AMP_Final_Presentation_(24Apr).ppt
PPT presentation 336 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- SOL-114-13-000003
About this file
Attachment 3 - Summary of The Evaluation of the Access to Mechanization Project (AMP)
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment_1_to_Amendment_000002_.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment_2-_Answers_to_Additional_Questions_.docx | DOCX document | |
| Amendment_000002_SOL-114-13-000003.pdf | ||
| Answers_to_questions_(2).docx | DOCX document | |
| Amendment_000001_to_the_SOL-114-13-000003.pdf | ||
| AMP_Summary_Evaluation.mht | MHT file | |
| SOL-114-13-000003_(4).doc | DOC document | |
| SOL-114-13-000003_(4).pdf | ||
| DCN_2013_GEO_010_REAP.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Summary of the Evaluation of the Access to Mechanization Project (AMP)
USAID / TBILISI, GEORGIA
24 APRIL 2014
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
| AMP’s Objectives |
| Evaluation Objectives |
3. Evaluation Questions
4. Evaluation Activities - Georgia
5. Overall Observations
6. Quantitative Indicators
7. Qualitative Assessment
8. Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations (for each evaluation question)
9. Sustainability issues
1. AMP’S OBJECTIVES
Overall: Increase productivity & incomes for smallholder farmers by improving access to machinery services Specific: 1. Establish 21 MSCs servicing over 12,500 smallholder farmers
2. Provide technical assistance to MSCs
3. Leverage USAID grant funds with local partner to maximize investment in rural economy
4. Improve the competitive environment for machinery services by reducing the cost to farmers
1. AMP’S OBJECTIVES (cont.)
Specific: 5. Facilitate the return of more agriculture land into production
6. Contribute to increased productivity and income of smallholder farmers
7. Provide discounted machinery services to about 3000 resettled Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
2. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
Overall: Determine the effects of AMP on increasing productivity and incomes for smallholder farmers by improving access to machinery services
Specific: The evaluation team should review and summarize the implementation and results achieved by the project to address specific purposes and answer key evaluation questions
3. KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS
3.1 ASSESS THE OPERATING CONDITIONS OF MSCs
Q.1 Can each MSC manage its business operations (e.g. finances, sales and marketing, staff etc.)?
Q.2 Can each MSC operate and maintain its equipment and be repaired by MSC operators or appropriate service providers?
Q.3 Is the maintenance and repair of equipment in accordance with applicable service schedules and repair needs?
Q.4 Has the establishment of competing Georgian government mechanization centers impacted the MSCs created by AMP?
3. KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS (cont.)
3.2 ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVIDING LARGE GRANTS TO ENTERPRISES OR INDIVIDUALS AND DID THIS CAUSE MARKET DISTORTIONS?
Q.5 Did USG-funded grants mitigate real or perceived investment risks causing enterprises or individuals to co-invest in the project?
Q.6 How did the establishment or expansion of MSCs harm or help competing mechanization service providers including Government of Georgia owned centers?
3. KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS (cont.)
3.3 ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT SMALLHOLDER FARMER PRODUCTIVITY AND INCOMES HAVE IMPROVED AS A RESULT OF TRAINING & MECHANIZATION SERVICES?
Q.7 Did training and utilization of mechanization centers contribute to an increase in collective household incomes?
3.4 IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPPROVE IMPACT AND ENHANCE THE IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT OF FUTURE SIMILAR PROJECTS SUCH AS GENDER EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
4. EVALUATION ACTIVITIES - GEORGIA
| 1. | Meetings with ex-AMP key personnel & USAID / Tbilisi | |||
| 2. | Interviews with various key ‘stakeholders’ | representing Government of Georgia, municipalities, | industry and farming associations, international | donors and banking sector |
| 3. | Meetings with owners, directors and managers of all | 21 MSC countrywide | ||
| 4. | Organizing and conducting of focus group sessions | with farmers (178 in total) in all 21 MSC locations | ||
| 5. | Gathering, review and analysis of AMP-related documentation requested by the evaluation team |
5. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
| 1. | Feedback from partners, clients and beneficiaries has | largely been appreciative and supportive of AMP’s objectives | and interventions |
| 2. | Demand for mechanization services in Georgia far exceeds | current supply (room for an estimated 200 more!) | |
| 3. | There is a dire lack of appropriate machinery and equipment in all regions irrespective of whether MSCs or government mechanization centers are located there | ||
| 4. | Almost without exception, none of the current AMP-created MSCs would have been established without the availability of matching grants | ||
| 5. | There is no correlation between increased productivity | resulting from farmers utilizing MSC services and increases in | household income (influence of additional factors here) |
6. QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS
| KEY OBSERVATIONS | |
| 1. | Methodology employed for data gathering, analysis and reporting difficult to follow & unclear how leads to effective monitoring and evaluation of AMP’s indicator targets |
| 2. | Calculation of some financial indicator targets - especially increased annual incomes of small-scale famers – not based on statistically robust data gathering procedures |
| 3. | The number of jobs created appears to have increased significantly from end-of-project reporting (although need to define job – f/t, p/t, seasonal contracts) |
7. QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
KEY OBSERVATIONS
1. The information gathered from all interviewees provided invaluable information to the evaluation team’s findings
| Focus group sessions with farmers well attended (mean average of 9 per MSC) especially as it was start of plowing and planning season |
| Although all MSCs provided evidence of some sort of financial reporting most did so for the tax authorities and not as a tool to manage their businesses |
| Few MSCs prepared formal income statements, balance sheets or cash-flow statements |
5. AMP training (theory and practical) appreciated and directly contributed to changes in farmers’ working practices
8. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Q.1 Can each MSC manage its business operations (e.g. finances, sales and marketing, staff etc.)?
