more market-oriented activities

107

and adjust the scale and types

of expected collaboration accordingly. Table 12 conceptualizes these different approaches and

makes recommendations for how collaboration between the DFSAs and market systems activities

might be structured, based on feedback from the KIIs and FGDs.

101

This recommendation was made in 42 KIIs/FGDs. The recommendation is based on the general assessment from personal

experience and the literature (in the case of staff) that the SVC GALS training had been an effective mechanism for helping

stakeholders to think creatively about how they could break out of their humanitarian mindset. One of the chief criticisms of the

training by the CBGs was that, in many cases, only one person per group got the training and the SVC did not have enough staff

to ensure appropriate follow up.

102

This recommendation was made in 42 KIIs/FGDs. The recommendation based on the assessment that this would facilitate a

more rapid scale-up than continuing to conduct the GALS trainings separately.

103

This recommendation was made in 67 KIIs/FGDs. The point was also made in another six KIIs/FGDs in the context of VSLAs

being an important development asset.

104

This issue of training cooperative leaders was also made in the January 2020 gender assessment.

105

This recommendation was made in 17 KIIs/FGDs.

106

This recommendation was made in 11 KIIs/FGDs.

107

This recommendation was made in two KIIs/FGDs.

Table 12: Evolution of DFSA VC Priorities Over the Life Cycle of a Five-Year Activity and

Opportunities for Market Systems Engagement in Three Predictable Time Frames

Planning

Framework

DFSA VC Priorities During This

Time Frame

Opportunities for Market System

Engagement During This Time Frame

Framework 1:

Start-up

(Years 1-2)

● Principal focus is on rebuilding basic food

security

● Light co-training with DFSA staff working with

CBGs in basic market principles

● Initial VC mapping exercises to choose appropriate

VC activities to support

● Identification of key vertical and horizontal actors

● Initial trust-building exercises with key vertical and

horizontal actors

● Initial co-

training with DFSA market systems

specialist in GALS and basic market systems

principles

Framework 2:

Initial

Transition

(Year 3)

● First group of more food secure

households start expressing desire to

increase production and sales of

commercial crops with DFSA support

and incremental support from a market

systems activity like SVC

● Some of the VSLAs become interested in

investing their money in VC activities

●

Initial development of vertical and

horizontal linkages with market systems

actors facilitated by the market systems

activity

● Joint working groups become operational

● Joint indicators identified to monitor the

collaboration and collective progress toward the

achievement of IRs and sub-

IRs in the shared

results framework

●

Collaboration and TA for DFSA production

activities and market systems support

● Use of a modified version of the POSA to co-

identify (with the DFSA) the first cohort of DFSA

POs ready to start capacity building for a more

diversified set of income earning activities

Framework 3:

Scale-up and

Consolidation

(Years 4-5)

●

Additional groups request market

systems scale-up assistance

● Strengthen

market systems linkages

between DFSA groups/apex groups they

are developing and wider market

systems

● Joint working group with DFSA expanded to

include non-project actors

● Progressive scale-up of market systems support for

a second and third cohort of POs identified as

market ready using a modified version of the POSA

● Final assessment (using a standard tool like the

POSA) to inform the design of follow-on USAID

market systems programming as a basis for

generating the data that need to be incorporated

into the contract for any future follow-on activity

4.5.6 Conclusions

Senior USAID officials and senior managers at SVC and other USAID-funded projects uniformly agreed

on two points. First, the CDCS TO 3 strategy to help South Kivu transition out of 20 years of dependency

on humanitarian aid has proven to be valid. Second, the envisioned layering and sequencing of support by

USAID-funded projects remains the best mechanism to achieve the results outlined in the 2013 Kivu

Agriculture and Nutrition Shared Results Framework.

The core issues identified in the TO 3 strategy—poor roads, underfunded local governments, competing

militias causing civil unrest, poor government agricultural policy—remain part of the economic landscape

in South Kivu. The key difference is hope. This mid-term performance evaluation confirmed some of the

most important findings of the two recent mid-term DFSA evaluations, which found that 1) despite long

odds, a growing number of FFP and non-FFP SVC beneficiaries are taking tentative steps toward the

market, and 2) the collective activities of the two DFSA projects and SVC helped facilitate this process by

providing the layered and sequenced support originally envisioned in the shared results framework.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The ET has identified a list of nine summary recommendations, with a corresponding set of sub-

recommendations, for the remainder of the SVC activity (see Annex 2 for more details).

Recommendation 1: Staffing and Management: Strengthen SVC’s ability to backstop its three

targeted VCs and any new VCs (e.g., livestock and horticulture) identified as priorities.

∉ 1.1: Full VC Support for Dried Beans/Soybeans: Clarify interpretation of SVC’s contract to

allow it to support the entire dried bean and soybean VC any future VCs.

∉ 1.2: Territorial-Based Offices: Create mini-field offices to increase SVC’s presence in the field

and facilitate better coordination with the other USAID-funded projects, including the DFSAs.

∉ 1.3: New CDOs: Add 12 field positions to backstop the three categories of apex organizations

108

that SVC is supporting for dried beans and soybeans.

∉ 1.

4: Reporting: Provide a monthly written update on progress made on quarterly priorities and

create a dashboard to generate simple visual comparisons of targets vs. achievements for activity

interventions and joint interventions with other USAID-funded projects.

Recommendation 2: Capacity Building: Strengthen SVC’s capacity to build the core technical and

cross-cutting capacities of activity-supported POs, cooperatives, and apex organizations.

∉ 2.1: CDO Training in Rural Education Techniques: Strengthen the capacity of CDOs in the

needed adult rural education techniques to improve PO support in the design, execution, and

monitoring of a wider portfolio of production and post-harvest training and better mainstreaming

of the cross-cutting modules that they are not used to backstopping (e.g., the GALS, conflict

management, and SBCC sub-modules being proposed under 2.2 below).

∉ 2.2: Mainstream Cross-Cutting Themes into Core Training Modules: Mainstream the cross-

cutting training modules for GALS conflict management and SBCC into two integrated modules

for community-based trainings (one for coffee and one for dried beans/soybeans)

109

to make it

easier for TOT trainers and supervisors to follow up on TOT trainings.

∉ 2.3: Literacy Training: Pilot-test new methods for linking literacy training to the two core training

modules that target women’s POs, cooperatives, and apex group members.

∉ 2.4: Self-Assessment-Based Action Plans: Support stakeholders to develop a simplified self-

assessment tool similar to the POSA and help them track their capacity in the same areas tracked

by the POSA.

110

Use the results to develop action plans and targets for building the group’s core

organizational capacity. Given the importance of literacy in determining members’ participation,

add a component that tracks literacy skills, both to the new tool and the two POSA indices.

Consider adding a component on using MIS information for negotiation and market diversification.

108

The three categories of apex organizations include 1) nine dried bean/soybean apex organizations, 2) ACT, and 3) the apex

organizations being created to manage the CMCs.

109

If other VCs are added, then the same approach would be used for training modules.

110

The most recent SVC POSA (September 2020) tracks five core capacities for specialty coffee POs: 1) financial health;

2) engagement with the market and external actors; 3) PO leadership, management effectiveness, and transparency; 4) member

loyalty/financial contributions; and 5) operational effectiveness. The most recent SVC POSA (September 2020) tracks six

capacities for dried bean/soybean POs: 1) financial health; 2) engagement with the market and eternal actors; 3) PO leadership,

management effectiveness, and transparency; 4) access to inputs and services; 5) relationship with the eternal environment; and

6) member loyalty/financial contributions.

∉ 2.5: Monitoring Plan: Support stakeholders to develop a simple database to monitor capacity

improvements in key areas targeted for improvement in their action plans, which group members

received which SVC trainings, and if and how this training has been cascaded.

∉ 2.6: Intensify SVC Senior and Junior Staffing: Create a staff position to focus on backstopping

SVC’s capacity building and training activities, including Sub-Recommendations 2.1-2.5.

Recommendation 3: Inputs: Strengthen farmers’ understanding of and access to quality inputs

(especially seed for dried beans and the new seedling varieties) to scale up and sustain VC activities.

∉ 3.1: Specialty Coffee: Develop briefing sheets with information on new varietals to distribute

to CFC farmer trainers and focal farmers. Explain SVC’s strategy (and that of its local partners

INERA and UCB) to disseminate new varietals and what support is needed to execute this

strategy. Consider scaling up WCR’s OFTT (30 in two territories) with smallholders and

concessionaries in collaboration with RCPCA to promote adoption of improved production

practices.

∉ 3.2: Nutritious Crops: Develop a module to promote certified seed use in DFSA and SVC training

programs. Scale up INERA seed demonstration trials and support community-based seed

production enterprises to produce and distribute certified seed varieties.

∉ 3.3: Soybean Innovation Lab (SIL): Accelerate USAID/DRC’s support for the SIL and use the

information to make recommendations for new seed varieties or technologies during the current

activity or for the next generation of USAID/DRC funding in South Kivu.

∉ 3.3: Concessionaire Strategy: Scale up and strengthen the monitoring of concessionaire support

for increasing sharecroppers’ access to land leases, quality seed, and crop production and

marketing support in conjunction with developing a sustainability plan for these activities.

Recommendation 4: Finance: Strengthen stakeholders’ access to finance for working and physical

capital investment needed to scale up and sustain more inclusive VC activities.

∉ 4.1: Small Grants Sub-Strategy: Add a small grants component to support entrepreneurial

investments that address key technology gaps in targeted and any new VCs.

∉ 4.2: FI Sub-Strategy: Intensify the training, site visits, and communication with FIs that has

increased their capacity to utilize the USAID loan guarantee program and utilize grants to buy-

down the risk of piloting financial products better adapted to smallholder farmers.

∉ 4.3: Concessionaire Sub-Strategy: Intensify SVC support for cooperatives to access bank

financing enabling them to invest in infrastructure improvements (e.g., washing stations, micro-

washing stations, bean cleaning, and processing plants).

∉ 4.4: VSLA Sub-Strategy: Increase technical and financial literacy training of VSLAs to strengthen

the members’ VC activities and the VSLAs’ ability to access financial services at MFIs and banks.

Recommendation 5: Market Diversification (Specialty Coffee): Scale up SVC’s collaboration with

the RCPCA to promote market diversification and quality improvement for the specialty coffee VC.

∉ 5.1: International Buyers: Build the RCPCA’s capacity to support their members to engage with

the international specialty CSPs and roasters.

∉ 5.2: Trade Shows: Scale up SVC’s support to provincial governments to develop a sustainable

model for financing, organizing, and obtaining government support (including visas for international

buyers) for the annual Saveur du Kivu trade show. Identify how government and cooperative

platforms can promote Congolese participation in international trade shows.

∉ 5.3: Quality Control: Support the professionalization of cuppers and build the capacity of washing

stations/cooperatives to operate cupping rooms and expedite samples to international buyers and

roasters.

∉ 5.4: Domestic Coffee Consumption: Support RCPCA’s efforts to promote domestic

consumption and sales by linking eligible youth (currently targeted by these training programs) to

micro-grants (see 4.1. above).

111

Recommendation 6: Enabling Environment: Scale up SVC’s support for the South Kivu Coffee

strategy and other promising GDRC-led initiatives to improve the provincial, territorial, and local-level

enabling environment in order to ensure the sustainability of these efforts once activity funding ends.

Recommendation 7: Coordination: Strengthen SVC’s internal capacity to support improved

coordination with the DFSAs and USAID/DRC’s capacity to support it.

∉ 7.1: DFSA/SVC Joint Working Groups: USAID/FTF and FFP should co-facilitate two inter-project

working groups, one on managing SVC/DFSA collaboration in Kabare and South Kalehe (where

the FSP MC/WV DFSA works) and one on managing DFSA/SVC collaboration in Walungu (where

the FH DFSA works), for the purpose of developing joint protocols for inter-project collaboration.

∉ 7.2: Demand-Driven TA and Training (for DFSAs): Provide technical back-up up to FFS

(FSP DFSA) and PACE community-based trainings (FH DFSA) if requested under the DFSA-SVC

collaboration protocols being produced by the joint working groups (see 7.1).

∉ 7.3: Data Analysis: Build the capacity of FFS and PACE training participants and other SVC-

supported POs to collect and analyze the data needed to manage a farming enterprise. This

includes calculating land area under production, seed/seedling quantities, warehouse storage

needs, and data related to service and financing contracts.

∉ 7.4: USAID/DRC Support: Strengthen USAID’s support for inter-project collaboration to

achieve the types of layering and sequencing envisioned in the shared results framework. This

includes developing clear written guidelines about how 1) collaborative/joint activities will be

proposed and budgeted in work plans, 2) projects can jointly take credit for co-executed activities,

and 3) progress toward achievement of collaborative activities will be documented.

Recommendation 8: Gender, Youth, and Social Integration: Scale up SVC’s support for youth

and gender entrepreneurship in collaboration with the DFSAs.

∉ 8.1: GALS Training: Shift the focus of GALS training from training individuals to building the

capacity of apex organizations and DFSAs to complement their existing initiatives promoting

ethnic, gender, and youth inclusion. Encourage couples’ training and ensure that GALS training

and support are integrated into all of the core modules for Components 1 and 2 (see 2.2 above).

∉ 8.2: GALS Champions: Strengthen the connections between GALS champions and SVC-

supported apex organizations and contemplate ways GALS champions can be compensated (in-

kind or in cash) for their community-based training once SVC and DFSA funding ends.

∉ 8.3: Grants: Strengthen SVC’s follow-up assistance to GALS trainees and their POs in

implementing the action plans developed during the GALS visioning exercises, and link successful

first-generation GALS entrepreneurs to small grants to help them scale up (see 4.1 above).

112

111

Youth opportunities exist as baristas and cuppers as well as in providing support services like transport.

112

These first-generation GALS entrepreneurs were almost completely self-financed.

∉ 8.4: Staff Follow-Up by CDOs: Intensify follow-up support for the promising new VC activities

(e.g., livestock and horticultural production) GALS graduates and youth entrepreneur grant

recipients are developing (as individuals or groups) (links with 1.3 and 2.1 above).

113

Recommendation 9: Annotated Bibliography/Case Studies of SVC Best Practice: Facilitate the

development of an annotated bibliography of existing data and summary technical reports on the nine

examples of SVC practice identified during this mid-term performance evaluation to determine if the

existing documentation is adequate to inform USAID/DRC’s new EG designs.

113

This recommendation is contingent upon SVC getting clarification on its ability to support a wider range of VCs (see 1.1). The

recent GALS participatory assessment (2020) confirmed the point raised by many of the community-based stakeholders in the

FGDs and online survey that there is a growing interesting in recapitalizing livestock throughout the DFSA and SVC ZOIs. As it

starts to gain momentum, there will be a demand for corollary and support services like veterinary supplies, community-based

vaccination agents, private-sector veterinarians (which oversee licensed veterinary assistants), building suitable stables and feeders,

herd/flock improvement, egg transporting, milk collection, and chilling.

6.0 ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: EVALUATION QUESTIONS

1. To what extent is SVC meeting overall intended goals and objectives?

∉ How can Tetra Tech improve its implementation and management approach to better achieve

results toward objectives?

∉ What are the notable areas of progress the activity has achieved in support of activity objectives

and goals?

∉ What are some of the challenges faced in meeting the intended goals, objectives, and results? How

effectively has the implementer dealt with those challenges? What can be changed to better meet

goals and objectives?

2. In what ways is SVC’s collaboration with other United States Government (USG) activities effectively

contributing to the Sub-Intermediate Results (Sub-IRs) in the shared results frameworks and the

shared contract target?

∉ For which Sub-IRs has the collaboration been most effective?

∉ What are some of the difficulties the activity has faced coordinating activities?

∉ How can the collaboration and identified gaps be improved?

∉ Are the results different between sites where collaboration has occurred versus sites where SVC

has been working independently?

3. To what extent did SVC address the issue of increased gender equality and increased women’s socio-

economic empowerment in target communities?

● Which approaches have been most effective?

● How can SVC more effectively integrate cross-cutting sectors and gender considerations into

interventions?

4. What are the internal and external threats to sustainability beyond the life of the activity for the

following components of SVC? What are the biggest challenges that need to be addressed? What

opportunities are there for the Mission to better ensure sustainability?

a. Component 1 (implemented by Tetra Tech): Build Capacity of Vertical and Horizontal Actors in

Targeted Value Chains (VCs) (Create and reinforce linkages and relationships between actors

within target VCs to increase the capacity of those VC actors to participate effectively in networks

and associations. Activities are designed to strengthen individual enterprises and groups of actors

in market systems, including farmers’ associations, traders, processors, agro-entrepreneurs, and

their service providers through targeted technical assistance [TA] and capacity building.)

b. Component 2 (implemented by TechnoServe and WCR): Enhance Coffee Production (Enhanced

coffee production, coupled with improved agronomic practices leading to increased productivity,

increased processing efficiency, improved coffee quality, improved access to diversified markets,

and research and development to identify the most productive coffee cropping systems and

dissemination of new coffee production techniques.)

c. Component 3 (implemented by J.E. Austin): Develop and Implement Public-Private Partnerships

(PPPs) (Improved private sector investment in the coffee, dried bean, and soybean VCs, and an

improved business enabling environment at the regional level, which includes cross-border trade

with Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi.)

d. Component 4 (implemented by Banyan Global): Access to Finance (A2F) (Improved access to

commercial finance in target VCs, enabling VC actors to invest in their activities to increase their

productivity and profitability.)

e. Cross-Cutting Component (implemented by Banyan Global): Gender, Youth, and Social Inclusion

(GYSI) (Increased leadership of women and youth across the VCs through enhanced decision-

making and control over income.)

f. Additionally, capacity building of local staff and local partners is a key component of SVC’s

transition/sustainability plan. To what extent is SVC achieving this goal and where are the gaps

that partners and USAID need to address to support sustainable capacity development?

5. What considerations should USAID/DRC consider in the future design of agriculture/EG activities,

particularly in regard to the Intermediate Results (IRs) of the shared results framework:

∉ Improved agricultural livelihoods

∉ Expanded markets and trade

∉ Improved uptake of essential nutritional behaviors and services

∉ Improved gender equity and socioeconomic empowerment in target communities and ways to

improve collaboration/coordination between USG activities.

ANNEX 2: SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CURRENT LIFE OF ACTIVITY

AND ANY COSTED EXTENSION (*INDICATES ACTIVITIES THAT WILL REQUIRE A

COSTED EXTENSION

)

No.

Recommendation

1.0

Staffing and Management: Strengthen SVC’s ability to backstop its three targeted VCs and any new VC’s (e.g.,

livestock and horticulture) that either the DFSAs or SVC has identified as priorities for their general stakeholders

or special stakeholder groups like youth.

1.1

Full VC Support for Dried Beans/Soybeans: Clarify interpretation of SVC’s contract to allow it to work on full

VCs for dried beans and soybeans and any new VC it may be supporting.

1.2

Territorial-Based Offices: Add a small number of fully operational mini-field offices which are critical to

intensifying the proximity and visibility of SVC’s presence in the territories as more effective coordination with

the other USAID-funded projects, including the DFSAs.

1.3

New Community Development Officers (CDOS): Add 12 new field positions to backstop the three categories

of Apex Organizations

114

that the SVC is supporting for dried beans and soybeans.

1.4

Reporting Dashboard: Develop: 1) a simple dashboard to provide simple visual comparisons of targets vs.

achievements in the execution of project activities that can be updated on a quarterly basis and shared with

USAID/DRC and key partners (when relevant). 2) Use this system to track progress toward the joint activities

with other USAID-funded projects. 3) Provide a monthly written update on progress made on quarterly priorities.

1.5*

*Strengthen SVC’s Participatory Work Planning With Key Partners and USAID/DRC: Continue to scale up the same

model of participatory work plan development (that involved all the USAID-funded projects as well as critical

private-sector partners) SVC used in 2019, but:

• Work Plan Development: Keep the participatory work plan development process focused on the VCs and how

the different components (including the cross-cutting gender and PPP components) and partner projects

(DFSA, IYDA, IGA, and any new financial platforms that USAID might develop in South Kivu) will work with

SVC and vice versa; and

• Co-Presentations: Create opportunities for SVC staff to co-present with key USAID partners and private

partners (like the two major cooperative platforms) the results of collaborative programs, draft collaboration

plans for the coming year, and how these activities relate to each of the partner project’s global objectives

and contribute to the realization of the integrated framework’s overall goals in South Kivu; and

• USAID/DRC Oversight: Ensure all USAID CORs and AORs managing partner projects attend sessions focusing

on joint

activities being executed with SVC and see the presentations (and draft plans for this collaboration)

well before the work plan meeting.

2.0

Capacity Building: Strengthen the SVC’s capacity to build the core technical and cross-cutting capacities of the

stakeholder groups that the project is working with.

2.1

CDO Training in Rural Education Techniques: Strengthen the capacity of CDOs (for the coffee VC as well as

beans/soybeans ) in the adult rural education techniques that they need to better support POs in the design,

execution and monitoring of a wider portfolio of production and post-

harvest training as well as better

mainstreaming of the cross-cutting modules that they are not used to backstopping (i.e., the GALS, conflict

management, and SBCC sub-modules being proposed under 2.2 above).

2.2

Mainstream Cross-cutting Themes into Core Training Module Packages: Mainstream the cross-cutting

training modules that SVC has developed for GALs conflict management and SBCC into two integrated “packages”

for community-based trainings (one for coffee and one for dried beans/soybean

115

) to make it easier for the TOT

trainers and supervisors to “intensify” (i.e. follow-up on ) the TOT trainings.

2.3

Literacy Training: Pilot-test new methods of linking literacy training to the two core training modules (see 2.2

above) that target women PO, cooperative and apex group members.

114

The three categories of apex organizations include: 1) the nine dried bean/soybean apex organizations that the SVC has signed

MOUs with; 2) the ACT; and 3) the new apex organizations being created to manage the Community Management Center

(CMCs).

115

If other VCs are added then the same approach would be used for training modules.

No.

Recommendation

2.4

Self-assessment Based Action Plans: 1) Facilitate the development of a simplified self-assessment tool (inspired

by the existing Community-based POSA that SVC is already using to track capacity building for three of its

contractual indicator in its PITT). 2) Facilitate the cooperatives, POs and the apex organization/platforms that the

SVC supports (either directly or through the DFSA) using this simplified POSA tool to track their capacity in the

same key areas being tracked by the POSA.

116

3) Use the results generated by the simplified POSA tools to

develop actin plans that focus on setting targets for building the group’s core organizational capacity as well as

their linkages to key market partners (e.g. washing stations for the coffee VC POs and ACT or other aggregators

for the dried bean/soybean VC. 4) Given the critical role of literacy in determining members’ ability to participate

actively, add an additional component that tracks literacy skills to the two POSA indices that the SVC is currently

using as well as the simplified one they are considering using. 5) Given the critical importance of the dried

bean/soybean POs and cooperative being able to use the information generated by the MIS for

management/decision making in seeking to negotiate and diversify their markets, consider adding that as an

additional component to “track” for the dried bean/soybean VC actors.

2.5

Community-Based AMELP: Facilitate each group that the SVC collaborates with developing a simple data base

that they can use to monitor: 1) their progress toward improving their capacity in some of the key areas being

tracked by the POSA (and targeted for improvement under the action plans); as well as b2) which members in

their group received which SVC trainings and if and how it has been cascaded.

2.6

Intensify SVC Senior and Junior Staffing: Redefine some of the senior staff positions and add or reconfigure

one position to focus entirely on backstopping all the SVC’s capacity building and training activities (including the

12 new CDOs [1.3 above) and the enhance community-based AMELP [2.5 above]).

2.7*

*Supply-Driven FFSs for Nine Bean Apex Organizations (with 208 members) in the Three-Territory ZOI: Build the capacity

of non-DFSA-related apex groups SVC has signed MOUs with to design and execute training programs for their

members to promote new higher-yielding technologies for dried beans and improved marketing and storage

practices.

3.0

Inputs and Production

: Strengthen SVC and DFSA direct beneficiaries’ understanding of and access to quality

inputs (especially seed for dried beans and the new seedling varieties) to scale-up appropriate crop production

practices

3.1

Specialty Coffee: 1) Develop briefing sheets that summarize the information on the new varietals that can be

distributed to the CFC Lead Trainers and Focal farmers. 2) Explain the strategy that the SVC (and its local partners,

INERA and CUB) are planning to use to disseminate the new varieties and what if any support might be needed

from the other component teams to execute this strategy. 3) Given the critical importance increasing the rate of

adoption of improved production practices by the specialty coffee farmers consider scaling up and scaling out

WCR’s current OFTT (30 in two territories) with smallholders and concessionaries in collaboration with RCPCA.

3.2

Nutritious Crops (dried beans, soybean and other VC’s of interest): 1) Develop (with the DFSAs if they are

interested) a joint module on seed that can be used to promote the use of improved(certified seed) in both DFSA

and SVC training programs. 2) Scale up SVC’s existing joint agreements with INERA seed demonstration trials

and promoting community based seed production enterprises to produce and distribute the varieties of improved

seed for beans (and soybean if in demand) as well as other types of seed that the DFSA beneficiaries may need.

3.3

Soybean Innovation Lab (SIL): Encourage USAID/DRC to accelerate the funding of its proposed collaboration

with the SIL in order to use the information to make recommendations for any promising new seed varieties or

technologies could be: 1) pilot tested during the LOA of the current project; or 2) used to inform the design of

the next generation of USAID/DRC funding in South Kivu.

3.4

Concessionnaire Strategy (land leases, seed and extension for sharecroppers): Scale up and strengthen the

monitoring of the SVC concessionaire strategy’s support for strengthening sharecroppers’ access to land leases,

quality seed and crop production and marketing support.

3.5*

*CFC North Kalehe

: Scale up SVC CFC training focusing on existing client POs and washing stations to facilitate

long-term sustainability.

116

The most recent SVC POSA (September 2020) tracks five core capacities for the specialty coffee POs: 1) financial health; 2)

engagement with the market and externa actors; 3) leadership, management effectiveness and transparency of the PO; 4) member

loyalty/financial contribution to the organization; and (5) operational effectiveness. The most recent SVC POSA (September 2020)

tracks six capacities for the for dried bean/soybean POs: 1) financial health; 2) engagement with the market and eternal actors;

3) leadership, management effectiveness and transparency of the PO; 4) Access to inputs and services (for beans and soybean);

5) relationship with the eternal environment; and 5) member loyalty/financial contribution to the organization.

No.

Recommendation

3.6*

*INERA: Scale up SVC’s existing contract with INERA (a DRC National Agriculture Research Institute [NARI]) to

work on fostering sustainable linkages with the apex producer groups and current round of concessions SVC

supports directly and through its sub-contract with FEC.

117

3.7*

*Private Seed Producers: Consider ways SVC might develop a PSP linkage (like the one SVC brokered for specialty

coffee) between some of the larger East African commercial seed companies (like Pioneer) that could facilitate

the apex organizations’ access to the higher yielding seed varieties being produced by these companies

3.8*

*Grants: Use grants to encourage qualified businesses and POs to purchase new production and processing

technologies (such as threshers, transportation equipment, and cleaners) that strengthen VC activities.

3.9*

*Youth Technology Study Tours: Support (or co-support with other USAID-funded initiatives) study tours and/or

internships to help youth trained in mechanics develop the skills to set up small businesses that repair and operate

the new processing and production technologies and transport vehicles and containers.

3.10*

*Soybean VC Technology Grants: Facilitate qualified individuals with links to the three categories of apex groups

getting access to new technologies identified by SIL review and the appropriate technical skills and spare parts to

sustain them.

118

3.11*

*Soybean Youth Study Tours: Explore way some youth trained as mechanics under IYDA could be trained to create

small businesses focused on the repair and installation of these machines.

3.12*

*FFS for Soybean:

119

Support a FFS for soybean to address both production issues with the concessionaires and

POs (including those related to a DFSA) that have shown interest in soybean to fully test the full VC-nested BAB

approach SVC is scaling up, which is complementary to many of the producer groups growing dried beans.

3.13*

*Additional Funding Sources: Explore seeking additional funding for this activity from another special fund from

USAID/DRC or an earmark given the semi-exploratory nature of this FFS and its potential impact on nutrition

and income-generating activities (IGAs) for youth and women in post-conflict areas.

117

This includes scaling up the successful initial pilot seed production INERA is conducting with SVC support by: 1) adding at least

six to seven additional INERA-managed demonstration sites to ensure that each targeted apex organization has at least one of

these initiatives to provide certified seed for the varieties most in demand from traders and end markets; 2) holding regular

research priority meeting with farmers’ groups’ representatives at least once a year to talk about ongoing research and how to

bring the research findings to scale it up; 3) asking INERA to open up its catalog to allow more high-yielding varieties to be tested;

and 4) co-developing (with SVC) a module on improved seed that SVC and DFSA can use to progressively wean the less vulnerable

households off their dependence of free seed distribution.

118

*Livestock Development Supports: If an 18-month extension is awarded, consider adding a series of grant-based supports to scale

up private sector support for livestock and monitoring this closely in order to identify lessons learned for the next phase of

USAID-funded programming in South Kivu. The recent GALS participatory assessment (2020) confirmed the point raised by many

of the community-based stakeholders in the FGDs and online survey that there is a growing interesting in “recapitalizing” livestock

throughout the DFSA and SVC ZOIs. As it starts to gain momentum, there will be a demand for corollary and support services

like veterinary supplies, community based vaccination agents, private sector veterinarians (which oversee licensed veterinary

assistants), building suitable stables and feeders, herd/flock improvement, egg transporting, milk chilling and bulking.

119

This extension is critical to scaling up a real pilot of soybean production in Eastern Congo because SIL will assess, test, and

field test before recommending the best adapted varieties and technologies for scaling up. Because SIL has access to a wide range

of off-the-shelf varieties and rhizobium and tested best practices suitable to Eastern Congo’s micro-climatic conditions, it will be

possible to gear up quickly.

No.

Recommendation

4.0

Finance: Strengthen stakeholders’ access to finance for working capital and investments and some of the critical

processing, cleaning and transportation equipment and infrastructure that is needed to scale up and sustain more

inclusive VC activities.

4.1

Small Grants Sub-Strategy: Add a small grants component to support entrepreneurial POs cooperatives and

individuals investing in activities that address some of the key technology gaps in the targeted VCs or new VCs

that the SVC might be authorized to support and/or market system.

4.2

Financial Institution (FI) Sub-Strategy: Intensify the training, site visits and communication with the FIs that has

increased these institutions willingness and ability to take advantage of the loan guarantee program; and a) identify

ways that the new SVC grants support might make it easier and less risky for the FIs to consider pilot testing new

financial products that are better adapted to smallholder VC POs and cooperatives.

4.3

Concessionaire Sub-Strategy: Continue to intensify the SVC support for the cooperatives it has signed MOUs

with getting bank finance that will enable them to invest in large infrastructure investments (like washing stations,

micro- washing statins, bean cleaning and processing plants)

4.4

VSLA Sub-Strategy: Increase the technical and financial literacy training of VSLAs in ways that can strengthen the

members VC activities as well as the VSLAs ability to access working capital and other services (like mobile banking

and savings account at MFIs and banks.

5.0

Market Diversification (Specialty Coffee): Continue to scale up SVC’s existing efforts to collaborate with

RCPCA in promoting market diversification and quality improvement/quality control for the specialty coffee VC.

5.1

International Buyers: Continue to strengthen the capacity of RCPCA to engage productivity with the

international specialty CSPs and roasters.

5.2

Trade Shows: 1) Continue to support the provincial government in its efforts to develop a sustainable model for

financing, organizing, and obtaining the necessary government support (including visas for international buyers)

for the annual Saveur du Kivu trade show and 2) identify ways government and cooperative platforms can promote

Congolese attending participating in and having stands in international trade shows hosted for specialty coffee.

5.3

Quality Control

: Develop a process for the professionalization of cuppers; and 2) facilitate washing

stations/cooperative investing in on-

site cupping rooms, staffing these, and expediting samples to potential

international buyers and roasters.

5.4

Domestic Coffee Consumption: Continue to support the RCPCA’s efforts to promote domestic consumption

and sales by linking eligible youth (currently targeted by these training programs) to micro-grants (c link to 4.1.

above).

120

6.0

Enabling Environment: Continue to support and scale up SVC’s existing support for the South Kivu Coffee

strategy and other promising government led initiatives to improve the provincial, territorial and local level

enabling environment

6.1

*Explore Options for University-Based Technical Capacity Building: USAID should consider supporting one or more of

the USAID-funded innovation labs conducting an initial needs assessment mission to the two principal agricultural

universities in South Kivu to explore if and how they could collaborate on building the universities’ technical

capacity to support VC activities.

6.2

*Explore Options for University-Based Research to Support the Enabling Environment: USAID should consider supporting

one of the existing university-based food policy innovation labs working in East Africa supporting an initial needs

assessment mission to identify how they could support the professors at the two leading universities in South

Kivu doing research on some of the key enabling environment issues related to the targeted VCs (coffee, dried

beans, soybeans).

7.0

Coordination: Strengthen the SVC’s internal. capacity to support improved coordination with the DFSAs and

USAID/DRC’s capacity to support it.

7.1

DFSA/SVC Joint Working Groups: USAID/FTF and FFP should co-facilitate the development of two inter-project

working groups—one focused on managing the SVC/DFSA collaboration in Kabare and South Kalehe (where the

FSP MC/WV DFSA works) and one focused on managing the DFSA/SVC collaboration in Walungu (where the FH

DFSA works). The creation of these groups is expected to flow a series of steps, to be highly participatory and

to contribute to the development of joint protocols that will better define the collaboration through the SVC

LOA.

120

Youth opportunities exist as baristas, cuppers and in providing support services like transport.

No.

Recommendation

7.2

Demand-Driven TA and Training (for DFSAs): Provide technical back-up up to farmer field schools (for the FSP

DFSA) and the PACE community-based trainings (for the FH DFSA) if requested under the DFSA-SVC

collaboration protocols being produced by the joint working groups (see 7.1).

7.3

Community-Based AMELP: Build the capacity of the farmer field school and PACE training participants as well

as any other producer group that the SVC supports to collect and analyze the basic agricultural statistics needed

to manage a farming enterprise. This includes the ability to calculate the land areas they have under production,

the quantities of seed/seedlings they will need their warehouse storage needs and contracts for services and

financing.

7.4

USAID/DRC Support: Strengthen USAID’s support for intra project collaboration between USAID-funded

projects in order to achieve the types of layering and sequencing that were envisioned in the shared results

framework. This includes developing clear written guidelines about USAID/DRC’s expectations about: 1) how

collaborative/joint activities will be proposed and budgeted for in work plans; 2) how projects can jointly take

credit for certain co-

executed activities; and 3) how the progress toward the achievement of collaborative

activities will be documented in quarterly and annual reports.

7.5*

*Update Maps: Update two categories of maps:

• Category 1: Create a new set of territory

121

maps (based on existing data sets) that highlight the zones in the

USAID-funded project ZOI where different VC crops are grown.

• Category 2: Map the structural dynamics of targeted VCs, including the interactions among and between

actors within each VC as well as the role/place of regulatory and support agencies and their effects on the

functioning of the VC.

7.6*

*Develop VC Action Plans: Develop territory-specific tailored upgrading plans for targeted VCs that can be

supported by different USAID-funded projects with SVC backup.

122

8.0

Gender, Youth and Social Integration: Continue to scale up SVC’s existing support for youth and gender

entrepreneurship in collaboration with the DFSA’s existing support for these issues.

8.1

GALS Training: 1) Shift the focus of GALS training from specific individuals to building the capacity of the major

apex organizations and DFSAs to consider ways the GALS training could complement these organizations’ existing

initiatives to promote ethic, gender, and youth inclusion; 2) encourage couples training; and 3) ensure that GALS

training and support are integrated into all of the core modules for Components 1 and 2 (see 2.2 above).

8.2

GALS Champions: Strengthen the connections between GALS champions and the three categories of apex

organizations SVC is supporting (including the new DFSA CMC apex groups) and contemplate ways the GALS

champions can be compensated (in kind or in cash) for their community-based training once SVC and DFSA

funding ends.

8.3

Grants: Strengthen SVC’s follow-up assistance to GALS trainees and their producer groups in executing the action

plans developed during the GALS visioning exercises, and link some of the most successful first-generation GALS

entrepreneurs to small grants to help them scale up ( see 4.1 above).

123

8.4

Staff Follow-Up by CDOs: Intensify follow-up VC support for promising new VC activities (like livestock and

horticultural production) GALS graduates and youth entrepreneur grant recipients are developing (as individuals

or groups) (links with 1.3 and 2.1 above).

124

121

For the four territories where SVC intervenes (Kabare, Kalehe, Idjwi, and Walungu).

122

This would result in one upgrading plan per VC per year with separate chapters by territory per year.

123

These first-generation GALS entrepreneurs were almost completely self-financed.

124

This recommendation is contingent upon SVC getting clarification on its ability to support a wider range of VCs (see 1.1). The

recent GALS participatory assessment (2020) confirmed the point raised by many of the community-based stakeholders in the

FGDs and online survey that there is a growing interesting in recapitalizing livestock throughout the DFSA and SVC ZOIs. As it

starts to gain momentum, there will be a demand for corollary and support services like veterinary supplies, community-based

vaccination agents, private-sector veterinarians (which oversee licensed veterinary assistants), building suitable stables and feeders,

herd/flock improvement, egg transporting, milk collection, and chilling.

No.

Recommendation

9.0

Annotated Bibliography/Case Studies of SVC Best Practice: Facilitate the development of an annotated

bibliography of what data and summary technical reports exist on the nine examples of SVC practice that were

identified during the Mid-Term Performance Review in order to determine if the existing documentation is

adequate to inform USAID/DRC’s new EG designs.

9.1*

*Conduct Economic Impact Studies: USAID/DRC should consider hiring consultants to conduct in-depth studies on

the wider economic impact of four critical areas of best practice for post-conflict emerging economy transition

planning, including: 1) SVC’s GALS strategy; 2) SVC’s support to the Saveur du Kivu trade show model, including

an economic analysis of the wider spread effects of this event on the province’s economy; 3) the wider economic

and social impacts of SVC’s pioneer collaboration with 22 concessionaires; and 4) the USAID/DRC credit

guarantees and international CSP services (including financial investment) on the on the banks and coffee sector.

9.2*

*Conduct Resilience Impact Study:

125

USAID/DRC should consider asking the Resilience Center in Washington, DC

to finance a study on the effects of the TO 3 strategy on improved community resilience in the three targeted

territories where SVC has worked consistently (Kabare, Kalehe, and Walungu).

126

125

This study—focused on building resilience in an environment of endemic rather than punctual conflict—would be a

contribution to the resilience literature in general to the next phase of follow-on USAID planning in DRC.

126

When Technical Assistance to NGOs (TANGO) did the baseline, they did it by DFSA. SVC, on its own, did a disaggregated

analysis using TANGO’s data for the territories.

ANNEX 3: COMPONENTS AND PARTNERS BY TERRITORY

SVC Components and

Partners

Kabare

1,960 km

, 2

ETDs,

127

Groupements

128

Pop: 780,616

Kalehe

5,707 km

, 2

ETDs, 15

Groupements

Pop: 815,326

Walungu

1,800 km

, 2

ETDs, 31

Groupements

Pop: 720,780

Idjwi Territory

(2020-2022)

310 km

, 2 ETDs,

Pop: 300,000

129

Component 1

Dried Beans

X –

Soybeans

130

X – l

Component 2

131

Component 3

132

Component 4

Component 5

Component 6

Light touch activities

Non-USAID-funded SVC partner

projects

-Action Sociale et

d’Organisation Paysanne

(ASOP)

-Conseil Agricole Rurale

de Gestion (CARG)

-MC

-Inter-association (IA)

Zuki

133

-Communauté Locale

de Développement

(CLD) Birava

-La Coopérative des

Producteurs du Café de

Kabamba

(CPCK)

-Association des

Multiplicateurs de

Semences Améliorées

(AMSA)

-CARG

-WV

-Union des

Coopératives

Agricoles de Kalehe

(UCOAKA)

-Fondation Djuma

Dominique Rwesi

(FODDR)

-BISHWEKA

-CARG

-FH

-Groupe Agricole

Pastorale/Kivu

(GAP/K)

-IA Nkegederou

-Nyalugana

-ETD

-Union des Femmes

Insulaires

(UNAFIN)

-Centre de Promotion

Rurale/ Idjwi (CPR)

-Société Coopérative

des Producteurs

Novateurs du café au

Kivu

(SCPNCK)

-Programme Laïc

pour la Santé

(PROLASA)

USAID partner programs

FSP DFSA (MC WV)

DFSA (FH)

Integrated Governance Activity

(IGA)

X X

Integrated Health Project (IHP)

Integrated Youth Development

Activity (IYDA)

X X X

127

Entité Territoriale Décentralisée (ETD or, in English, Decentralized Territorial Administration).

128

Groupements are official groupings of localities.

129

SVC’s support to the specialty coffee was expanded to Idjwi in FY 2020 and is slated to scale up to the dried bean and soybean

VCs in FY 2021.

130

Grown only in a small area near Minova.

131

To date, SVC’s support for coffee in Walungu has been limited. Concessionaires have planted coffee, but it is only starting to

produce, and there are no washing stations (Source: SVC COP, May 24, 2020, personal communication).

132

The color coding indicates level of engagement both here and in for stakeholder list is as follows: 1) light green for fairly

consistent activity support—either by component (undiversified touch) or medium number of sessions in a year (greater than

one, less than five) and 2) dark green for those structures receiving heavier and more diversified touch activity support.

133

IAs are second or third tier village-level organizational structures instituted by the Catholic Church through CARITAS.

ANNEX 4: NESTED MARKET NETWORKS COLLABORATING WITH SVC

N°

Apex

Organization

Producer Groups Territory

Site Proximity to

Aggregator

Markets

Overlaps with the SVC and DFSA Programming

Members

Evidence

That

Members

Are Also

Associated

With a

DFSA ?

(y/y)

Overlap

with one

of the SVC

Economic

« pôles »

(Y/N)

Overlap

DFAS

ZOI(Y/N)

Overlap

Coffee

SVC

Support

(Y/N/A

134

)

Overlap

SVC

Dried

Bean/Soy

Support

(Y/N)

Men

Women

Total

Soy and Bean Market Women’s Associations associated with ACT South KIVU

ACT HQ

HQ Bukavu

461

525

1.1.

ASSOCIATION

CIKALA

Kabare

(3)

(MUDAKA)

Y Y A A 18 140 158

1.2.

ASSOCIATION

UMOJA

(KATANA) Y Y A A 15 45 60

1.3.

ASSOCIATION

RHUHEKE KUGUMA

(KAVUMU) Y Y Y Y 14 39 53

1.4.

ASSOCIATION

TUSAIDIANE

Kalehe

(2)

(IHUSI)

Y Y A A 68 68

1.5

ASSOCIATION LIMA

FAIDIKA

(MINOVA) Y N A A 2 51 53

1.6.

ASSOCIATION

MAMA MBEGU

Walungu

(2)

(KAMANYOLA)

Y N N A 82 82

1.7

ASSOCIATION

RHUGWASANYE

(WALUNGU

CENTRE/MUGOGO

)

Y Y N A 15 36 51

Sub-total

Soy and Bean Apex Organizations that the SVC has signed MOUs with

AMSA

Kabare

Katana

636

1,912

2,548

PAV

Mudaka/Katana

263

632

895

CLD Birava

Katana/Mudaka

625

642

1,267

IA Zuki

Katana

150

478

628

SOLFAP

Kalehe

Minova

250

507

757

UCOAKA/Nord

Minova

192

285

UCOKA/Sud

Ihusi

355

436

791

IA Nkegero

Walungu

Walungu/Mugogo

TBD

350

213

563

CLD Mushinga

Walungu/Mugogo

TBD

192

478

670

DUBR

Kamanyola

405

1,078

1,483

Sub-total

216

3,226

6,376

9,602

134

A: general area

N°

Apex

Organization

Producer Groups Territory

Site Proximity to

Aggregator

Markets

Overlaps with the SVC and DFSA Programming

Members

Evidence

That

Members

Are Also

Associated

With a

DFSA ?

(y/y)

Overlap

with one

of the SVC

Economic

« pôles »

(Y/N)

Overlap

DFAS

ZOI(Y/N)

Overlap

Coffee

SVC

Support

(Y/N/A

134

)

Overlap

SVC

Dried

Bean/Soy

Support

(Y/N)

Men

Women

Total

Apex organizations working with SVC that have not yet signed MOU

Nylugana

Swamp

Drainage

Scheme (FH

DFSA)

29 Walungu Mugogo Y Y N Y Y

RCPCA (in Territories where SVC is working)

RCPCA

Bukavu (HQ)

1.1 RAEK

Kabare

(5)

Katana Y Y A A

TBD

135

TBD 2,103

1.2.

CPCK

Katana

2,261

1.3

ProCafe Bio

Katana

800

1.3

Kivu Coffee

Katana

2,600

1.4

Tumaini Coffee

Cooperative (TCC)

Mudaka Y Y A A 1,444 Y

1.5

KACCO

Ihusi

3,731

1.6

SOPACDI

Kalehe

(11)

Minova

12,000

1.7

Cooperative Agricole

Muungano

Minova Y N A A 4,200 N

1.8

CCKA

Ihusi

1,353

1.9

Cooperative

TUFAIDIKE

Minova Y N A A 456

1.8

Cooperative Amka

Mulimaji Wa Kahawa

Minova Y N Y A 2,099 N

1.9

COOCA-Kivu

(Cooperative Café du

Kivu

Minova Y N N N 592

1.10

SOPADE

Minova

1,323

1.11

FODDR

(Concessionnaire)

Minova Y N Y Y 1,800 N

135

To date, the RCPCA does not have gender disaggregated data on its members.

N°

Apex

Organization

Producer Groups Territory

Site Proximity to

Aggregator

Markets

Overlaps with the SVC and DFSA Programming

Members

Evidence

That

Members

Are Also

Associated

With a

DFSA ?

(y/y)

Overlap

with one

of the SVC

Economic

« pôles »

(Y/N)

Overlap

DFAS

ZOI(Y/N)

Overlap

Coffee

SVC

Support

(Y/N/A

134

)

Overlap

SVC

Dried

Bean/Soy

Support

(Y/N)

Men

Women

Total

1.12

Alpha New

(Entreprise)

Minova Y N Y A 117 N

1.13

IHUSI Agro

(Concessionnaire)

Minova Y N Y Y 250 N

1.14

Heshima Coffee

Cooperative

Walngu

(2)

Walungu

Y N N N 450

1.15

COOPAEKI

Walungu

1,323

1.16

SCPNCK

Idjwi

(4)

TBD

2,388

1.17

COCAI

TBD

720

1.18

Rebuild Women’s

Hope (RWH)

TBD TBD N Y Y 3,057 N

1.19

Cooperative Olame

TBD

933

Sub-

total

46,000

Concessions with signed MOU with SVC

136

FEC

HQ Bukavu ( ?)

ETS Bishweka

(Ihusi Agro)

Kayandja

Kabare

Katana Y Y Y Y 50 70 120 Y

Cifende

Kivu Coffee

Katana

120

280

400

CANGUHE

(CHANGWE)

Bushushu

Kalehe

IHUSI Y Y Y A N/A A

ETS Bishweka

(Ihusi Agro)

Nyangoma (Vahe) Minova Y N Y Y 45 N

5 FODDR

Kishinji 1(Buzi)

Minova

425

(18.5%

wome

KIshinji 2(Buzi)

Kalunga

Minova

Lwaboshi

Kazo (FEC)

Minova

N/A

Plantation Justin

Karai

Minova Y N Y A N/A N

Nicolas Bwema

Bulenga (Buzi)

Minova

136

N°

Apex

Organization

Producer Groups Territory

Site Proximity to

Aggregator

Markets

Overlaps with the SVC and DFSA Programming

Members

Evidence

That

Members

Are Also

Associated

With a

DFSA ?

(y/y)

Overlap

with one

of the SVC

Economic

« pôles »

(Y/N)

Overlap

DFAS

ZOI(Y/N)

Overlap

Coffee

SVC

Support

(Y/N/A

134

)

Overlap

SVC

Dried

Bean/Soy

Support

(Y/N)

Men

Women

Total

9 Ste. Olive

Lwangoma/Lwandjovu

(FEC)

Ihusi Y Y A A 500 N

10 GAP/Kivu

Bitesi

Walungu

Mugogo

408

Cishi

Mugogo

140

Kakono

Mugogo

199

Ste Olive

Ibanda

Mugogo

120

Plantation

Cisebeyi

Kaniola Walungu/Mugogo Y A N Y A

Concessionnaires – members of FEC benefiting from Land Use Contract

Negotiations

BISENGIMANA

Mwirunga/Luhihi

Kabare

Katana

MUSEGE

Mushuva

Mudaka

BUSHANGYA

Fundiko

Katana

CIFENDE

Kabushwa/Lushesha

Katana

LUKWEBO

Irambo II

Kalehe

Kabamba/Katana

SHANYUNGU

Kasheke

Iusi

BIKORO

Nduba

Walungu

Mugogo

ZABAGE

LUSHULI

Nyandja Mugogo Y A

Marcelin

MIHIGO

Mulwa Mugogo Y A

Sylvain

MAPATANO

Kakono Mugogo Y A A A

ANNEX 5: QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE DATA SOURCES FOR THE SEVEN

CATEGORIES OF SVC STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder Groups

FGDs/KIIs

Online

Survey

CATI

Interviews

People

Group 1. SVC Activity

1.A. Home Offices

1B. SVC Staff

1.B.1. COP/Deputy COP (DCOP) and senior administrators

1.B.2. Bukavu-based technical staff

1.B.3. Non-Bukavu-based technical staff

Group 2. Community-Based Groups and Apex Organizations

2.A. Higher-Level Umbrella Organizations

2.A.1. Cooperatives and farmer business groups

2.A.2. Unions of associations/inter-associations (IA) /platforms

2.A.3. Platforms: ACT and RCPA

2.B. Community-Based Organizations

2.B.1. Credit groups

2.B.2. Youth groups

2.B.3. Producer and processing organizations

2.B.4. ASBL

2.B.5. Farmers who participated in the SVC trainings

800

2.B.6. Farmers who participated in the GALS trainings

203

2.C. SBCC Organizations

2.C.1. Listening Clubs

2.D. Concessionaires and Private Enterprises

2.D.1. Concessionaires

2.D.2. Private enterprises

2.E. Coffee Farm Colleges (CFCs)

2.E.1. Farmer trainers

2.E.2. Local farmers

Group 3: Implementing Partners

3.A. DFSAs

3.A.1. DFSA 1 FSP

3.A.2. DFSA FH

3.B. Other USAID Projects

3.B.1. IGA (national with a provincial coordinator

3.B.2. IHP (national with a provincial coordinator)

3.B.3. IYDA

Group 4. Collaborators

4.A. Local sub-contractors

4.B.&C. BDS providers (incl. two universities as BDS

providers)

4.D. Radio Subcontractors

Group 5. Technical Service Providers

5.A. Financial institutions

5.B. Agro-dealers

Group 6. DTS (Deconcentrated Government Services)

6.A. Regional (no interviews with national level [5.1])

6.B. Territories

Group 7. USAID/W and DRC

Total

113

291

183

1,003

ANNEX 6: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TRACKING TABLE

Performance

Indicator

Baseline

Values

FY 2018 FY 2019

Target

2020

TOTAL FY 2020

Target

2021

Target

2022

LOP Target

Targets Achieved

Achieved

Targets

Total

Achieved

Target

Total

Achieved

Target Target

PURPOSE LEVEL: Increase household incomes and access to nutrient rich crops by linking smallholder farmers to

strengthened and inclusive value chains and supportive market services.

Number households

with a sustained

increase of at least $125

in annual income from

agricultural export

commodities

(Contractual)

(Annually – FY 2020,

FY 2021,FY 2022)

0 NA NA 5,000 N/A N/A 10,000 15,000 15,000

Number of individuals

participating in USG

food security programs

[IM-level (GFSS #

49)] (Quarterly)

0 5,000 10,762 215% 10,000 13,549 135% 20,000 27,440 137% 40,000 60,000 60,000

Sex category of

individuals

Male

5,340

7,452

14,020

51.09

Female

5,422

6,097

13,420

48.91

Age category of

individuals

Child

0.09

Youth

2,303

5,459

19.89

Adult

9,620

20,314

74.03

Age not given

1,626

1,642

5.98

IR 1: Improved agriculture livelihoods among targeted households

At least 2,000 additional

seasonal worker

positions created

compared to the

baseline year)

(Contractual)

(Seasonal)

0 190 NA 500 2,110 422% 750 2,469 329% 1,500 2,000 2,000

New

1,921

250

1,080

750

500

Male

545

Female

535

Continuing

189

500

1,389

750

1,500

Male

687

Female

702

Performance

Indicator

Baseline

Values

FY 2018 FY 2019

Target

2020

TOTAL FY 2020

Target

2021

Target

2022

LOP Target

Number of farmers with

an estimated 30%

increase in agricultural

productivity of export

crops

(Contractual/modifie

d) (Annually – FY

2020, FY 2021,FY

2022)

0 NA 5,000 N/A 7,500 15,000 15,000

Sub-IR 1.1: Increased use of improved agriculture practices and inputs

Number of individuals

who have received

USG-supported short-

term agricultural sector

productivity or food

security training (EG

3.2.1) (*) (Quarterly)

0 5,000 6,134 123% 5,000 13,419 268% 11,000 13,803 125% 11,000 5,000 17,000

Sex category of

individuals

Female

5,882

6,977

50.55

Male

5,882

6,826

49.45

Age category of

individuals

Child

0.09

Youth

2,578

18.68

Adult

10,690

77.45

Age not given

522

3.78

Number of individuals in

the agriculture system

who have applied

improved management

practices or

technologies with USG

assistance [IM-

level] (GFSS #11)

(Annually- FY 2020,

FY 2021, FY 2022)

0 5,000 2,570 51% 5,000 3,305 66% 10,000 N/A N/A 10,000 15,000 15,000

Number of farmers or

other value chain actors

implementing climate-

smart practices (EG.11-

1) (Already integrated

into Indicator 9. Will be

disaggregated)

(Annually)

0 5,000 0 0% 5,000 2,699 54% 10,000 N/A N/A 10,000 15,000 15,000

Performance

Indicator

Baseline

Values

FY 2018 FY 2019

Target

2020

TOTAL FY 2020

Target

2021

Target

2022

LOP Target

Number of hectares

under improved

management practices

or technologies with

USG assistance [IM-

level] (GFSS 22) (*)

(Annually)

0 0 0 N/A 1,250 1,027 82% 2,500 N/A N/A 3,000 3,750 3,750

Performance

Indicator

Baseline

Values

FY 2018 FY 2019

Target

2020

TOTAL FY 2020

Target

2021

Target

2022

LOP Target

IR 2: Expanded markets and trade

Number of containers

of specialty coffee

exported per year

(Contractual)

(Seasonal)

15 20

37 (6 SVC

Wet Mills)

185% 25

49 (9

SVC

Wet

Mills)

196% 35 20.3 58% 45 50 50

SVC supported wet mills

17.5

20.3

116%

None-SVC

17.5

Value of annual sales of

farms and firms

receiving USG

assistance [IM-level]

(GFSS #15 )(USD)

(Seasonal)

$1,350,00

$1,800,00

$3,694,080 205%

2,250,00

942,029

42%

1,300,00

2,189,1

168%

2,100,00

2,790,00

$ 8,000,000

(cumulative

)

Coffee $899,870

906,307

1,879,48

Soybean $2,794,210

17,502

$71,916

Bean

($1,894,340

)

18,220.

$237,740

Sub-IR 2.1: Improved market linkages and information systems

Number of for-profit

private enterprises,

producer organizations,

water user associations,

women’s groups, trade

and business

associations, and

community-based

organizations receiving

USG food security-

related organizational

development assistance

(EG.3.2-4);

FFP12*(Quarterly)

0 60 58 97% 120 126 105% 180 173 96% 200 225 225

New

Continuing

Number of MIS in place

in South Kivu covering

the three target value

chains (Custom)

0 0 N/A 0 1 1 100% 1 1 1

Sub-IR 2.2: Improved post-harvest storage and processing

Performance

Indicator

Baseline

Values

FY 2018 FY 2019

Target

2020

TOTAL FY 2020

Target

2021

Target

2022

LOP Target

Volume of targeted

crops processed by

food processors and

wet mills (Custom)

(Seasonal)

453 411 91% 866 189.31 22% 1,286 639 50% 1,806 2,118

6,529

(cumulative

)

Coffee

639

Soybean

Bean

Volume of targeted

crops treated or stored

at aggregation centers

(sorting, grading, drying,

bagging, storage); %

increase over baseline

(Custom) (Seasonal)

Soybean

108.54 MT

Dry Beans

1,436.44

0 N/A

(1622,2)

205.4 13%

10%

(1699)

371.8 22%

15%

(1776)

20%

(1854)

20%

Soybean

108.54

113.97

86.7

76%

119.39

113.3

94%

124.82

130.25

Bean

1436.44

1508.26

118.7

1580.08

258.6

16%

1651.91

1723.73

Number of Agricultural

Borrowers receiving

credit as a result of USG

assistance

(Custom) (Quarterly)

0 10 26 260% 35 17 49% 25 46 184% 120 180 180

SVC-Client (Direct

support)

None-SVC (Indirect

support)

Total agriculture-related

financing accessed as a

result of USG assistance

[IM-level] (GFSS

12)(USD) (Quarterly)

0 $ 300,000 $ 1,725,600 575%

600,000

939,000

157%

1,100,00

2,815,4

256%

1,300,00

2,200,00

$ 4,200,000

SVC-Client (direct support)

1,213,00

None-SVC (Indirect

support)

1,602,40

Number of public-

private partnerships

formed as a result of

USG assistance (EG.3.2-

5). (Quarterly)

0 0 5 500% 5 2 40% 5 3 60% 10 10 10

Sub-IR 2.4: Increased capacity of agriculture related producer groups, organizations and enterprise

Performance

Indicator

Baseline

Values

FY 2018 FY 2019

Target

2020

TOTAL FY 2020

Target

2021

Target

2022

LOP Target

Number of farmer

cooperatives that

operate on a sustainable

basis and are perceived

by at least 75% of their

members as providing

valued benefits

(Custom,

contractual)(Annually)

0 0 0 0 2 4 200% 4 10 250% 8 10 10

Number of farmer or

value chain associations

or organizations

practicing successful

conflict resolution

practices, including

functioning systems of

internal recourse and

linkages to existing

community Peace

Committees

(Contractual) (Bi-

annual)

0 0 0 N/A 5 16 320% 10 24 240% 20 20 20

Percent of USG-

assisted organizations

with improved

performance [IM-level]

(GFSS CBLD -9) (

Annually)

0 0 0 N/A 5 55% N/A 60% 56% 94% 70% 80% 80%

Numerator: organizations

with positive variation of

performance

26 18

Denominator:

organizations assessed in

previous and current FY

47 32

Sub-IR 2.5: Improved governmental services, regulations, and taxation for agricultural inputs and trade in targeted value

chains

Number of civil society

organizations receiving

USG assistance engaged

in advocacy

interventions (DR.4.2-2)

(Quarterly)

0 10 16 160% 20 16 80% 30 24 80% 40 40 40

Sub-IR 3.2: Increased awareness of and commitment to essential nutrition-promoting practices

Performance

Indicator

Baseline

Values

FY 2018 FY 2019

Target

2020

TOTAL FY 2020

Target

2021

Target

2022

LOP Target

Number of farmer or

value chain associations,

organizations, and/or

businesses that

implement gender and

nutrition behavior

change communication

interventions (Custom;

contractual)

(Quarterly)

0 0 0 5 0 0% 10 33 330% 15 20 20

Number of communities

reached with nutrition

messages disseminated

(FH/DFSA) (*)

(contractual indicator is

15,000 households

reached with messaging

on nutrition, gender

equality, and women’s

empowerment.)

(Quarterly)

0 0 0 0 30 20 67% 60 28 47% 90 150 150

Sub-IR 3.4: Improved access to diverse and nutritious foods

Number of actors

including farmers,

farmer associations,

organizations,

cooperatives, and

businesses engaged in

the production and/or

marketing of nutritional

products [6] (Custom)

(Quarterly)

2 5 4 80% 10 60 600% 15 25 167% 30 60 60

New

Continuing

Cross Cutting IR: Increased gender equality and increased women’s socio-economic empowerment in target communities

Percentage of female

participants in USG-

assisted programs

designed to increase

access to productive

economic resources

[IM-level] (GFSS #44)

(Quarterly)

0 10% 39.61%

396.10

15% 88% 587% 50% 54% 109% 50% 50% 50%

Numerator: Number of

female program

participants ( Ind #5, #

16)

1,344

Performance

Indicator

Baseline

Values

FY 2018 FY 2019

Target

2020

TOTAL FY 2020

Target

2021

Target

2022

LOP Target

Denominator: Total

number of male and

female participants (Ind

#5 and #16)

2,469

Percentage of women in

leadership positions

within targeted

producer associations,

cooperatives, and

businesses (Contractual)

(Annually)

- 10% 50% 500% 15% 41% 273% 20% 35% 175% 25% 30% 30%

Numerator: number of

women in elected or non-

elected leadership

positions

119 183

Denominator: Total

number of leaders in

elected and non-elected

leadership positions.

289 522

Cross-Cutting IR: Conflict Prevention and Mitigation

Number of participatory

conflict analyses

conducted. (custom)

(Quarterly)

0 3 3 100% 3 0 3 3 100% 3 3 15

ANNEX 7: APEX GROUPS AND PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS IN SOUTH KIVU

Nine Bean and Soybean Apex Groups with Signed MOUs with SVC

Apex

Organization

Producer

Groups

Members

Men

Women

Total

PAV

263

632

895

CLD Birava

625

642

1,267

IA Zuki

150

478

628

SLFAP

250

507

757

UCOKA/Sud

355

436

791

IA Nkegero

350

213

563

CLD Mishinga

192

478

670

DUBR

405

1078

1,483

Total

208

3,226

6,376

9,602

Source: SVC data sources.

Seven Soybean and Bean Market Women’s Associations Associated With ACT South Kivu

Producer Groups Territory Site (Markets Covered)

Members

Men

Women

Total

Association Cikala

Kabare

(Mudaka)

140

158

Association Umoja

(Katana)

Association Rhuheke Kuguma

(Kavumu)

Association Tusaidiane

Kalehe

(Ihusi)

Association Lima Faidika

(Minova)

Association Mama Mbegu

Walungu

(Kamanyola)

Association Rhugwasanye

(Walungu Centre/Mugogo)

Source: SVC. August 2020.

RC Cafe Cocoa Producers Cooperative Network (GIE RCPCA-RDC)-Member

Organizations within SVC Target Territories, FY 2020

Territory

Cooperative

Members

Kabare (5)

RAEK

2,103

CPCK

2,261

ProCafe Bio

800

Kivu Coffee

2,600

Tumaini Coffee Cooperative (TCC)

1,444

Kalehe (11)

KACCO

3,731

SOPACDI

12,000

Cooperative Agricole Muungano

4,200

CCKA

1,353

Cooperative TUFAIDIKE

456

Cooperative Amka Mulimaji Wa Kahawa

2,099

COOCA-Kivu (Cooperative Café du Kivu

592

SOPADE

1,323

FODDR

1,800

Alpha New

117

IHUSI Agro

250

Walungu (2)

Heshima Coffee Cooperative

450

COOPAEKI

1,323

Sub-total

38,902

Territory

Cooperative

Members

Idjwi (4)

SCPNCK

2,388

COCAI

720

Rebuild Women’s Hope (RWH)

3,057

Cooperative Olame

933

Total (22)

46,000

Source: RCPCA. July 2020.

ANNEX 8: CONCESSIONAIRE PARTNERS OF SVC

N° Concessionaires Sites Hectares

Number

Members

Territory Crops

Year

Formed

1 Kivu Coffee

Katana/

Lugushwa/

Lushesha

270 400 Kabare

Coffee,

bean

2018

2 Ets. BISHWEKA

Kayandja 50 120 Kabare

Coffee,

beans,

corn and

soybeans

2018

Nyangoma 14 45 Kalehe

Coffee,

bean

3 FODDR Minova 17 2,000 Kalehe

Coffee,

beans and

soybeans

2018

4 Nicolas Bwema Minova 40 35 Kalehe

Coffee,

bean

2020

5 Sté. Olive

Lwangoma/

Lwandjovu

430 350 Kalehe

Coffee,

beans,

corn,

soybeans,

cassava,

sugar

cane,

sorghum

2018

Ibanda 90 500 Walungu

Coffee,

tea,

quinquina,

beans,

cassava

2018

6 GAP-Kivu

Bitesi 300 408 Walungu

Bean,

cassava,

corn,

sweet

potato

2018 Kakono 135 199 Walungu

Bean,

cassava,

corn,

sweet

potato

Cishi 100 140 Walungu

Bean,

cassava,

corn,

sweet

potato

Source: SVC M&E. July 2020.

ANNEX 9: APEX GROUPS AND CONCESSIONARIES WORKING ON SOYBEANS

POSSIBLY TARGETED FOR SUPPORT IN FY 2021 AND FY 2022

Apex Groups

Name of

Group

Territory

Proximity to One of Six

Economic Poles That SVC

Market Access Support Is

Focusing on for Dried Beans

Current Focus/Scale

Program

History of

Collaboration with

SVC to Date

(Including FY)

Apex

Groups

1. CLD

Birava

Kabare Mudaka/Katana

Member POs: 46

Membership: 1,267

FY 2019

2. IA Zuki Kabare Katana

Member POs: 18

Membership: 628

FY 2019

3. AMSA Kabare Katana

Member POs: 12

Membership: 2,548

FY 2019

4. PAV Kabare Mudaka

Member POs: 4

Membership: 895

FY 2019

5. DUBR Walungu Kamanyola

Member POs: 33;

Membership:1,483

FY 2019

6. IA

Nkegero

Walungu Mugogo

Member POs: 9

Membership: 563

FY 2019

7. CLD

Mushinga

Walungu Mugogo

Member POs: 37

Membership: 670

FY 2019

Source: SVC Project Data from the SVC COP. August 5, 2020.

Concessionaries

Name of

Group

Territory

Proximity to One

of Six Economic

Poles that SVC

Market Access

Support is

Focusing on for

Dried Beans

Current

Focus/Scale

Program

History of

Collaboration

with SVC to Date

(Including Fiscal

Year

Concessions

1. Fondation

Dominique

Djuma Rwesi

(FODDR)

Kalehe

Kishinji

Minova/Goma

17 ha TBD

sharecroppers,

coffee, beans,

soybeans

MOU FY 2020,

partnering since

2018

Kalungu Minova/Goma

2. ETS Bishweka

Kabare Kayanja Katana

60 ha, 120

sharecroppers +5

staff beans,

soybeans, coffee

MOU FY 2018,

renewed FY 2020

Kalehe Kitembo Minova

45 ha, 25

sharecroppers +

4 staff

Kalehe Nyangoma Minova/Goma

70 ha, 45

sharecroppers, 12

staff; Beans,

Coffee

FY 2019

3. GAP/Kivu Walungu

Bitesi

Mugogo

300 ha, 408

sharecroppers

MOU signed FY

2020, collaborating

since FY 2018

Kakono

135 ha, 199

sharecroppers

Tshishi

(Cishi)

100 ha, 140

sharecroppers

4. Ste. Olive

Kalehe Lwangoma Ihusi

430 ha , 350

sharecroppers

MOU signed FY18,

renewed FY20

Walungu Ibanda Mugogo

90 hectares 500

sharecroppers,

Source: SVC Mid-Term Evaluation based on SVC Project Records and familiarity with these groups from previous joint activities.

August 1, 2020.

Note: FODDR and Nicolas Bwema - Concessionaires in North Kalehe, UCOAKA/N, SOLFAP Kalehe, CLD Birava, IA Zuki &

AMSA as well as PAV and Kivu Coffee & Ets Bishweka/Kayanja in Kabare, In Walungu Concessionaires GAP/K, OLive, Platforms-

DUBR, IA Nkengero, CLD Mushinga IA/CLD are less active.

ANNEX 10: EVOLUTION OF SVC SUPPORT FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF FINANCE

(THROUGH JUNE 30, 2020)

SVC Finance Activities

FY 2017

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020 (June 30)

Service Provider Credit

Leveraged

Social Investment

organizations

$ -

$575,000.00

$75,000.00

$ -

1. Root Capital

$ -

$215,000.00

$75,000.00

$ -

2. OXFAM

$ -

$60,000.00

$ -

3. EFFISOL

$ -

$300,000.00

$ -

Value chain companies

$ -

$108,630.00

$ -

$127,000.00

1. Coffee Lac

$ -

$58,630.00

$ -

2. NESPRESSO/Virunga

$ -

$95,000.00

3. Sucafina

$ -

$32,000.00

4. TWIN

$ -

$50,000.00

$ -

MFIs

$ -

$105,000.00

$ -

$200,000.00

1. SMICO

$ -

$105,000.00

$ -

$200,000.00

Total (Total dollar figure)

$788,630.00

$75,000.00

$327,000.00

Credits from banks

Equity Bank

--Loan applications and concept

paper

--Number of Loans received

(number)

--Total dollar figure ($)

$94,000

$1,011,500

$1,285,050

$2,166,000

FINCA

--Loan applications and concept

paper

--Number of Loans received

(number)

--Total dollar figure ($)

$5,000

$80,100

$40,100

$35,900

$99,000

$1,880,230.00

$1,400,150.00

$2,528,900.00

Source: SVC. August 2020.

Notes: 1) Total all SVC organization received credit: 25. 2) Total all Non-SVC: 88.

3) Total amount disbursed to SVC Client: $3,169,630. 4) Total amount disbursed to Non-SVC client: $2,738,650.

5) A total of $5,908,280 was disbursed, including $2,740,100 under the DCA guarantee. (46.3%).

6) $2,171,200 was borrowed in South Kivu (Bukavu, Kabare, Kalehe Idjwi, and Walungu) under DCA guarantee. This represents

79% of the amount lent under the DCA guarantee ($2,7240,100) and 37% of the total amount lent. ($5,663,280).

7) Per type of loan recipient, for the total of 113 organizations received credit, they are 2 producers, 20 local traders/assemblers,

2 wholesalers/Processors, 33 with mixed types, and 56 organizations with unknown type.

8) Per gender disaggregation, 67 organization are owned by men, 21 by women (18.6%), 3 joint >50% men and 2 with unknown

disaggregation.

9) The association, REBUILD WOMEN HOPE/ASBL, received a total of a credit of $300,000 from Equity Bank with DCA

guarantee. (75,000 in 2018, 75,000 in 2019 and 150,000 in 2020), and $50,000 in 2018 from TWIN and $75,000 from Root capital

in 2019.

10) In 2019 USADF granted 6 organizations in SVC project area a total of $691,086.

11)There are 4 SVC clients (RAEK $95,388, SCPNCK $226,988, MUUNGANO 193,221 in coffee sector and CYED $10,000 in

soy sector) and 2 non-SVC client (COPABU $88,599 & COPAYI $76,930).

ANNEX 11: GALS TRAINING PARTICIPANTS

Staff and Individuals Trained in Special In-Person Trainings by SVC Gender Experts

FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020 (to date)

Total

SVC Staff

Male

Female

Total

2018

Male

Female

Total

2019

Male

Female

Total

2020

Male

Female

Total

SVC Staff

FSP Enyanya MC

FSP Enyanya WV

Tuendelee

Pamoja II (FH)

Other USAID IP

Government 1 1 2 1 3 6 4 10 8 6 14

Concessionaires

Private

Enterprise

Other Donor

Project Staff

Other

TOTAL

103

Government includes CARG, territorial administration, technical service representatives and traditional authorities.

Other includes civil society representatives, church representatives.

Note: There is double counting of government and FSP staff.

Territory

Community-Based Champions 2018

Community-Based Champions 2019

Community-Based Champions 2020

Adult

Youth

(-35)

Youth

(-35)

Total

2018

Adult

Youth

(-35)

Youth

(-35)

Total

2019

Adult

Youth

(-35)

Youth

(-35)

Total

2020

Kabare

TOTs

2 10 12 14 38

137

13 14 8 8 43

Champi

ons

3 8 7 18 36

s/Total

2018

5 14 14 29 62

Kalehe

TOTs

4 11 6 18 39

138

Champi

ons

2 8 3 22 35

Sub-

total

2018

3 8 10 41 62

Walungu

TOTs

4 5 14 15 38

139

Champi

ons

1 1 7 14 23

Sub-

total

2018

4 3 20 26 53

Total

177

115

137

Of these 21 are new champions for 2019, trained by 2018 champions (2 men, 4 women, 6 male youth and 9 female youth). However, we note a drop off in champions

from 2018 continuing. A total of 39 dropped out (2 men, 8 women, 9 male youth, and 20 female youths). Ten of these are derived from coffee cooperatives SVC no

longer partners with and 8 are Mercy Corps AV. Thus at the end of FY 2019 there were 44 active champions in Kabare. To this are added an additional 43 from 2020,

yielding 77 champions actually operating in Kabare.

138

Of these 23 are new champions for 2019, trained by 2018 champions (2 men, 6 women, 5 male youths and 10 female youths). In Kalehe, of the 62 champions trained

in 2018 40 decided not to continue (1 male, 6 females, 6 male youth and 27 female youth). The number of currently active GALS champions in Kalehe is thus 45. Twelve

of the dropouts came from Coffee Cooperatives no longer partnering with SVC and 4 others are World Vision AV’s (staff)

139

Of these 19 are new champions for 2019, trained by 2018 champions (2 men, 1 woman, 7 male youths, and 9 female youths). However, there was a decline in

champions continuing from 2018. A total of 29 (2 men, 1 woman, 7 male youths and 18 female youths) did not continue. The number of active champions in Walungu is

thus currently 43.

DFSA Overlap with GALS 2018

Territory

2018

2019

SVC

DFSA

% Overlap

SVC

DFSA

% Overlap

Kabare (FSP - Enyanya, Mercy

Corps)

28 20 71.4% 37 17 46%

Kalehe (FSP - Enyanya, World

Vision)

Mbinga

South

20 13 65%

Mbinga

Sud

31 13 42%

Mbinga

North

4 Out of Zone N/A

Mbinga

Nord

Walungu (Tundelee Pamoja II, Food

for the Hungry)

22 13 59.1% 33 25 75.8%

Total

74 (but 70 in DFSA

zone)

Total = 62.2%

(but In DFSA

zones 65.7%)

108 55

Total 51%

(but in DFSA

zones 54.5%)

ANNEX 12: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED

KIIs and FGDs by National Consultants (N=267)

No Organization Position

Stakeholder

Group

Number of

Persons

Interviewed

Bukavu

SVC

DCOP SVC

I.B.1

2 SVC

Director of Communication,

Coordination, and Collaboration

I.B.2 1

SVC

Governance, Policy, and PPP Specialist

I.B.2

4 SVC

Gender, Youth, and Social Inclusion

Specialist

I.B.2

Gender Specialist Assistant, Youth, and

Social Inclusion

SVC

A2F Specialist

I.B.2

6 SVC

Senior Agricultural Advisor

I.B.2 3

Senior Business Advisor/Coffee Wash

Stations

Coffee Component Manager and Local

Technoserve Manager

7 SVC/Focus Group C1

Specialist in charge of the capabilities

of POs and cooperatives

I.B.2 4

Post-Harvest and Processing Specialist

Market Linkage Specialist

Access to inputs and environmental

management

8 Provincial Advisory Council of Agriculture

Assistant Coordinator

VI.2 2

Coordinator

9 Gender Managers DFSA and ADIJ (IYDA)

FH Gender Coordinator

Ⅲ

. A.2

IYDA Gender Specialist

Ⅲ

. B.3

Gender Specialist TM

Ⅲ

. A.1

10 FGD ACT/Div Commerce

President

Ⅱ. A.3

Technical Accompanist

Head of Bureau/Foreign Trade Division

in South Kivu

11 FGD Youth - ADIJ

Youth Mentoring Coordinator for

Livelihoods

Ⅲ. B.3

No Organization Position

Stakeholder

Group

Number of

Persons

Interviewed

Private Sector Specialist

Value Chain Specialist and Subsistence

Means

12 UCB (Under contracting)

Professor and Coffee Research

Coordinator

Iv. Has 1

13 FGD SEARCH

Head of Mission

I.B.2 4

Program Manager

Program Quality Director

Assistant SBCC

FG - Food for the Hungry Focus Group

(Dieudonne)

Manager of Food Security and

Livelihoods

Ⅲ. A.2

Food Security and Livelihood

Coordinator

Officer VESLA

South Kivu Program Manager

15 ASOP

Responsible for monitoring and

recovery

Iv. B 5

In charge of finance in supporting

beneficiaries (management of grants)

Head of Administrative And Financial

Services

Accountant in charge of HR

In charge of training

16 MINI PROV AGRI

Provincial Minister of Agriculture in

South Kivu

VI.2 2

Agriculture Advisor at the Provincial

Ministry of Agriculture in South Kivu

17 KII ONAPAC (DP, DPA and Trade Officer)

Deputy Area Manager

VI.2 2

Head of Sales

18 Equity Bank

Business Coordinator

V.A. 3

Agricultural Delegate

Head of Agency

GAMF

Executive Secretary

V.A.

IHP

Provincial Coordinator

Ⅲ

. B.2

FINCA -Pascal

Head of Agency

V.A.

No Organization Position

Stakeholder

Group

Number of

Persons

Interviewed

Individual Credit Supervisor

22 FEC Agricultural

President Sectoral Professional

Committee Agriculture, Fisheries,

Livestock and Environment at FEC-

South Kivu

Ⅱ. A.3

FEC Agricultural Technical Assistant

IDJWI

140

KII Admin Adj charges development and

economics Idjwi

Assistant Administrator in charge of

Economics and Development IDJWI

VI.3 1

Kabare

24 Coopanya Miti

President

Ⅱ. A.1

1st

Councilor

BIA Mudaka (AGRIBUSINESS KIVU)

Managing Director

V.B

26 AJIP Kashusha

President

Ⅱ. B.2

Member

Vice-Secretary

Vice-President

Agronomist

Member

Secretary

Advisor

President

Member

Bukavu

141

27 RCPCA

Executive Secretary

Ⅱ. A.3

Advisor

Member of the Control Board

28 Iga

Education and CB Specialist

Ⅲ. B

Community Mobilizer

AgriForce

Managing Director

V.B

140

Initially, this interview was not planned but it was proposed by M. Ben.

141

Bukavu is in the middle of Kabare's talks are mixed because Team 1 (DMS and DSB) were working in Kabare while Team 2 (PM) was working in Bukavu.

No Organization Position

Stakeholder

Group

Number of

Persons

Interviewed

Kabare

30 Kashusha United Youth

Village Agent, Coach of the United

Youth AVEC

Ⅱ. B.2

31 Listening Club (Katana) - Pascal

President

Ⅱ. C

Advisor

Treasurer

32 CPCK (Kabamba)

President of the Board of Directors

Ⅱ. A.1

Cooperative Manager

INERA (Paul Mulemangabo)

Iv. Has

ETS Bishweka Kayanja

Manager; Agricultural Processor

Ⅱ

. D.1

PAV (Bushumba or Kashusha)

Coordinator

Ⅱ

. B.2

36 AMSA (Kabamba)

President

Ⅱ. A.2

Member

Deposit Manager

Member

Adviser on the Board

37 Meuniers Association (Kabamba)

President

Ⅱ. B.4

Secretary

Treasurer

Vice President

Advisor

Responsible for agricultural products

and awareness

Sales Manager

Responsible for seeds and plants

38 Majirane (Cituzo)

Spokesperson

Ⅱ. B.4

Secretary

Advisor

Member

39 Office FSP (Mercy Corps) - Kavumu

142

Agriculture Coordinator and Value

Chain

Ⅲ. A.1

142

This is an interview conducted with a Manager of the Mercy Corps base in Kavumu (In the Kabare Territory. Note that Mercy Corps has two bases in Kabare).

No Organization Position

Stakeholder

Group

Number of

Persons

Interviewed

Bukavu

143

40 FGD FSP (Mercy Corps and Wold Vision)

Manager Component Agriculture

Mercy Corps

Ⅲ. A.1

Manager Agriculture and CV World

Vision (subcontractor of Mercy Corps

to Kalehe as part of DFSA)

Head of Governance; Project Manager

FSP Deputy Chief Mercy Corps

Kabare

41 Zuki AI

IA ZUKI host

Ⅱ. A.2

Chair of Follow-Up

Advisor

42 CLD Birava

Lead Moderator

Ⅱ. A.2

Logistician

Chairman of the Bidabanga Axis

43 Luhihi Listening Club

Treasurer

Ⅱ. C

Advisor

Vice President

44 Farmer Trainers de Katana

Agricultural Trainer

Ⅱ. E.1

45 Farmer Trainers Lugendo

Agricultural Trainer

Ⅱ. E.1

Agricultural trainer

46 Farmer Trainers Miti-Bushumba

Agricultural Trainer

Ⅱ. E.1

Agricultural Trainer

47 Focal Farmer Katana (Buhuru LWIGULIRA)

Focal Farmer and President

Ⅱ. E.2

Member

48 Focal Farmer Bushumba

Member

Ⅱ. E.2

Member

Focal Farmer and President

Focal Farmer Lugendo (RugEYA Georgie)

President

143

This interview began on June 5, 2020 and was finalized after Monday, June 29. Here it was the executives of the headquarters of Mercy Corps and WV, its

subcontractor. This interview is in the middle of Kabare’s interviews, because of its numbering. Normally, he had to be on top.

No Organization Position

Stakeholder

Group

Number of

Persons

Interviewed

Member

Ⅱ. E.2

Member

50 Focal Farmer Luhihi

President

Ⅱ. E.2

Member

Mudaka Bean and Soybean Women's

Association (CIKALA Association)

President of the CIKALA Association

of Women Sellers of Beans and

Soybeans

Ⅱ. B.4

Advisor

Vice President

Katana Bean and Soy Women’s Association

(Florence M’cibendera) and (Eugenie)

President

Ⅱ. B.4

Treasurer

Vice President

Secretary

Walungu

53 Small Nyalugana Producers

President of Nyalugana Marsh Farmers

Ⅱ. A.2

Adviser to the Nyalugana Operators

Committee

Committee Secretary

54 WITH TULUKI

President

Ⅱ. B

Member

55 VSLA RUZUSANYE

Secretary

Ⅱ. B

Member

Counting

Cashier

Counting

56 CHIHERANO Listening Club

President

Ⅱ. C

V/Secretary

Member

GAP KIVU PROPRIETARY

Coordinator

Ⅱ

. D.1

No Organization Position

Stakeholder

Group

Number of

Persons

Interviewed

GAP KIVU SUPERVISORS KAKONO AND

BITESI

Supervisor

Ⅱ. D.1

ChiSHEBEYI Plantation (Company)

Head of Business

Ⅱ

. D.2

60 Walungu Young Entrepreneurs Association

Secretary

Ⅱ. B.2

Member in Charge of Field Awareness

61 IA NKENGERO

Host

Ⅱ. A.2

Secretary Rapporteur

Advisor

62 CLD MUSHINGA

Secretary of the Agricultural Input

Shop

Ⅱ. A.2

In charge of follow-up

NDUBA Listening Club

President

Ⅱ. C

Advisor

64 Dynamic Umoja Bonde la Ruzizi (DUBR)

Member and Honorary President

Ⅱ. A.2

DUBR President

DUBR Secretary

65 CARG WALUNGU

Executive Secretary

VI.3 2

Program Manager

66 Mugogo Women’s Vendors Association

President

Ⅱ. B.4

Advisor

Secretary

President

Treasurer

67 Kamanyola Women’s Selling Association

Advisor

Ⅱ. B.4

Secretary

Kalehe

68 UCOAKA SOUTH

President

Ⅱ. A.2

Vice President

69 Amka

Chairman of the Board of Directors

Ⅱ. A.1

Managing Director of the AMKA

Cooperative

Accounting

70 SOPADE

Chairman of the Board of

Administration

Ⅱ. A.1

No Organization Position

Stakeholder

Group

Number of

Persons

Interviewed

71 Business Advisor

Business Advisor

I.B.3 2

Business Advisor

72 Business Advisor

Business Advisor

I.B.3 2

Business Advisor

Business Advisors

Business Advisor

I.B.3

LWABOSHI

Dealer

Ⅱ

. D.1

75 Alpha New (Private Enterprise)

Managing Partner

Ⅱ. D.2

Financial and Partner

Technical Director

76 CAPCKI

Chairman of the Board of Directors

Ⅱ. A.1

CAPCKI Accounting Secretary

In charge of certification

Responsible for quality

77 RUJCAF

Chairman of the Board

Ⅱ. A.1

Responsible for quality

Station Manager

78 UCOAKA NORTH

President

Ⅱ. A.2

Manager

Secretary

Treasurer

79 FOCAL FARMERS

Focal Farmer

Ⅱ. E.2

Vice Chair of the Coffee Producers

Group

Advisor

80 World Vision

Chef de Base/Kalehe

Ⅲ. A.1

Value Chain Officer

81 Bushushu Listening Club

President

Ⅱ. C

Vice President

Treasurer

Advisor

82 ACEDERU

President

Ⅱ. B.4

Secretary

Member

Cashier

Member

No Organization Position

Stakeholder

Group

Number of

Persons

Interviewed

83 Ihusi Listening Club

President

Ⅱ. C

Advisor

Secretary

Advisor

84 Ihusi's Torrers

Secretary

Ⅱ. B.4

Assistant Secretary

Advisor

BOSCO (Mukwija Women Coffee)

Manager

Ⅱ

. D.2

86 COCASKA

Chairman of the Board of Directors

Ⅱ. A.1

Quality Loader

Storekeeper

Supervisor

Manager

In charge of finance

FARMER TRAINERS

Agricultural Trainer

Ⅱ

. E.1

88 COOPAGRICO

PCA

Ⅱ. A.1

Manager

Chair of the Credit Committee

Chairman of the Supervisory

Committee

89 COOPADI

President

Ⅱ. A.1

Vice President

Member

Agronomist

Secretary

90 GEV (Hope to Live Group)

Program Manager

Ⅱ. A.1

Communications Officer

Chairman of the Board of Directors

YBG BUNJUKI

President

Ⅱ

. B.2

92 OMPERE OKUHYANI

President

Ⅱ. B.3

Secretary

Cashier

93 FOCAL FARMERS BUSHUSHU

Focal Farmer

Ⅱ. E.2

Group Member

No Organization Position

Stakeholder

Group

Number of

Persons

Interviewed

94 FOCAL FARMER NYAMUKUBI

Focal Farmer

Ⅱ. E.2

Group Member

95 FOCAL FARMERS IHUSI

President of Coffee Planters

Ⅱ. E.2

Focal Farmer

96 VSLA MUHONGOZA

Secretary

Ⅱ. B

First

Counter

Member

Source: SVC Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Field Coordinator, Pascal Mupenda. July 8, 2020.

FGDs/KIIs Completed by International Consultants (N=26)

Institution Position

Stakeholder