MAIN FINDING
Most MSCs are currently managing their businesses profitably even without high standards of management practices
| CONCLUSION |
| This is possible due demand for MSC services far exceeding supply |
| RECOMMENDATION |
| The focus of any similar future project needs to consider a more value chain approach to widen the scope of available services – e.g. input supplies, extension and marketing |
Q.2 Can each MSC operate and maintain its equipment?
MAIN FINDING
In general MSCs have the capability to deal with minor servicing needs in-house but can outsource if required which appears to lead to delays and thus affect cash-flow
CONCLUSION
If this continues the possibility exists for sustainability to be compromised
RECOMMENDATION
Any future planned intervention should be more technically orientated and involve a more practical element
Q.3 Is the maintenance and repair of equipment in accordance with applicable service schedules?
| MAIN FINDING |
| The evidence suggests that all MSCs follow service schedule guidelines as it is in their interest to do so |
| CONCLUSION |
| As a result machinery & equipment is generally available at the right time for delivering required services |
| RECOMMENDATION |
| Ensure that all service related materials are translated into Georgian language |
Q.4 Has the establishment of competing government centers impacted the MSCs?
| MAIN FINDING |
| There is no evidence to suggest that MSCs in general are negatively impacted by government centers due to AMP MSCs being more competitive on prices, payments etc. |
| CONCLUSIONS |
| Competition from government centers is not a barrier to growth for AMP MSCs or their operations |
| RECOMMENDATIONS |
| None required |
Q.5 Did USG-funded grants mitigate real or perceived investment risks causing enterprises or individuals to co-invest in project?
| MAIN FINDING |
| Two thirds of the MSCs would definitely not have been established and one third would have started but later & with less servicing capacity |
| CONCLUSION |
| AMPs intervention through matching grants was a vital decision-making factor in establishing MSCs |
| RECOMMENDATION |
| Any future similar project should seriously consider including matching grants as an major component |
Q.6 How did the establishment of MSCs harm or help competing mechanization service providers including government centers?
| MAIN FINDING |
| There is no tangible evidence that AMP MSCs have any adverse effect on government centres or other private service providers |
| CONCLUSION |
| AMP MSCs did not interfere with free market competitive conditions |
| RECOMMENDATION |
| Future similar projects could include the expansion of grant-matching initiatives |
Q.7 Did training and utilization of mechanization services contribute to an increase in collective household incomes?
| MAIN FINDING |
| Data gathered from focus group sessions indicated most farmers saw an increase in household income although this could not directly be correlated to MSC services |
| CONCLUSION |
| Income increases from the MSCs mechanization services could have been higher if the farmers had access to value chain services and cheap foreign imports |
| RECOMMENDATION |
| The scope of assistance for any future project should consider a more diversified approach (entire value chain?) |
8. FUTURE PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES
| SUSTAINABILITY |
| Due to the fact that current demand for mechanization services significantly exceeds available supply, MSCs, even with average management skills and a lack of financial understanding, should still be sustainable for the foreseeable future. |
| GENDER |
| Feedback from female farmers at the focus group sessions indicated that they did not experience in specific discrimination in their daily life activities. However, a future project could enhance their opportunities further by offering a wider range of technical support including ‘soft’ grants – consider IDP war widows |
9. LESSONS LEARNED
1. At the project design stage there needs to be a closer alignment between the setting of quantifiable indicator targets and a verifiable means of measuring their performance (correlation!)
2. Consideration should be given to monitoring the performance of indicator targets that can be measured by using ‘at least’ to be achieved, rather than providing a range of parameters
3. It is advisable to clarify and specify the precise M & E system that should be adopted for reporting purposes to USAID for the duration of the project (simplify the PMP procedure – 1 doc per reporting period supported by Excel spreadsheet (actual vs plan)
4. When considering sustainability as a measurement of success identify the criteria to be used in determining same
5. Long term technical assistance projects should be in tune with a host government’s long term strategy for the agriculture sector
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .