Improved Horticulture Techniques for Market-Oriented Enterprises in The Gambia - Final Evaluation

FINAL REPORT and EVALUATION Improved Horticulture Techniques for Market-Oriented Enterprises in The Gambia

March 2020

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

FINAL REPORT AND EVALUATION

Improved Horticulture Techniques for Market-Oriented Enterprises in The Gambia

UNITED PURPOSE March 2020

2

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.

2.

3.

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.1

Purpose of the report ............................................................................................................ 10

1.2

Intended users .................................................................................................................... 10

1.3

Scope and objectives of the evaluation .......................................................................... 10

1.4

Key evaluation criteria and questions ............................................................................ 10

1.5

Evaluation approach and methodology .......................................................................... 12

1.6

Data collection tools and sampling ................................................................................. 12

1.7

Data analysis....................................................................................................................... 13

1.8

Structure of the report ...................................................................................................... 14

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 16 2.1

Context of the project ........................................................................................................ 16

2.2

Project’s Theory of Change (TOC) .................................................................................... 17

EVALUATION’S KEY FINDINGS AND PROJECT’S PROGRESS............................................... 20 3.1

Evaluation Criteria 1: Relevance ...................................................................................... 20

3.2

Evaluation Criteria 2: Effectiveness ................................................................................ 22

3.2.1

OUTCOME 1: 350 garden groups are practicing improved horticultural techniques .. 22

3.2.2 OUTCOME 2: 6 Marketing Federations are Strengthened, and a National Apex Cooperative is Created.................................................................................................................. 32 3.2.3 OUTCOME 3: 100 youths are able to establish agro-enterprises along the horticultural value chain .................................................................................................................................... 38 3.2.4 OUTCOME 4: 75 Seed Diversity Networks reached all women cooperatives and kafos in the 5 regions ............................................................................................................................. 39 3.2.5

INDIRECT OUTCOME: Synergy of NEMA Hort and UP’s EU-Funded BTM Project........ 40

3.2.6

Degree of Achievement of the Project Results ............................................................. 44

3.3

Evaluation Criteria 3: Sustainability ................................................................................ 46

4.

CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................................................ 49

5.

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 55

3

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

List of Tables Table 1. Data collection tools and sampling Table 2. Level of Satisfaction of Women Farmers on the Technical Support they Received from the Project (NEMA Gardens) Table 3. Level of Satisfaction of Women Farmers on the Technical Support they Received from the Project (NONNEMA Gardens) Table 4. Change of Level of Skills of Women in NEMA and non-NEMA gardens, before and after the project Table 5. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 3 NEMA gardens in WCR, before the project (2017) Table 6. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 3 NEMA gardens in WCR, most recent production season (2019) Table 7. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 5 NEMA gardens in NBR, before the project (2017) Table 8. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 5 NEMA gardens in NBR, most recent production season (2019) Table 9. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 4 NEMA gardens in LRR, before the project (2017) Table 10. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 4 NEMA gardens in LRR, most recent production season (2019) Table 11. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 4 NEMA gardens in CRR, before the project (2017) Table 12. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 4 NEMA gardens in CCR, most recent production season (2019) Table 13. Organizational functioning and performance assessment scores of each Marketing Federation Table 14. Summary of Achievements under BTM Result 1, which NEMA Hort project has direct contribution Table 15. Summary of Achievements under BTM Result 3, which NEMA Hort project has direct contributions Table 16. Summary of project achievements per indicator List of Figures Figure 1. Project’s reconstructed Theory of Change Figure 2. Level of satisfaction: comparing the scores Figure 3. Level of skills: comparing the scores Figure 4. Impact of NEMA HORT’s capacity building activities to the garden groups & individual members Figure 5. Average Total Scores: Organizational functioning and performance assessment of the 4 Marketing Federations List of Boxes Box 1. Main Evaluation Questions Box 2. Evaluation Principles and Approaches Applied Box 3. The Cooperative Concept Box 4. Marketing Federation Assessment Areas: Organizational functioning and performance Box 5. Storyline ‘organizational functioning and performance’ of a Marketing Federation Annexes ANNEX A. Questionnaire for Farmers ANNEX B. FGD with the Farmers ANNEX C. FGD with the Marketing Federation

4

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction 1

The ‘Improved Horticultural Techniques for Market-Oriented Enterprises in The Gambia’ was implemented by the United Purpose (UP) from 2017 to 2019 with funding from IFAD through the National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development (NEMA) project.

2

The project came to an end in December 2019. The purpose of this final report and evaluation were to lay down and assess the results of the project, and identify lessons learned for use in the design and implementation of the proposed second phase of the project and other similar projects in the future. The evaluation considered all aspects of the project since its inception.

3

The objectives of the evaluation were to: (1) Assess the relevance and appropriateness of the project design and approach; (2) Review the project’s performance and results (including potential impact); (3) Identify lessons that can contribute to designing, implementing and managing ‘better’ projects in the future, for sustainability and scalability of the interventions, and (4) Document case studies, and generate suggestions useful for the design of the proposed phase 2 of the project.

4

The evaluation methodology followed the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC) criterion for effective evaluation. The project’s performance and results were assessed against its relevance, effectiveness, sustainability and scalability. Key evaluation questions were formulated for each criterion.

5

The evaluation used a consultative and participatory approach wherein all relevant stakeholders were consulted, ensuring a holistic review and adequate representation of stakeholders and beneficiaries. Multiple methods (desk review, survey, focus group discussion and Most Significant Change) were used to collect information, as a best practice to aid triangulation of evidences. The survey has 441 respondents, bringing about 95% confidence level, a margin of error of 0.05 in the survey findings. Two sets of FGDs were conducted: 10 FGDs with 160 women members of 70 vegetable gardens, and 4 FGDs with 4 Marketing Federations. The team chose five stories/cases that represented project impact to many, and a follow-up one-on-one interviews were conducted.

Project Achievements and Evaluation Key Findings 6

Relevance. The project design was adequate, and it responded in an appropriate manner to the most important immediate needs, as identified through consultations with key project stakeholders. However, due to the limited funding and short timeframe, the longer-term needs that would help to ensure a consistent, reliable, all-year round commercial horticultural production of the women’s groups were not thoroughly addressed. Longer-term needs such as support to post-harvest production and facilities, linking the farmers to markets, ensuring a good irrigation to mitigate climatic risks and increase horticultural productivity and commercialization, among others.

7

Effectiveness. The project contributed to enhancing horticultural production levels and market access for smallholder farmers across the Gambia in order to lift them out of the cycle of poverty and take their production and business potential to scale. This was done through a four-pronged approach: (1) The project improved the marketing knowledge and the means for women

5

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

producers (370 women’s groups) to increase their production and addresses the problem of what to produce, who to produce for, when to produce, how to produce and when to distribute; (2) The project supported six Marketing Federations (each with a membership of 6,000-8,000 people) – for a total of 35,000 beneficiaries to strengthen their capacities, expand their support base and provide material support – this led to the creation of a National Vegetable Growers Cooperative (NAVGC) structure or the Apex Cooperative; (3) As part of networking efforts and knowledge sharing, the project supported the creation of 75 seed fairs/seed networks in the 6 agricultural regions – this was done through sensitisation campaigns, including radio messaging, and (4) Alongside the direct support given to women vegetable farmers, the project worked with local partners to improve the environment for young people’s access to good quality training and skills for agro-enterprises development; 88 youths were trained on agribusiness and supported in the development of their business plans, in which 23 of them were provided with initial capital from other projects.

8

Outcome 1: Improved Horticultural Techniques of Garden Groups. The project has provided horticultural training and mentoring support to 370 garden groups across the 6 agricultural regions. Each group has an average number of 350 members, thereby reaching 129,500 farmers.

9

Assessing if the project’s technical support (both trainings and mentoring activities) has increased the skills and knowledge on horticultural techniques of the garden group members, NEMA garden survey respondents have scored 72% or ‘to a higher degree’; while non-NEMA garden respondents have scored 68% or ‘to a medium degree’. There was an average of 60% increased understanding and practice of market-oriented horticultural techniques after the project’s intervention, most notably on the skills sets of product preparation and marketing, collective marketing and selling, market price collection, and yield data collection and records keeping.

10

Meanwhile, on the qualitative analysis – overall in the NEMA gardens, there was an appreciation of the training and technical support the farmers had received, in particular in terms of new seeds, crop planning/rotation and an extended growing season. This was supported by the immediate positive responses from the farmers on life changes, more disposable income, less reliance on loans, access to education for children, improved nutrition, a greater harmony in the community, among others. However, in garden groups where NEMA support are not much comprehensive were quick to focus on their problems, such as gluts, lack of irrigation system, lack of markets/transportation, pests, insufficient inputs and infrastructure, etc.

11

Improvements in the farmers’ level of production and income, before and after the project.

NEMA gardens in the 6 agricultural regions have produced more vegetable varieties in 2019 compared to 2017 prior to the start of the project.

• West Coast Region (WCR): The 3 NEMA gardens’ production in 2019 have increased to 279% or 304,097.20 kg. against the 2017 production of 108,646 kg. As a result, the groups’ income has increased massively, from D1,715,316 in 2017 to D8,080,229.23 in 2019.

• North Bank Region (NBR). Five NEMA garden groups’ income in 2019 was higher by D1,628,247. 2017 reported income was D2,066,198, while income during the most recent production in 2019 was amounted to D3,694,445.

• Lower River Region (LRR). There were new vegetable crops planted and harvested in 2019 across the 4 NEMA gardens in LRR. Total production in 2019 was a bit lower than in 2017 by 6,002 kg, this was because no production yet was recorded for OFSP, PM and ALVs. Despite of this, total revenue was significantly higher amounting to D5,779,120 in 2019 against D1,420,138 in 2017.

6

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

• •

Central River Region (CRR). The production in 2019 has increased over 200% or 131,986kg, when compared in the 2017 production of 57,371 kg.; Income in the 4 NEMA gardens have increased massively, from D995,570 in 2017 to D4,988,515 in 2019.

No data for URR in 2019 as they are yet to produce in the 1st quarter of 2020.

12

Constraints. Despite the progress recorded, a number of constraints for the horticultural subsector in the 6 Agricultural regions targeted are still on-going. Primary problem is the unstable supply of water and lack of good irrigation system (57.7%), followed by poor producers-market linkages (50%); pests and diseases (48.8%); insufficient inputs and facilities in the garden (28.8%), and poor infrastructure in the garden (14%).

13

Outcome 2. Six (6) Marketing Federations are Strengthened, and a National Apex Cooperative is Created. Key results under this outcome were: • UP and partners facilitated the formation of an Apex body that will help advocate for the rights of the farmers, and coordinate the activities of all the farmers groups in the country.

The Apex is called National Association of Vegetable Growers’ Cooperative in the Gambia (NAVGC) or SOSOLASO. The Cooperative is now fully registered under the laws of the country.

Currently, there are 260 garden groups who are registered under the NAVGC as part of the 6 Marketing Federations with total members of 35,217 (33,227 are female), and with more groups expressing interest to join.

• UP and partners have built the capacities of 6 Marketing Federations. Noteworthy to mention that out of this six MFs, UP and partners have helped the further organization of the Marketing Federations in NBR (Solicita) and in LRR (Sofanyama).

• A self-assessment exercise on ‘organizational functioning and performance’ was conducted with the 4 Marketing Federations (2 MFs in LRR and CRR North were not able to participate in the process). There were 5 assessment areas: (1) membership base, (2) governance leadership and internal democracy; (3) management of human and financial resources; (4) collaboration and alliances, and (5) service provision to members. The total average score across these areas is 66.25%, which means that although no major dissatisfaction in their current organizational functioning and performance, there are still a lot of things that need be improved, particularly on strategic operations, financial independency, service provision to members, among others.

14

Outcome 3. 100 Youths are able to Establish Agro-Enterprises along the Horticultural Value Chain. 100 youths were selected to undergo a 9-month training on agro-enterprises, however only 88 youths (63 male 25 female) were able to complete the training and received certificates.

These 88 youths conducted a step-down training to other 196 youths. NEMA was supposed to provide capitalization to the 88 youths, however because of the seemingly poor quality of business plans, the disbursements of grants/loans were suspended and carried over to the 2nd phase of the NEMA project. UP and partners have facilitated the provision of funds to selected 28 youths from other donors.

15

Outcome 4. 75 Seed Diversity Networks Reached All Women Cooperatives and Kafos in the 5 Regions. A total of 75 Seed Diversity Networks were established (15 networks per region). The networks were set-up in strategic communities including market locations such as Ndungu Kebbeh and Kerr Pateh in NBR; Wassu in CRR/N; Sabi and Sare Ngai in URR; Brikama Ba in CRR/S; Bureng in LRR, and Brikama in WCR. Farmers were informed about high-quality seed varieties, and where to access them. Further, the Networks were also used as platform to advocate for the consumption of more nutritious vegetables. The Network has gathered a wide section of actors along the vegetable value chain, such as the seed sellers, vegetable producers, middlemen/women and transporters.

7

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

16

Impact of the Seed Diversity Networks. 82% of the total survey respondents said that the Seed Fairs have been helpful in providing information about high-quality seed varieties, and in linking them to credible seed sellers and other actors. Further, 76% of the respondents exclaimed that because of the Seed Diversity Networks, they have started adopting and using more ‘improved and indigenous quality’ of seeds.

Indirect Outcome: Synergy of the NEMA Hort Project and UP’s EU-funded BTM Project 17

Noteworthy to highlight was the strong linkages and synergies that the project has created with different agriculture and nutrition-related projects in the Gambia, most especially with the ‘Baluu-Tim-Maring-Ngo’ (BTM) or the ‘Reducing Micro Nutrition Deficiencies of Women and Children in The Gambia Through Sustainable and Integrated Approaches to Food Fortification project. A Memorandum of Agreement between UP and NEMA was signed for the integration of these two projects to ensure complementarity, sustainability and greater achievement of intended outcomes.

18

NEMA Hort has especially contributed to BTM’s Result 1: Increased, nutritionally diversified and more resilient agricultural production for targeted smallholder farmers, and Result 3: Community nutritional health education linked to fortified foods. NEMA Hort project and BTM has worked together towards achieving the following impacts to date: • Improved production of biofortified crops, an average of 140 vegetables gardens are now involved in the production of Orange Flesh Sweet Potato (OFSP), African Leafy Vegetables (ALVs) and Pearl Millet (PM).

• Improved availability and consumption of OFSP, ALVs and PM at the household level. For instance, whole grain pearl millet consumption, which is rich for its iron and zinc according to the baseline, was virtually non-existent before the intervention of the project. However, the BTM Midterm Evaluation found that 75% of respondents practice whole grain consumption now.

• 300 Mothers’ Clubs were established and supported by the BTM and NEMA Hort projects.

During the Cooking Demonstrations with the Mothers’ Clubs, a total of 17,019 mothers were trained in nutrition, hygiene, improved cooking and food preparation methods • Improved health and nutrition of underweight children, 3,585 underweight children that were linked to the Mothers’ Clubs and were regularly provided with biofortified and nutritious foods have recovered.

Recommendation For the second phase of the NEMA Hort project under the ROOTS, UP will put forward a proposal that will focus on the: ‘promotion of the development of the horticulture subsector by strengthening backward and forward linkages in the value chain of the subsector. The overall aim is to improve productivity, quality, value addition, and market linkages within the subsector to enhance its competitiveness towards reduced imports and increased exports as well as job creation, improved beneficiary incomes and increased economic opportunities for women and youth in the rural sector.

It would serve to encourage farmers to diversify to high value crops production’.

8

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Mariama Sanyang scattering organic compost in her vegetable garden. The women farmers were encouraged by the project to shift into using organic fertilizers in order to improve soil fertility; enhance the quality attributes of produce, and improve yield.

9

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

1. INTRODUCTION This is the final report of the project ‘Improved Horticultural Techniques for Market-Oriented Enterprises in The Gambia’ (referred to as NEMA HORT in the report). The project was implemented by the United Purpose (UP) from 2017 to 2019 with funding from IFAD through the National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development (NEMA) project.

1.1

Purpose of the report

The NEMA HORT project came to an end in December 2019, the purpose of this final report and evaluation were to lay down and assess the results of the project, and identify lessons learned for use in the design and implementation of the proposed second phase of the project and other similar projects in the future.

1.2 Intended users The main audiences for this report are expected to be the NEMA staff, UP and local partners, as well other key actors in the agricultural sector of the country.

1.3 Scope and objectives of the evaluation Scope: The evaluation: • Analyzed the results vs. targets for each lower level and higher lever outcome indicators; • Assessed the changes in practices and capacities that occurred as a result of the project – both for the partners and the direct beneficiaries (marketing federations and women ‘kafos’); • Assessed how all the activities carried out by the project since the inception helped to meet the project objectives, and • Assessed all the elements of the project’s design, implementation and management, including processes, operations and results.

Objectives: The objectives of the evaluation were to: • Assess the relevance and appropriateness of the project design and approach; • Review the project’s performance and results (including potential impact); • Identify lessons that can contribute to designing, implementing and managing ‘better’ projects in the future, for sustainability and scalability of the interventions, and • Document case studies, and generate suggestions useful for the design of the proposed phase 2 of the project.

1.4 Key evaluation criteria and questions To meet the aforesaid objectives, the following aspects of the project were analyzed: (a) relevance; (b) effectiveness; (c) sustainability, and (d) potential for scale-up. The evaluation probed on the following main evaluation questions (Box 1): Box 1. Main Evaluation Questions Relevance: • How adequate is the project’s design and approach?

• Are the project objectives and design relevant to the development needs of The Gambia, and consistent and coherent with the priorities of the government? How important is the relevance or significance of the interventions regarding local and national requirements and priorities?

10

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

• • •

Are the project objectives and design, including the logical framework, relevant to the needs and priorities of the targeted partners and beneficiaries? How important is the relevance or significance of the intervention on addressing the community’s needs?

Was a needs assessment conducted at the design stage, and did it sufficiently consider the needs and priorities of the partners and beneficiaries?

Did the project benefit from available knowledge (i.e. the experience of other related projects such as those undertaken by NEMA, FAO, IFAD, etc) during its design and implementation?

How effectively did the project compliment or overlap with other related development initiatives in the Gambia?

Effectiveness: • To what extent has the project achieved its intended (or unintended) outcomes. More specifically: - In what ways has the project assisted in improvements in the horticultural techniques for increased marketability of the produce of vegetable groups?

- In what specific ways has the project assisted in strengthening the marketing federations and the National Apex Cooperative? Have they improved their capacities to fulfill their roles?

- In what specific aspects has the project contributed in building the capacities of the women farmers and youths on agro-enterprises? Have they used the skills they acquired to improve their situation?

- In what specific aspects has the project contributed to establishing or enhancing agroenterprises along the horticultural value chain – linkages formed, jobs created, income increased, etc.?

- In what ways has the project supported in improvements in the level of production, yields and income of the vegetable groups, individual farmers and youths?

• What have been the main contributing factors for the results achieved?

• What have been the main limiting factors for the results achieved?

• Do all identified partners and beneficiaries have access to and make use of the project’s results available from previous monitoring thus far?

• To what extent the project interventions been effective in addressing gender equality and youth empowerment?

Sustainability: • To what extent have the project’s institutional arrangements helped to create ownership among all stakeholders?

• What is the likelihood that results/benefits will continue after the project ends? What factors are in favor of or against maintaining benefits?

• Is there a clear indication that the government and/or other key partners have committed financial and human resources to maintain benefits and results? To what extent has the project contributed to the achievement of the government objectives?

• What steps are being taken in the regions and in the country to sustain, continue and develop capacities and allocate appropriate resources for the development of horticultural value chain?

- Preparedness and capacity of the marketing federations and their member women ‘kafos’ - Preparedness and capacity of the local partners - Preparedness and capacity of the government • Is the business environment conducive to the maintenance of the project’s results?

• What other factors would play a major role in promoting or ensuring sustainability and/or scale of impact?

11

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Potential for scale-up: • What are the lessons learned for future design of similar projects?

1.5 Evaluation approach and methodology The evaluation methodology followed the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee (OECD DAC) criterion for effective evaluation. The project’s performance and results were assessed against its relevance, effectiveness, sustainability and scalability.

Since this evaluation was conducted by UP, the evaluation team ensured that the following principles and approaches were extensively adopted (Box 2): Box 2. Evaluation Principles and Approaches Applied • •

• •

Voice and Inclusion: A participatory research approach was followed wherein all relevant stakeholders were consulted, ensuring a holistic review and adequate representation of stakeholders and beneficiaries.

Triangulation: A mixed method approach was followed, which included both quantitative (survey questionnaires) and qualitative methods (interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), Most Significant Change (MSC) sessions). To ensure that both successes and failures of the project are adequately presented, an evidence-based approach was used and guided by the ‘best available evidence’.

Contribution and Results: To this end, the evaluation team identified and analyzed theories of change, impact pathways and outcome indicators.

Transparency: Transparency with regards to the methodology employed, data sources consulted and any limitations in the project findings were upheld.

1.6 Data collection tools and sampling The NEMA Horticulture project targeted 350 gardens across the 5 agricultural regions of the Gambia, with direct beneficiaries of 35,000 women farmers. The project also targets 100 youths in 2 regions to received support from NEMA-CHOSSO on establishing their agro-enterprises. To be able to generate a reliable, accurate and well-represented findings, the evaluation team employed the following: Table 1. Data collection tools and sampling Tools Sampling Survey – a questionnaire 441 respondents from 66 gardens in 6 agricultural regions: was developed, and the local partners and • Upper River Region (URR): 108 respondents 9 NEMA gardens and marketing federations 9 NON-NEMA gardens; helped administer the • North Bank Region (NBR): 108 respondents 9 NEMA gardens and 9 questionnaires to the NON-NEMA gardens; women farmer • Central River Region North & South (CRRN/S): 64 respondents 4 respondents NEMA gardens and 4 NON-NEMA gardens; • Lower River Region (LRR): 64 respondents 4 NEMA gardens and 4 NON-NEMA gardens; • West Coast Region (WCR): 98 respondents 7 NEMA gardens and 7 NON-NEMA gardens This sample brought about 95% confidence level, a margin of error of 0.05 in the survey findings.

12

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Tools FGDs with women farmers

Sampling 10 FGDs were conducted with 160 farmer members of 70 vegetable gardens Out of the 70 vegetable gardens, 33 were from NEMA gardens and 37 were from non-NEMA gardens, which were randomly selected by UP and the Marketing Federations. For non-NEMA gardens, the evaluation team have subset the villages/districts of interest and randomly selected sub-sample gardens within those villages/districts. Main consideration was that the garden should be linked to the marketing federation.

The evaluation assessed the impact of the project to NEMA gardens versus non-NEMA gardens. NEMA gardens have n received comprehensive and integrated support packages from UP and NEMA-CHOSSO (a mixture of training, mentoring, provision of inputs, etc); while non-NEMA gardens although recipients of interventions as well but most often limited to trainings for and mentoring of the farmers.

FGDs with Marketing A total of 4 FGDs were conducted with the Marketing Federations from the Federations 4 agricultural regions Most significant change From the FGDs above, the team chose five stories/cases that represented (for the case studies) project impact to many. Follow-up one-on-one interviews were conducted.

1.7 Data analysis Important to note that the survey questionnaire for the farmers and the self-assessment tool for the marketing federations used a Likert scale. When responding to a Likert questionnaire item, respondents specify the different levels of measurement to a statement. In the survey and selfassessment tool, the levels of agreement or disagreement, of satisfaction or dissatisfactions, of skills acquired to a large degree or not all, among others were measured.

To minimize bias, the evaluation team used a six response levels ranging from 0 to 5. Results are presented on a 0-100 scale. This avoids presenting scores of 2.23 or 3.8 which are less attractive than presenting the same result as 45 or 76 on a 0-100 scale.

What do the scores represent?

A score of 40 or 60 reflects that an average score of 2 or 3 has been given by the respondents. This does however not mean that all respondents have given a 2 or 3. On a 6-point scale different levels of (dis)agreeing can be shown: 3, 4 or 5 points show different levels of agreement with a statement, whereas 0, 1 or 2 points show different levels of agreement. A score therefore shows the level of agreement and not the percentage of respondents agreeing with the statement. It is for instance possible that 10 persons give 5 points for a statement (very strongly agreement) and 10 persons slightly disagree with the same statement. In this case the average score would be 70, whereas the 50% disagrees. In actual practice, scoring proves not to be that skewed and often has a ‘normal distribution’.

When reading the scores in the subsequent chapters, expect the following levels: Score

Level of agreement/ satisfaction / skills acquired to a higher degree, etc.

Level of disagreement/ dissatisfaction / skills not totally acquired, etc.

0 30 40

0% 15 – 33% 25 – 45%

100% 67 – 85% 55 – 75%

Majority disagrees with statement

13

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Score

Level of agreement/ satisfaction / skills acquired to a higher degree, etc.

Level of disagreement/ dissatisfaction / skills not totally acquired, etc.

50 60 70 80 100

35 – 65% 55 – 75% 70 – 85% 80 – 95% 100%

35 – 65% 25 – 45% 15 – 30% 5 – 20% 0%

Majority agrees with statement

How to interpret the scores?

Roughly speaking, the scores can be interpreted as follows: • Less than 40%: very low score. There is a widespread level of dissatisfaction or even disappointment, likely to be coupled to a feeling that something must be urgently done.

• Between 40-50%: low score, agreement that something must be done.

• Between 50-60%: Low average score. Members are not really satisfied nor completely dissatisfied. Recognition that there is room for improvement and likelihood that there is motivation to take action.

• Entre 60-70%: Average score. There is no major dissatisfaction, but there is room for improvement.

• More than 70%: High or very high score, indicating satisfaction with the current situation.

Respondents are not very likely to perceive reasons to change.

1.8 Structure of the report Following this introduction are the following sections, background and context; discussion of evaluation results and project progress; case studies, and lastly recommendations.

14

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Nyana Sanyang proudly shows her harvests. The project has supported her and the other smallholder farmers in her women’s group with inputs, infrastructure, training and mentoring to ensure successful horticultural production. Since then, Nyana has had increased yield and income for her and her family.

15

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT This section provides an overall understanding of the ‘Improved Horticultural Techniques for Marketoriented Enterprises in the Gambia’ project, and the development context in which it was implemented.

2.1 Context of the project The Gambia is a country in transition since 2016 after a 22-year legacy of authoritarianism. It is currently one of the poorest countries in the world, and faces significant challenges related to food insecurity, malnutrition, migration, unemployment, and climate change. Approximately 62% of the population are poor and 48% live below the poverty line of 1.25 USD per day.

Agriculture plays a significant role in the Gambia’s economy. Over 70% of the country’s population depends, directly or indirectly, on agriculture for employment and livelihood, but contributes only 24% of the GDP. Rural poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition are closely associated with low agricultural productivity, particularly in rain-fed systems. Yet still, the sector has the highest potential to increase food security, reduce rural poverty, and generate both on- and off-farm employment opportunities.

The Gambia’s agricultural sector faces several challenges. Most of the rural population is engaged in subsistence farming: rain-fed and undiversified farming. Productivity challenges in the sector, include, inter alia, outdated farm technologies and unsustainable farm management practices, limited technical expertise, sub-optimal use of inputs, lack of an adequate irrigation and drainage system, weak rural infrastructure, a rudimentary rural advisory system, and limited access to credit and investment capital. The country has also experienced severe land degradation and impacts of climate shocks with regular cycles of drought Further, weak market links, high transport costs and low investments in agricultural research and extension have constrained agricultural production. There is no value-addition and agro-processing, with smallholders selling only the raw products, limiting opportunities for growth, and often contributing to produce waste. The limited opportunities for growth are also due to weak market information and low bargaining power from smallholder farmers, women especially. Poor handling knowledge leads to lower yields and poor quality reduces chances of private sector engagement.

Recognizing the significant role of agriculture in the Gambia’s overall economic development, the Government is undertaking critical measures to develop the sector as laid out in its various strategies and programs. The Government has committed to a stronger agricultural performance since the democratic transition and established a ‘National Agricultural Land and Water Management Development (NEMA)’ program with the development partners and with funding support from IFAD. Starting 2020, the Government will co-finance the ‘Resilience of Organizations for Transformative Smallholder Agriculture (ROOTS)’ project, which will build on the successes and draw lessons from NEMA and other related programs.

Commercial horticulture offers strong opportunities to transform the Gambia’s agricultural sector and rural economy. UP recognized that the horticulture sub sector has promising prospects for generating income and improving the livelihoods conditions of rural families, especially women and children. Hence, UP submitted a proposal to NEMA in 2017, entitled ‘Improved Horticultural Techniques for Market-oriented Enterprises in the Gambia’, which was approved and became one of the components of the larger NEMA program.

16

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Improved marketing knowledge and opportunities provide incentives and the means for women producers to increase their production and addresses the problem of what to produce, who to produce for, when to produce, how to produce and when to distribute. Most of these challenges can be well addressed through Marketing Federations, which also provide the ability to engage in collective bargaining and negotiation as well as consolidation of produce from many small holders, branding and quality control and provide information, technical advice and reasonable price inputs to their members. There are major untapped opportunities that structures such as Marketing Federation can help access: as mentioned, the large urban markets greatly import goods from Senegal and wholesalers who want to purchase Gambian produce need quantities delivered on a regular basis to shift from Senegal purchase.

The NEMA HORT project. The project aimed to contribute to enhancing horticultural production levels and market access for smallholder farmers across the Gambia in order to lift them out of the cycle of poverty and take their production and business potential to scale. This was done through a fourpronged approach: (1) The project improved the marketing knowledge and the means for women producers to increase their production and addresses the problem of what to produce, who to produce for, when to produce, how to produce and when to distribute; (2) The project supported six Marketing Federations to improve the work already done, expand their support base, build their capacity and provide material support – this led to the creation of a National Vegetable Growers Cooperative (NAVGC) structure or the Apex Cooperative; (3) As part of networking efforts and knowledge sharing, the project supported the creation of seed fairs/seed networks in the 6 agricultural regions – this was done through sensitisation campaigns (including radio messaging), and (4) Alongside the direct support given to women vegetable farmers, the project worked with local partners to improve the environment for young people’s access to good quality training and skills for agro-enterprises development.

The NEMA Hort project worked in six agricultural regions of the Gambia: NBR, WCR, LRR CRRN/S and URR. It strengthened the capacity of six regional Marketing Federations (each with a membership of 6,000-8,000 people) – for a total of 35,000 beneficiaries. Each Marketing Federation has a committee responsible for coordinating activities of Marketing kafos who in turn variously provide market information, extension advice and sale of inputs to its members during harvest and link them to outlets or partners. All members were drawn from existing gardens throughout the country, the project was able to reach 350 gardens prioritizing the 34 NEMA gardens. In addition, the project has trained 100 youth in NBR and URR, who in turn conducted step-down trainings to other youths.

2.2 Project’s Theory of Change (TOC) Upon reviewing the project’s logframe (see Annex 1), there was a need to fine-tune and reconstruct the results chain of the logframe. The causality links between project outputs, outcomes and impact were not shown clearly. No TOC diagram has been developed for the project as well. A reconstruction of the logframe and ToC will allow for an illustrative articulation of the main outputs and intended outcomes, and how these will lead to the envisaged impact. It is against this ToC that the evaluation team were able to determine to what extent project outputs and outcomes were achieved, and where changes in the logic of the project were made. Figure 1 shows the project’s reconstructed TOC.

17

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Outcome s

Improved irrigation facilities in 10 horticultural gardens*

350 vegetables groups are practicing improved horticultural techniques

6 Marketing Federations are strengthened, and a National Apex Cooperative is functional

100 youths are able to establish agro-enterprises along the horticultural value chain

All Marketing Federations and all garden groups are able to access improved & indigenous variety of seeds

Outputs

Impac t

Improved income and production of vegetable groups in 5 regions in The Gambia

Irrigation systems and wired fences are set-up for 10 gardens*

350 gardens received mentoring on adoption of improved production practices

Umbrella national vegetable growers cooperative established w/ a secretariat

100 youths received training on horticultural enterprise development

75 seed networks established

6 Regional Marketing Federations trained on the effective management of garden groups

Activities

Figure 1. Project’s reconstructed Theory of Change *Important to note that the first result pathway concerning the irrigation systems were taken out from UP’s responsibility and passed on to NEMA-CHOSSO, hence, the evaluation did not include such

18

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

For Fatoumatta Jarjou and for other women farmers, reliable source of water for their gardens has been the major challenge. The project has linked them with NEMA for construction of sustainable solar-powered irrigation system, which include boreholes, water tanks and reservoirs.

19

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

3. EVALUATION’S KEY FINDINGS AND PROJECT’S PROGRESS This section presents the findings analysed to address each evaluation question.

3.1 Evaluation Criteria 1: Relevance Q1.1 How adequate is the project’s design and approach?

The project design was adequate, and it responded in an appropriate manner to the most important immediate needs, as identified through consultations with key project stakeholders. However, due to the limited funding and short timeframe, the longer-term needs that would help to ensure a consistent, reliable, all-year round commercial horticultural production of the women’s groups were not thoroughly addressed. Longer-term needs such as support to post-harvest production and facilities, linking the farmers to markets, ensuring a good irrigation to mitigate climatic risks and increase horticultural productivity and commercialization, among others.

Q1.2 Are the project objectives and design relevant to the development needs of The Gambia, and consistent and coherent with the priorities of the government? How important is the relevance or significance of the interventions regarding local and national requirements and priorities?

The project objectives was aligned to the 2018-2021 Gambia National Development Plan that aims to accelerate and sustain the development of the country’s horticulture sector in order to achieve food security, reduce poverty, create employment, generate wealth through domestic and external trade, and contribute to the socio-economic development and transformation of the country. It was also consistent with the Horticulture Master Plan that was developed in 2015 and currently being updated.

The Plan targeted horticulture as a key sub-sector for value chain development and envisaged the promotion of fruits and vegetables whose potential for import substitution should be harnessed and promoted to expand their export and marketing. The Government needs further technical and funding

20

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

support for effective operationalization of the agricultural reform program in general, the horticultural value chain in particular. While it is good that the project objectives were hinged with the country’s development needs and the national development plans, much still needs to be done and greater opportunity for both public and private sectors and development actors’ partnerships for this reform is at the ROOTs project.

Q1.3 Are the project objectives and design, including the logical framework, relevant to the needs and priorities of the targeted partners and beneficiaries? How important is the relevance or significance of the intervention on addressing the community’s needs?

The project was conceived through a ‘bottom-up’ approach. Most of the women farmers that were included in the FGDs affirmed that they were consulted during the project design process, and that their needs and priorities were factored in the project. While the intended outcomes of the project as laid out in UP’s proposal that was submitted and approved by NEMA remained the same, the activities were adjusted, to the extent possible within the limitations of the project budget and relatively short time frame, to meet the specific needs in the communities. During the project conception, the first objective of the project was provision of material support to selected horticultural gardens to improve irrigation facilities, however NEMA took it out from UP’s responsibility and facilitated the construction instead. While the move seemed to be strategic, the problems of broken wells and tanks such as in Saruja in CRR South and Pakalinding in LRR and not being immediately acted upon by the NEMA extension staff despite of repeated reports of the women’s groups were a prime concern.

On another note, the demarcation of the gardens were originally not included in the project plan of UP. The government’s extension staff were supposed to provide support to the women’s groups in demarcating the gardens, however did not happen. Therefore, with the urgent need, UP’s local partners and Business Development staff (BDS) led the demarcation and each garden took at least a month to complete the activity. The BDS has to go around to the different NEMA gardens, hence resulted to the delays of implementation of other planned activities.

Q1.4 Was a needs assessment conducted at the design stage, and did it sufficiently consider the needs and priorities of the partners and beneficiaries?

A baseline data collection was conducted at the inception stage. Against it, the project established a simple monitoring system at the UP and local partners level to track project performance and so provide opportunities for real time decision making for issues requiring corrective action. For this, the project identified performance indicators before the start of the project and baseline data was collected accordingly. Local partners were trained by UP’s NEMA HORT project manager on the different monitoring tools and reporting methods applied in the project. This has enabled the project to timely track project performance, and report achievements and challenges, which provided NEMA and the Ministry of Agriculture with actual production, yield and income data on the horticultural sector.

Q1.5 Did the project benefit from available knowledge (i.e. the experience of other related projects such as those undertaken by NEMA, FAO, IFAD, etc.) during its design and implementation? How effectively did the project compliment or overlap with other related development initiatives in the Gambia?

During the FGDs with women groups, Marketing Federations and local partners, they expressed satisfaction with the synchronicity and interfacing of the NEMA HORT project with the other ongoing projects of UP, such as the EU-funded Biofortication and Women in Business projects, as well as FAOfunded Farmer Field Schools (FFS).

21

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

3.2 Evaluation Criteria 2: Effectiveness To what extent has the project achieved its intended (or unintended) outcomes:

3.2.1 OUTCOME 1: 350 garden groups are practicing improved horticultural techniques A. Adoption of and Improvements in the Horticultural Techniques (Q1: In what ways has the project assisted in improvements in the horticultural techniques for increased marketability of the produce of vegetable groups?)

The quantitative analysis: The team assessed the impacts of the trainings and mentoring support provided by the project to all the 33 NEMA gardens. 33 non-NEMA gardens who although received some technical support from UP and partners but not as comprehensive as compared with the NEMA gardens were also covered in the survey. The level of adoption of horticultural techniques and practices were also analyzed.

Horticultural trainings and technical support. The project has provided horticultural training and mentoring support to 370 garden groups across the 6 agricultural regions. Each group has an average number of 350 members, thereby reaching 129,500 farmers.

Training topics were as diverse as the following: • General Horticulture (nursery techniques, soil preparation, fertilisers, pest control, harvest, post-harvest, etc.)

• General pest and disease control in intensive horticulture • Nursery management • Group management

• • • • • •

Seedling production, plant protection, fertiliser application Composting Vegetable marketing Integrated pest management (IPM) Seed selection Business development planning

22

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

• •

• • •

Market price collection and price monitoring through Market Information System (MIS) Collective marketing and selling of the product

Production planning Yield data collection and records keeping Quality standards and grading

Satisfaction on the horticultural trainings and technical support received. The respondents from the NEMA gardens scored 76% or can be interpreted as ‘very satisfied’ when asked if they are happy/ satisfied with the trainings and technical support that the project has provided to them. Meanwhile, respondents from the non-NEMA gardens gave an average score of 69% or can be interpreted as ‘satisfied’. (Note that the score shows the level of satisfaction and not the percentage of respondents.

Section 1.6 discusses how likert scale-type of questions are scored and analyzed in this report.)

Digging deeper, the respondents were then asked to rate each technical support area they received as to their level of satisfaction on the content and approaches, taking also into consideration the usefulness when performing their horticultural activities.

The tables (2 and 3) and figure (2) below shows differences between NEMA and non-NEMA gardens.

Across most of the areas, NEMA garden groups have expressed high-level of satisfaction with the support that they received, apart from two areas, which are post-harvest techniques (61.2) and training on harvesting and marketing (70%). Although these implied no major dissatisfaction, further improvements are necessary. When compared to non-NEMA gardens, the scores are considerably lower but not to a higher degree.

Table 2. Level of Satisfaction of Women Farmers on the Technical Support they Received from the Project (NEMA Gardens) Assessment Areas a. Farm demonstration b. Training on compost making and organic fertilizers application c. Training on agronomic practices (nursery management, transplanting, plant management) d. Mentoring on the development of business plans, production plans and market analysis e. Advises on Pest management f. Training on harvesting and marketing g. Seed Fairs (Advises on seed quality) h. Post-harvest techniques (processing and preservation) Average Total Score:

URR 82 84

NEMA Gardens CRR LRR NBR 73 69 82 88 84 74

URR 75 72

Average Score 76.2 80.4

73

85

75

81

80

78.8

87

86

88

82

89

86.4

71 64 73 52

74 70 79 62

78 72 82 63

81 74 80 69

65 70 75 60

73.8 70 77.8 61.2

73.3

77.1

76.4

77.9

73.2

75.6

Table 3. Level of Satisfaction of Women Farmers on the Technical Support they Received from the Project (NON-NEMA Gardens) Assessment Areas a. Farm demonstration b. Training on compost making and organic fertilizers application c. Training on agronomic practices (nursery management, transplanting, plant management)

URR 79 74 80

NEMA Gardens CRR LRR NBR 69 72 79 79 78 70 83

81

80

URR 68 80

Average Score 73.4 76.2

81

81

23

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Assessment Areas d. Mentoring on the development of business plans, production plans and market analysis e. Advises on Pest management f. Training on harvesting and marketing g. Seed Fairs (Advises on seed quality) h. Post-harvest techniques (processing and preservation) Average Total Score:

URR 83

NEMA Gardens CRR LRR NBR 89 91 85

URR 87

Average Score 87

64 52 50 57

68 67 58 64

76 67 75 68

64 70 83 71

67 61 69 57

67.8 63.4 67 63.4

67.4

72.1

76

75.3

71.3

72.4

Comparing the scores: NEMA vs. non-NEMA gardens 100 80 60 40 20 0 Compost making

Agronomic practices

Business and Pest Harvesting & productions management marketing plans development NEMA Gardens

Seed Fairs

Post-harvest

Non-NEMA Gardens

Figure 2. Level of satisfaction: comparing the scores Increase of knowledge and skills, and adoption of the market-oriented horticultural techniques.

When asked if the project’s technical support (both trainings and mentoring activities) has increased the farmers skills and knowledge on horticultural techniques, NEMA garden respondents have scored 72% or ‘to a higher degree’; while non-NEMA garden respondents have scored 68% or ‘to a medium degree’. The table 4 and figure 2 below show the change of level of skills before and after the project as expressed by the farmers. It can be noted that there was an average of 60% increased understanding and practice of market-oriented horticultural techniques after the project’s intervention, most notably on the skills sets of product preparation and marketing, collective marketing and selling, market price collection, and yield data collection and records keeping.

Table 4. Change of Level of Skills of Women in NEMA and non-NEMA gardens, before and after the project Assessment Areas Production plan development (crop production forecasting and crop estimation) Effective product preparation and marketing (cleaning, grading & sorting, storing, packaging and labeling) Collective bargaining and negotiating of the price of the product

NEMA Gardens Before After 43 75

NEMA Ave. Score

Non-NEMA Gardens Before After 37 69

Non-NEMA Ave. Score

59 53 62

89

59

85

41

65

75.5 72 37

68 52.5

53

24

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Assessment Areas Collective marketing and selling of the product Business plan development and business management Market price collection Effective leadership Financial management Financial literacy and savings Yield data collection and records keeping

Average Total Score:

NEMA Gardens Before After 46 85

NEMA Ave. Score 65.5

32

77

36 37 38 37 41

85 63 81 76 85

60.5 50 59.5 56.5

40.9

78.4

59.65

Non-NEMA Gardens Before After 42 78

54.5

63

Non-NEMA Ave. Score 60

39

74

29 33 40 36 49

82 69 76 74 87

40.5

75.9

56.5 55.5 51 58 55 68 58.2

Comparing the scores: NEMA vs. Non-NEMA Gardens 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Production Product Price Collective Business Market price Effective plan preparation negotiation marketing & plan collection leadership development & marketing selling development

NEMA Gardens

Financial mngmt

Financial literacy and savings

Yield data collection

Non-NEMA Gardens

Figure 3. Level of skills: comparing the scores The qualitative analysis: Overall in the NEMA gardens, there was an appreciation of the training and technical support the farmers had received over the three-year period, in particular in terms of new seeds, crop planning/rotation and an extended growing season. This was supported by the immediate positive responses from the farmers on life changes, more disposable income, less reliance on loans, access to education for children, improved nutrition, a greater harmony in the community because standards of living had improved and people did not need to borrow money. Two FGD participants in URR however mentioned that they have not yet realized improved benefits because they have just started their production.

In garden groups where NEMA HORT support are not much comprehensive were quick to focus on their problems, such as gluts, lack of irrigation system, lack of markets/transportation, pests, insufficient inputs and infrastructure, among others. Whilst those in NBR and LRR felt they had seen an improvement over the three-year period, this was not as marked as in the NEMA gardens where women’s groups with the support of the Marketing Federations and other NGOs had purchased water pumps, solar panels, etc.

The NEMA garden farmers from all the regions had also discussed monetary achievements over the last three years. There was a palpable pride in amounts realized with some gardeners increasing their

25

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

annual income 10-fold and individual farmers exceeded these amounts. The women said in the past they used to take loans in the lean season and now they don’t have to and that they can now pay school fees and buy clothes.

The women said there had been an improvement in the health of themselves and their families as a result of improved incomes and because there were enough vegetables to sell and some remained for them to eat. They also said that their and their families’ diet had diversified with some women consuming orange flesh sweet potato (OFSP), African leafy vegetables (ALVs) and Pearl Millet (PM) on a regular basis. However, with all these notable improvements, problems on marketing, processing, irrigation, among others still exist.

Figure 4 below is an illustration of how NEMA HORT’s capacity building activities have impacted on the garden groups and individual members.

Figure 4. Impact of NEMA HORT’s capacity building activities to the garden groups & individual members B. Improvements in the level of production and income, before and after the project (Q2. In what ways has the project supported in improvements in the level of production, yields and income of the vegetable groups?)

West Coast Region (WCR). Tables 5 and 6 show the total production and income prior to the start of the project (2017) and during the most recent agricultural year (2019). Noteworthy findings are: • • •

The 3 NEMA gardens in WCR are now producing more vegetable varieties compared in 2017 prior to the start of the project; The production in 2019 has increased to 279% or 304,097.20 kg., when compared in the 2017 production of 108,646 kg.; Income in the 3 NEMA gardens have increased massively, from D1,715,316 in 2017 to D8,080,229.23 in 2019.

26

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Table 5. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 3 NEMA gardens in WCR, before the project (2017) Production Season (kg)

Onion Pepper (hot) Tomato Cabbage OFSP Pearl Millet Sub-total other veg

Revenue

Dry

Rainy

Total

Ave. Price/kg

18,632 2,244 13,853 10,737 2898.5 48,365

10,960 1320 8,149 6,316 1705 1000 29,450

29,592 3,564 22,002 17,053 4,604 1,000 77,815

11.21 59.59 22.06 33.54 17.05 29

208,865 133,720 305,604 360,126 49,419 1,057,734

122,862 11,522 19,433 223,297 19,440 396,554

331,726 145,242 325,037 583,423 68,859 1,454,287

4,559 14,394 194.83 264.71 19,412 67,777

2,681.79 8,466.89 114.60 155.71 11,419 40,869

7,241 22,861 309 420 30,831 108,646

4.34 9.70 11.5 10.33 8.97 18.83

19,778 139,598 2,241 2,735 164,352 1,222,085

11,634 82,116 1,318 1,609 96,677 493,231

31,412 221,714 3,558 4,344 261,029 1,715,316

Vegetables

Dry

Rainy

Total

African Leafy Veg Cowpea Sorrel/Roselle Moringa Amaranths Sub-total ALVs Total:

Table 6. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 3 NEMA gardens in WCR, most recent production season (2019) Vegetables Tomatoes Sweet Pepper Bitter Tomato Guana Pepper Cabbage Eggplant Okra Onion Lettuce Roselle / Sorrel Amaranths Keren Keren OFSP Nawe (Radish) Hot Pepper Total:

Production Season (kg)

Revenue

Dry

Rainy

Total

Ave. Price/kg

80,542 21,557 64,895 6,628 7,167 62,980 11,181.50

2,907.00 2,890.00 1,721

83,448.5 24,446.5 66,615.5 6,627.5 7,167.0 66,550.8 14,003.4

19.5 43 22 95 43.5 15 100

1,799,729.10 927,000 2,125,519 164,592.50 318,829 259,049 1,118,835

86,097.80 124,293.25 24,650

31,050.60 101,216.65

1,885,826.90 1,051,293.51 2,150,169.00 164,592.50 318,829.48 290,099.19 1,220,051.65

34,939.0

35

657,964

96,490

754,454.00

0.0

20

51,350

3,571 2,821.90

34,939

Dry

Rainy

Total

51,350.00

0.0

15,000

18,900

33,900.00

7,900 11,120

5.5

299 665 2,928.10

0.0 0.0 299.0 665 2,933.6

30 30

165

14,200 9,500 8,985.00 19,950.00 87,843

289,895

17,803.00

304,097.20

453

7,457,052.60

623,176.30

22,100.00 20,620.00 8,985.00 19,950.00 88,008.00 8,080,229.23

27

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

A bountiful harvest of tomatoes in the West Coast Region

North Bank Region (NBR). Tables 7 and 8 show the total production and income prior to the start of the project (2017) and during the most recent agricultural year (2019). Hereunder are the key observations: •

• •

The 5 NEMA gardens in NBR were able to plant additional vegetable varieties in 2019, however there was no harvest recorded for OFSP, PM and ALVs in the most recent production season in 2019; Hence, when compared the 2017 and 2019 production data below, the latter is significantly lower, apart from the huge increase of tomato production by tenfold; Income recorded in 2019 is higher by D1,628,247.

Table 7. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 5 NEMA gardens in NBR, before the project (2017) Vegetables

Production Season (kg) Dry

Rainy

Total

Onions

58,207

34,647

92,854

Pepper (Hot)

5,040

3,000

Tomato

11,768

Cabbage

Ave. Price/kg

Revenue Dry

Rainy

Total

10

598,950

356,518

955,468

8,040

18

90,418

53,820

144,238

7,005

18,773

17

205,352

122,237

327,589

5,761

3,429

9,190

18

104,562

62,236

166,799

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Moringa

87.62 2.07

52.19 1.23

139.81 3.30

16,07 16

1,408 33

939 23

2,346 56

Amarantus

186.07

110.84

296.91

16

2,990

1,679

4,669

1.24

0.74

1.98

16

20

12

32

277 81,053

165 48,246

442 129,299

16 16

4,451 1,295,227

2,652 70,971

7,103 2,066,198

Sweet Potato Pearl Millet African Leafy Veg Sorrel

Cowpea Sub-Total ALV Total:

28

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Table 8. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 5 NEMA gardens in NBR, most recent production season (2019) Vegetables Onion Cabbage Tomato Egg plan Bitter tomato Hot pepper Butter nut squash OFSP PM Sorrel Moringa Amarantus Cowpea Total:

Production Season (kg) Dry 6,556 183.5 85,035 259 344 498 35 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rainy 0 0 405 75 0 2,263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 6,556 183.5 85,440 334 344 273 35 0 0 0 0 0 0

92,911

480

6,740

Ave. Price/kg

Revenue

40 40 35 20 35 150 25 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dry 262,240 7,340 2,976,225 5,900 12,040 74,700 875 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rainy 0 0 14,175 1,500 0 339,450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 262,240 7,340 2,990,400 7,400 12,040 414,150 875 0 0 0 0 0 0

345

3,339,320

355125

3,694,445

Lower River Region (LRR). Tables 9 and 10 show the total production and income prior to the start of the project (2017) and during the most recent agricultural year (2019). Below are the key findings: • • •

There were new vegetable crops planted and harvested in 2019 across the 4 NEMA gardens in LRR, however no production recorded for OFSP, PM and ALVs; Total production in 2019 is a bit lower than in 2017 by 6,002 kg.

However, total revenue is significantly higher amounting to D5,779,120 in 2019 against D1,420,138 in 2017.

Table 9. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 4 NEMA gardens in LRR, before the project (2017) Vegetables Onion Pepper (hot) Tomato Cabbage Sweet potato Pearl Millet Subtotal other veg ALVs Sorrel Moringa Amarantus Cowpea Subtotal ALVs Total:

Production Season (kg) Dry Rainy Total 27,387 16,598 43,985 1,218 738 1,956 2,879 1,745 4,624 7,912 4,795 12,707 743 450 1,193 268 268

13.09 15.61 11.14 26.57 15.20

Dry 358,401 19,012 32,064 210,204 11,285 -

Revenue Rainy 217,213 11,522 19,433 127,397 6,840 -

Total 575,614 30,534 51,496 337,601 18,125 -

Ave. Price/kg

40,138

24,594

64,732

16.32

810,012

490,916

1,300,928

2,557 1,027 1,372 4,955 45,093

1906 376 721 3,003 27,597

4,463 1,403 2,093 7,958 72,690

10.08 15.97 18.88 14.98 16.1

25,769 16,396 25,898 74,225 884,237

19,210.82 6,004.86 13,613.24 44,985 535,901

44,980 22,401 39,511 119,210 1,420,138

29

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Table 10. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 4 NEMA gardens in LRR, most recent production season (2019) Production Season (kg)

Vegetables Onion Cabbage Tomato Egg plant Bitter tomato Large pepper Chill pepper Okra OFSP PM ALVs Total:

Dry 33,369 33,319 34,078 77,005 30,563 273 400 3,600

Rainy 0 0 4,432 5,920 4,219 0 0 505

Total 33,369 33,319 38,510 82,925 34,782 273 400 4,105

209,007

15076

66,688

Revenue

Ave. Price/kg 40 30 25 35 50 80 40 35

Dry 1,334,760 999,570 851,950 110,800 1,528150 21,840 160,000 143675

Rainy 0 0 192,550 207,200 210,950 0 0 17,675

Total 1,334,760 999,570 1,044,500 318,000 1,739,100 21,840 160,000 161,350

335

5,150,745

628375

5,779,120

Central River Region (CRR). Tables 11 and 12 show the total production and income prior to the start of the project (2017) and during the most recent production season (2019). Important things to highlight: •

• •

The 4 NEMA gardens in WCR are now producing more vegetable varieties compared in 2017 prior to the start of the project, however no recorded data on PM, OFSP and ALVs in the most recent production season in 2019; The production in 2019 has increased over 200% or 131,986kg, when compared in the 2017 production of 57,371 kg.; Income in the 4 NEMA gardens have increased massively, from D995,570 in 2017 to D4,988,515 in 2019.

Table 11. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 4 NEMA gardens in CRR, before the project (2017) Vegetables Onion Pepper (hot) Tomato Cabbage OFSP Pearl Millet Sub-total other veg

Production Season (kg)

Revenue

Dry

Rainy

Total

Ave. Price/kg

17,257 2,115 6,748 4,879 355 31,354

10,211 1,252 3,993 2,887 210 2,300 20,853

27,468 3,367 10,741 7,766 565 2,300 52,206

13 46 23 46 5 22

222,610 96,299 152,702 223,463 1,627 696,701

77,914 33,705 53,446 78,212 569 243,845

300,524 130,003 206,147 301,676 2,196 940,546

2,218.44 1,026.66 3,245 34,599

1,275 645 1,920 22,773

3,493.44 1,671.66 5,165 57,371

8.46 5.40 13 21.00

27,861 12,894 40,752 737,452

10,787 3,483 14,263 258,108

38,648 16,377 55,025 995,570

Dry

Rainy

Total

African Leafy Veg Cowpea Sorrel/Roselle Amaranths Sub-total ALVs Total:

30

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Table 12. Quantity of vegetables produced in kg, average prices and revenue in 4 NEMA gardens in CCR, most recent production season (2019) Vegetables

Production Season (kg) Dry 97,651 108 900 92 72 150 142

0 12,025 17,219 1,302 1,928 2,718

OFSP

0

0

PM ALVs

0 0

Total:

99,115

Onion Tomato Eggplant Okra Bitter Tomato Chili Pepper Large Pepper

Rainy

Total 97,651 108 12,925 17,311 1,374 1,252 1,365

Ave. Price/kg

Revenue

30 25 20 70 40 25 60

Dry 2,929,530 2,700 31,500 3,220 3,600 6,000 8,520

Rainy 0 0 359,945 1,3999,50 56,900 24,880 161,770

Total 2,929530 2,700 391,445 1,403,170 60,500 30,880 170,290

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

35192

131,986

270

2,985,070

603495

4,988,515

(No data for URR in 2019 as they are yet to produce in the 1st quarter of 2020)

C. Constraints Despite the progress recorded, a number of constraints for the horticultural sub-sector in the 6 Agricultural regions targeted are still on-going. Hereunder presents the responses recorded on the main problems related to vegetable production. It appears that the 10 main constraints classified based on a decreasing order are as follows: •

Water and irrigation (average: 57.7%), important everywhere, with a maximum rate of 90% expressed by the NBR NEMA gardens and a lowest value of 30% from WCR for the same type of target. Part of the higher rates were recorded in areas of non-NEMA gardens (86%).

•

Marketing (average: 50%), Extreme value were recorded from NEMA garden groups in LRR (80% of respondents) and from non-NEMA groups in URR (10%), highest rates from NBR. The main issues raised relate to low quantities of local produce purchased by the hospitality sector in the country, and the lack of capacity of the producers to identify and link to market demand;

•

Pests and diseases (average: 48.8%), with extremes (15% and 80%) recorded in NEMA groups in CRR and LRR, respectively. And in non-NEMA groups (32%);

•

Input and other equipment/materials availability (average: 28.8%), inputs mainly relate to good varieties of seeds, as well as fertilisers. The respondents also mentioned about the lack of storage facilities and processing equipment.

•

Infrastructure in the garden, i.e. fences, wells, etc. (average: 14%), This issue was mainly raised by non-NEMA garden groups.

The other constraints mentioned to a less significant extent (lower rates) are input costs (mentioned by 9.3% of respondents), animal intrusion (6.7%), low purchase prices (6.5%), lack of cash (5%) and training (4%).

31

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

3.2.2 OUTCOME 2: 6 Marketing Federations are Strengthened, and a National Apex Cooperative is Created (Q: In what specific ways has the project assisted in strengthening the Marketing Federations and the National Apex Cooperative?)

Formation of the National Apex Cooperative. The project has brought together the six Marketing Federations from the six agricultural regions to form an APEX body that will help advocate for and coordinate the activities of all the farmers groups in the country. The BDS, partner extension staff and Marketing Federation (MF) Managers conducted sensitization meetings with all the Marketing Federations officers, and oriented them about the importance of forming an umbrella body (cooperative) that would represent the voices of the farmers at the national level.

Each Marketing Federation has identified three members who were trained on the concept of forming a national APEX body. The training was facilitated by UP and an Agribusiness expert with a view to position the APEX to perform as a Cooperative. Box 3 below shows the Cooperative Concepts that were discussed and agreed on during the training.

Box 3. The Cooperative Concept A. Seven Principles of a Cooperative The principles are the concepts and guidelines that the Cooperative must follow in other to properly manage its own affairs. These are concepts they believe that are suitable if Cooperatives want to achieve their goals: • Voluntary and open membership • Democratic and member control • Member Economic participation • Autonomy and Independence

32

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

• • •

Education, Training and Information Cooperation among Cooperatives Concern for the Community

B. Functions of Executive/Management Committees of the Cooperative • Liaison between the cooperatives and other institutions • Supervising the daily activities of their cooperatives • Arranging management and executive committee meetings C. Duties and privileges of Cooperatives • Producing bylaws • Amendment of bylaws • Keeping the register of members and their privileges • Age category of who can join the cooperative and at what age can a person join • Sharing from the surplus made by the cooperative • Have equal voting right D. Legal status of Cooperative members: ▪ Exempted from paying tax ▪ Recognized as a legal entity ▪ Can sue or be sued ▪ Can sign contracts with other organisations The training was followed then by the election of the Apex Executive Body. The Agribusiness facilitator and UP staff both provided guidance to the cooperative members on the formulation of selection criteria. At the end of the exercise, 13 members were elected to constitute the APEX committee. The group brainstormed and came up with a name for the APEX, which is called ‘NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF VEGETABLE GROWERS’ COOPERATIVE, THE GAMBIA’ (NAVGC).

The primary objective of the NAVGC is to support all Marketing Federations and member groups to produce quality vegetables and establish market linkages in and out of the country. The Cooperative (NAVGC) is now fully registered under the laws of the country. Currently there are 260 garden groups who are registered under the NAVGC as members of the 6 Marketing Federations with a total membership of 35,217, and of this 33,227 are female and with more groups expressing interest to join. The establishment of the apex body has seen great results with Marketing Federations who have been supporting their members in marketing of their produce and implementing proper yield data collection procedures.

Strengthening the capacity of NAVGC. NAVGC committee benefited from the two trainings that were facilitated by Caplor Horizon (a British-based Charity) on different areas related to group management; formulating vision, mission and goal, as well as developing strategic objectives and plans. As an output from the training, the committee developed a short proposal on the establishment of a vegetable centre within the Greater Banjul area that will serve as supply link between the producers and the hotels/markets. The proposal was shared with potential donors, and the idea was highly welcomed by many stakeholders that are keen to the development of horticultural value chain in the country.

33

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

The elected officials of NAVGC and other members

(Q: To what extent have the 6 Marketing Federations and NAVGC improved their capacities to fulfill their roles?)

Assessment of the Organizational Functioning and Performance of the 4 Marketing Federations. UP and partners built the capacities of 6 Marketing Federations. Noteworthy to mention that out of this six MFs, UP and partners have helped the further organization of the Marketing Federations in NBR (Solicita), and in LRR (Sofanyama).

The evaluation team has developed an assessment tool allowing the Marketing Federation officers to reflect on the functioning and performances of their organizations. Four (4) FGDs were conducted with 4 Marketing Federations from the 4 Agricultural regions (2 MFs were not able to participate in the process); a facilitator read each statement on the questionnaire and asked the group to collectively rate each statement according to a six-point scale (5 as strongly agree and 0 as strongly disagree).

• • • •

WCR: Fangsato Marketing Federation, 11 participants (Has 49 garden groups, 5 of which are NEMA gardens; registered in 2009) URR: Nematoulie Marketing Federation, 11 participants (Registered in 2014) NBR: Solicita Marketing Federation, 12 participants CRR South: Fankaso Marketing Federation, 10 participants

The assessment tool contained 34 statements distributed over 5 assessment areas (Box 4): Box 4. Marketing Federation Assessment Areas: Organizational functioning and performance 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Membership Base Governance, leadership and internal democracy Management of human and financial resources Collaboration and alliances Service provision to members

34

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

The five clusters of statements relating to organizational functioning and performance are based on a basic model for describing farmer group dynamics and performance of farmers’ organizations. This basic model proved useful, both at the assessment and during debriefing the results. The model may also prove relevant for eventual subsequent phases, for instance strategic planning with the Marketing Federations. Box 5 shows an ideal storyline of an effective ‘organizational functioning and performance’ of a particular farmer’s organization.

Box 5. Storyline ‘organizational functioning and performance’ of a Marketing Federation 1. Marketing Federations are established, governed and controlled by farmers, in view of realizing joint activities for the benefit of associated members.

2. Among themselves, members elect the committee or board members. These elected farmers occupy the functions of chairperson, secretary, treasurer and other relevant functions. The elected persons are given the responsibility to govern and represent the organization according the established internal rules and regulations. The elected persons and bodies need to account for their activities to the members.

Together, farmers and committees define the goals and operational plans of the organization.

This is why Marketing Federations are self-help organizations. Goals and plans relate to the results to be attained, activities to be undertaken and the use of resources.

3. For attaining the goals and expected results, Marketing Federations need human and financial resources. Both human and financial resources should be managed in a transparent manner.

4. In order to get the desired results, farmers and their organizations also need to collaborate with others (think of: banks, input dealers, trading & processing companies, local government, research, NGO’s, …).

5. If these preconditions are met, Marketing Federations can provide good services to their members (training, marketing, input supply, …).

If the services and benefits are good, farmers are likely to remain members of the organization and contribute it. If not, they may leave the organization or become ‘dormant’ members.

Assessment Results. The following table (13) and graph (5) below show remarkable differences between the different groups of respondents, with low overall scores for Fangsato, high overall score for Solicita, and slightly below average for both Fankaso and Nematoulie.

At first sight, these results seem to be rather homogeneous with area scores oscillating around the total average score of 66.25. On average, the respondents gave 3.3 points on a scale from 0 to 5. The same results can be set out in a bar/line graph with a scale ranging from 40-80, whereby the bars show the assessment area scores and the line showing the overall average score of 66.25. This allows for easier comparison between assessment areas and in relation to the overall average score.

Table 13. Organizational functioning and performance assessment scores of each Marketing Federation Assessment Areas Nematulie Fangsoto Solicita Fankaso Average 1. Membership Base 73 72 78 67 72.5 2. Governance, Leadership and 70 74 77 71 Internal Democracy 73 3. Management of Human and 54 59 65 61 Financial Resources 59.75 4. Collaboration and Alliances 59 64 69 62 63.5 5. Service Provision to Members 63 58 71 58 62.5 Average Total Score: 63.8 65.4 72 63.8 66.25

35

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Average total scores 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Membership Base

Governance, Management of Collaboration and Service Provision to Leadership and Human and Alliances Members Internal Democracy Financial Resources

Figure 5. Average Total Scores: Organizational functioning and performance assessment of the 4 Marketing Federations Observations on Overall Results: 1. Membership Base: • All the Marketing Federations are happy with the performance of their organization in this assessment area. The area gets high scores, but relatively less so for Fankaso.

• The assessment results clearly suggest that the payment of membership dues and active participation of members need most attention for all the Marketing Federations.

• Membership registry of Fangsoto, Nematulie and Fankaso are outdated and do not provide much needed information of the member farmers. They expressed the need for support on proper profiling of members.

2. Governance, Leadership and Internal Democracy: • Al the Marketing Federations are quite happy with the governance, leadership and internal democracy of their organization. They are especially happy about the formal rules and regulations that are in place. Elections are organized on a transparent and democratic manner, and decision-making involves membership.

• Most concerns seem to be with the functioning of officers after election. The assessment results clearly suggest that strategic operational issues need most attention: annual planning, annual evaluation of results, and the functioning of the officers. Only Solicita and Fangsoto has an updated Action Plans.

3. Management of Human and Financial Resources: • All the Marketing Federations are relatively critical about the way human and financial resources are managed. The relatively low overall score is especially due to low scores for ‘adequacy of competencies and skills of officers to perform task’ and ‘financial independency of the Federation’.

• Concerning the ‘adequacy of competencies and skills of officers to perform task’, it is remarkable that Solicita and Fangsoto are relatively happy, whereas respondents of Fankaso and Nematulie almost all disagree with the statement.

36

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

•

All the Marketing Federations strongly agreed that they cannot function well without external financial support.

•

The following overview indicates subjects where certain groups express more concern than others: Concerned with Adequacy of skills Financial administration Financial manual Archiving Financial independency Transparency of financial management

Nematulie x x x

Fangsoto

Solicita

Fankaso x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

4. Collaboration and Alliances: • The assessment results indicate that they are quite happy with the performance of their organization in this assessment area. Solicita and Fankaso ranked their performance in this area however quite higher than Nematulie and Fangsoto.

• All the Marketing federations have vibrant partnership with NGOs and with their co-Marketing Federations. However, Fankaso, Nematulie and Fangsoto have not really felt the strong support from the government. Meanwhile Solicita has good partnership with the Regional Governor, and they have a seat during the Council meetings.

• All Marketing Federations regularly exchange experiences, learnings, good practices and challenges with one another through cross-regional field visits, trainings, exchange of whatsapp messages, among others.

5. Service Provision to Members: • The Marketing Federations do recognize that their organizations respond to members’ needs and have contributed to production and income improvement. However, the overall score and ranking of this assessment area is not that high. Average scores and ranking scores are relatively lowest for Fankaso and Fangsoto.

• The assessment results clearly suggest that all of them require improved access to inputs and to credit. It is especially an issue for Fankaso, Fangsoto and Nematulie, they feel that their organization is not managing well enough to facilitate access to inputs and credit.

• In addition to higher levels of dissatisfaction concerning access to inputs and credit, they are also relatively unhappy with the provision of information and training services to members.

37

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

3.2.3 OUTCOME 3: 100 youths are able to establish agro-enterprises along the horticultural value chain (In what specific aspects has the project contributed in building the capacities of the youths on agroenterprises? Have they used the skills they acquired to improve their situation?)

As part of the project implementation, a total of 100 youths was selected to undergo a 9-month training on enterprise development within the horticultural value chain, however only 88 youths (63 male 25 female) were able to complete the training and received certificates.

The training was divided into 3 phases: 3-month technical training; 3-month practical training, and 3month for specialization and development of business plan. All 88 youths formulated their business plans, which were submitted to NEMA for funding. However, feedback from NEMA suggested that the quality of plans need to be improved, hence consultants were contracted to help each youth revise their business plans.

The finalization of the plans took a long time, hence the remaining 12 students got discouraged to complete the training. Up to the end of the first phase of NEMA project, no students have received a loan support from the project, which was originally planned in the MOU.

38

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

3.2.4 OUTCOME 4: 75 Seed Diversity Networks reached all women cooperatives and kafos in the 5 regions The Seed Fairs. The methodology of the Seed Fairs – as a tool to enhance access to seeds and on farm diversity - was developed in a participatory manner. The process brought together various partners and relevant stakeholders to agree on an approach and timeline for the implementation of the fairs.

This innovative program was launched in Brikama by the Governor of West Coast Region and attended by the representative from the Ministry of Agriculture, Project Director of Nema and other dignitaries. The launching brought together all the key actors of the vegetable value chain – the producers, traders, transporters, input suppliers and consumers.

During the fair, producers and input suppliers displayed a number of their produce and inputs to sell or barter. The event enabled many producers to know some of the varieties available that they can access, and it established linkages between key actors. For the first time in the Gambia, the fair was able to bring in important horticultural actors outside the country, such as Tropicasem, a vegetable seed producing company in Senegal, and World Vegetable Centre in Mali that breeds vegetables in Africa. They both signed a partnership agreement with UP, which aims to actively promote the adoption of improved vegetable seeds in the Gambia and other Sub-Saharan Africa countries, especially the African Leavy Vegetables (ALVs).

Photos Taken during the Seed Fairs

The establishment of the Seed Diversity Networks. A total of 75 Seed Diversity Networks were established (15 networks per region). The networks were set-up in strategic communities including market locations such as Ndungu Kebbeh and Kerr Pateh in NBR; Wassu in CRR/N; Sabi and Sare Ngai in URR; Brikama Ba in CRR/S; Bureng in LRR, and Brikama in WCR. Farmers were informed about highquality seed varieties, and where to access them. Further, the Networks were also used as platform to advocate for the consumption of more nutritious vegetables. The Network has gathered a wide section of actors along the vegetable value chain, such as the seed sellers, vegetable producers, middlemen/women and transporters.

Impact of the Seed Diversity Networks. 82% of the total survey respondents said that the Seed Fairs have been helpful in providing information about high-quality seed varieties, and in linking them to credible seed sellers and other actors. Further, 76% of the respondents exclaimed that because of the Seed Diversity Networks, they have started adopting and using more ‘improved and indigenous quality’ of seeds.

39

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

3.2.5 INDIRECT OUTCOME: Synergy of the NEMA Hort Project and UP’s EU-Funded BTM Project Noteworthy to highlight as achievement of the project was the strong linkages and synergies that it has created with different agriculture and nutrition-related projects in the Gambia, most especially with the ‘BaluuTim-Maring-Ngo’ (BTM) or the ‘Reducing Micro Nutrition Deficiencies of Women and Children in The Gambia Through Sustainable and Integrated Approaches to Food Fortification project. This project being implemented by UP with funds from EU has an overall objective of reducing under nutrition and poverty of vulnerable populations (especially women and children) in the Gambia by strengthening sustainable access to and consumption of fortified foods. A Memorandum of BTM and NEMA Hort project team, local partners and vegetable Agreement between UP and NEMA was garden members gathered together for a strategy meeting signed to ensure the integration of these two projects to ensure complementarity, sustainability and greater achievement of intended outcomes.

BTM is also working in six agricultural regions across the 350 garden groups and empowering the 6 Marketing Federations. NEMA Hort has especially contributed to BTM’s Result 1: Increased, nutritionally diversified and more resilient agricultural production for targeted smallholder farmers, and Result 3: Community nutritional health education linked to fortified foods. NEMA Hort project and BTM has worked together towards achieving the following impacts to date: Production of Biofortified crops: • 178 vegetable gardens or 21,358 farmers across the country are now involved in the production of 5-7 new varieties of Orange Flesh Sweet Potato (OFSP); • 101 vegetable gardens with a total of 20,355 farmers are now growing African Leafy Vegetables (ALVs); • Seven tons of biofortified seeds of Pearl Millet (PM) was purchased from farmer seed growers and tested for their viability. The seeds were distributed to 456 farmers through Partner NGOs and a National Seed Fair and 434 hectares were planted. 445 farmers have produced PM (83 female and 362 male).

Consumption of Biofortified crops: • There has been an improvement in availability and consumption of OFSP at household level as well as during mother’s club cooking demonstrations. In the BTM Midterm Evaluation Report, 86.11% of survey respondents who had grown OFSP said they cooked OFSP weekly; 62% said that they had served OFSP in the last week, and 70% of beneficiaries used OFSP in improved baby foods; • For ALVs’ consumption, baseline data indicated that 95% of gardeners never used ALVs in special baby foods and did not prepare leafy vegetables in a way that maximizes or preserves their health benefits. With BTM and NEMA joint efforts to address this issue, there has been a huge improvement as 56% of gardeners now use ALVs in baby foods and 94% of them exclaimed that they are seeing positive impact on health and weight of their children.

40

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

•

Whole grain pearl millet consumption which is rich for its iron and zinc according to the baseline, was virtually non-existent before the intervention of the Project. However, the BTM Midterm Evaluation found that 75% of respondents practice whole grain consumption now, which is rich in iron and zinc and 90% said this is done because of nutrition, and 10% said its less work. In addition, 54% of the respondents said they eat millet daily and 88% had eaten it in the last week. Furthermore, 90% said they ferment and soak the millet which improves the bioavailability of the nutrients. 76% of respondents also said they use the millet in baby foods.

Support to Mothers’ Clubs • 300 mothers’ clubs were established and supported on the following: improving cooking methods and sharing of experiences on good nutrition, identifying underweight children and providing them support, increasing awareness on better consumption of locally available food, empowering mothers’ through income generating activities, and enhancing and improving wellbeing and balance diet.

• A number of Cooking demonstrations with the 300 Mothers’ Club were conducted in which approximately 20,625 people have been involved. During the Cooking demonstrations, a total of 17,019 mothers were trained in nutrition, hygiene, improved cooking and food preparation methods Improvements in the health and nutrition of mothers and children • The BTM and NEMA Hort project teams together with the Community Health Nurses have been working jointly to identify and monitor underweight children and link them to the Mothers’ Clubs. The identified underweight children are provided with bio fortified and nutritious foods through the weekly cooking demonstrations. To date, a total of 3,585 underweight children that were linked to the Mothers’ Clubs have recovered.

Tables 14 and 15 below shows the summary of achievements under BTM project’s Results 1 and 3 in which NEMA Hort project has direct contribution to.

Table 14. Summary of Achievements under BTM Result 1, which NEMA Hort project has direct contribution BTM Result Area 1: Increased, nutritionally diversified and more resilient agricultural production for targeted smallholder farmers Indicators Baseline Progress to date # of OFSP mother 0 The 300 sites established have become the source of raw OFSP roots sites established used by the 300 mother clubs that act as nutritional and health platforms for mothers across the country to train and showcase improved cooking procedures and cooking demonstrations of the project focal crops. Establishment of the sites has also served as Target value: 300 primary learning demonstration sites for the 15,718 female farmers mother sites now involved in OFSP production. established 300 achieved # of farmers trained 0 In two years, a total of 9,556 farmers (8,149 female and 1,407 male) (m/f) were trained, which represented 53% of the target whilst for the third year an additional 3,575 farmers (2,339 female and 1,236 male) were Target value: 18,000 trained. Now the total farmers trained for the three years stand at trained on best 13,131 farmers, which represents 72.9% of the target of 18,000. agriculture practices, Support of the extension agents who conducted the trainings via step governance, down has helped farmers learn and adopt best production practices for cooperative the newly introduced varieties. concept/business, 13,131 achieved out of 18,000 Farmers (72.9%)

41

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

BTM Result Area 1: Increased, nutritionally diversified and more resilient agricultural production for targeted smallholder farmers Indicators Baseline Progress to date postharvest, business etc. # farmers growing 30% grow In 2019, 5,185 more farmers have been involved in producing OFSP. OFSP, % of women, OFSP This number combined with the figures in 2017 and 2018 gives a total estimated total of 21,358 farmers (of which 97% or 20,755 were women) involved in harvest produced growing and producing OFSP through the project. The project has (MT) already exceeded its target of 10,000.

Target value: 10,000 (80% female) # of harvest & nutrition field days/ events implemented e.g. at the OFSP mother gardens)

21,358 achieved (97% female) more than double the 10,000 targeted 0

The project delivered 118 harvest or field days in year 2. In year 3, no harvest field day is reported yet because at the time of reporting there was no significant harvest.

• •

• Target value: 300 field days (75% female)

For ALVs: 9 tons was harvested out of which 5 tons was consumed and 3.8 sold.

For OFSP: 171,480 tons was harvested from 3,572.5 hectares representing an average yield of 48 tons per hectare. In all, 4,405 farmers produced the OFSP (3,925 female and 364 male).

For PM 296 tons were harvested from 344 hectares representing an average yield of 1.16 tons per hectare. In all, 445 farmers produced PM (83 female and 362 male).

118 against 300 field days and 100% women involvement

Table 15. Summary of Achievements under BTM Result 3, which NEMA Hort project has direct contributions BTM Result Area 3: Community nutritional health education linked to fortified foods Indicator

Baseline

Progress made to data

# number of mother’s clubs operating

1

300 mothers’ clubs are now operating. Cumulatively in year three, 7,996 adults (7,238 female and 758 male) were trained in nutrition and improved cooking and food preparation methods through mother’s clubs. 164 Cooking demonstrations were carried out in 164 villages throughout the country

Target value: 300 # of farmers, women/mothers trained in cooking & nutrition

Target value: 18,000 trained

359

300 mothers’ clubs target achieved 20,625 women/mothers have been trained so far (18,621 female and 2,004 male); 4,459 in year 1 (3,986 female and 473 male) & 9,023 in year 2 (8,136 female and 887 male), and 7,148 in year 3 (6,499 female and 644 male). This achievement has surpassed the 18,000 women/mothers target to be trained by the end of the project. This activity has enabled 90% of the beneficiaries to know that pearl millet husk is rich in iron and zinc, which justify not to remove its husk. Furthermore, the training has enabled the farmers/mothers’ clubs to independently carry out 164 weekly community nutrition health and cooking demonstration this year at their own cost, which is seen as sign of guarantee for the sustainability of these platforms post project.

20,625 have been achieved

42

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

BTM Result Area 3: Community nutritional health education linked to fortified foods Indicator

Baseline

Progress made to data

# underweight infants’ mothers reached through mothers’ clubs

0

3,189 (1,632 female and 1,557 male) underweight children have been reached by the end of the second year of the project. In the middle of year three, 326 (169 female and 157 male) underweights have recovered. While in the fourth quarter, 70 (50 female and 20 male) have also recovered. The total underweight recovered is therefore 3,585 (1,851 female and 1,734 male). This is as a result of the biofortified and nutritious food they are consuming. However, there is an interest to monitor with NaNA & Ministry of Health, the number of children graduating from undernourishment.

Target value: 3,000 underweights % of clubs have effective involvement and support of health worker

Target value: 80% of the clubs

0

3,585 achieved and over the target of 3,000.

All 300 mother clubs established are effectively involved and benefitted from the support of Government health workers in terms of nutritional surveillance and provision of technical advice on appropriate hygiene and sanitation. This collaboration enabled the project to identify, target and follow up malnourished children to support their recovery. Effort will be further strengthened in entrenching collaboration and support of the health workers and NaNA field agents.

100% of clubs reached against a target of 80%.

Orange Flesh Sweet Potato (OFSP)

43

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

3.2.6 Degree of Achievement of the Project Results The table below summarizes project achievements against each indicator.

Table 16. Summary of project achievements per indicator (Immediate Outcome and Output Levels) Immediate Outcomes

Indicator

Target

Achieveme nt to date

Remarks on Achievements

O1. 350 garden groups received mentoring on adoption of improved production practices

# of garden groups that received continued mentoring from BDS agents

350

370

The project implementation period went to a level that the BDS in the regions became very popular and continue to receive calls or contacts from range of groups in the regions for support.

# of garden groups with business plans

# of vegetable garden groups linked to the Market Information System

O2. Umbrella national vegetable growers cooperative established with a secretariat

O3. Regional Marketing Federation Cooperatives are established and strengthened

350

360

Hence 370 garden groups with an average member of 300 each received continuous mentoring from BDS agents; surpassing the target of 350.

The BDS developed a very simple business plan template that enables farmers calculate input needed and output generated, and determine profit margin easily.

A total of 360 garden groups have business plans in place, surpassing the target of 350.

The project has successfully linked 2,623 farmers who act as the MIS facilitators and 360 gardens to the Market Information System.

Secondly, two buyer Tropingo and GHE were taken around and have signed contract with 6 garden groups to produce some vegetables for export. Currently, a Taskforce is established that is looking at the possibility of linking the producers to the hotels.

A national secretariat was formed (NAVGC or SOSOLASO) with 31 executive members

350

360 2,623 farmer MIS facilitators

# of national secretariat established # of prototype stores established

1

1

3

3

# of legal registrations of umbrella national vegetable growers cooperative Marketing Federation Cooperative created in North Bank Region

1

1

2

2

2 new cooperatives were established: Solicita in NBR and Sofanyama in LRR. They were provided with all the necessary technical support by the partners

# of Marketing Federations that are well equipped

6

6

All the 5 marketing federations were provided with furniture and IT equipment to facilitate the

3 prototype onion containers were constructed and delivered to Berefect in WCR, Mandwarr in LRR and No – Kunda gardens in NBR These helped women to safely store their onions for a longer period.

The cooperative has secured its legal registration.

44

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

O4. 100 youth receive training on enterprises they want to establish on the horticultural value chain

O4.1 100 small-scale enterprises established on the horticultural value chain

O5 75 Seed Diversity Networks Reached All Women Cooperatives and Kafos in the 5 Regions.

with office furniture and IT equipment # of youth who undergo training

effective and efficient discharge of their functions 100

100

# of certificates awarded from training centres

100

88

# of youth who receive step-down training

150

196

# of business plans developed and are operational for small-scale enterprises

100

88

# of loans granted

by NeMA scheme

100

0

# of new enterprises set up across 5 agricultural regions # of Seed Diversity Networks established

100

28

75

75

100 youths received training on horticulture value chain and agribusiness at NACT and WASDA training centres. However, only 88 students were able to complete the trainings.

88 youths completed the training, received certificates and developed business plans. The other 12 youths were not able to complete the training due to varied reasons.

According to the field reports, a total of 196 youths received stepdown training from the graduated students on production techniques, animal husbandry, poultry keeping, and how to develop a simple business plan.

Although the centres supported these students to develop simple business plans, Nema under the BD unit hired consultants to further support the students to develop a good business plan that will qualify for review by the committee for support. This coincided with the end of Nema phase one and the BDO said they will be considered during the second phase of the project.

During the first phase, no student received loan from the Nema project but through other projects, 28 students received some support.

The funding came from Global Environment Facility (GEF) through which NATC supported 25 students, and VIS project funded by Catholic Mission supported the other 3.

NATC facilitated the capitalization of 25 students through the GEF funding, and WASDA also capitalized 3 students from Catholic mission project called VIS A total of 75 Seed Diversity Networks were established (15 networks per region). The networks were set-up in strategic communities including market locations such as Ndungu Kebbeh and Kerr Pateh in NBR; Wassu in CRR/N; Sabi and Sare Ngai in URR; Brikama Ba in CRR/S; Bureng in LRR, and Brikama in WCR.

45

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

3.3 Evaluation Criteria 3: Sustainability Strong Partnerships and Co-operation towards ensuring sustainability: i.

The relationship between the NEMA program and implementing partners. ‘Learning and sharing’ between and among the implementing partners of NEMA program were prevalent during the entire project period. NeMA and UP together with other partners facilitated the linking of vegetable producers to various markets and potential buyers. This has helped to enhance information sharing and quality production that have greatly impacted on livelihoods improvement of families, including increased profitability and income for family sustenance, and improved nutritional levels.

ii. The relationship between implementing partners and beneficiaries. Partners provided a great deal of coaching and monitoring services to beneficiaries. They also conducted routine field visits to identify the capacity gaps and needs of beneficiaries, and they provided backstopping support to address those gaps and needs across the horticultural value chain. Furthermore, four local partners (NATC, FFHC, Hewal and Fangsoto) have applied and received grants from UNDP- GEF Funding to enhance producers’ capacity on climate-smart agricultural production techniques. This project has greatly enhanced the capacities of horticultural producers in NBR, LRR, CRR and WCR. iii. The relationship between UP/NeMA project, implementing partners, state authorities, development partners and the private sector. During the project implementation period, UP has developed and maintained a very good working relationship with NEMA PSU, technical units of the Ministry of Agriculture and other international organisations like ‘She Trade’ in the Gambia. A delegation from the ‘She Trade’ project and some representatives from the Ministry of Trade met with the UP staff, and shared with one another their respective initiatives on women’s empowerment in the agricultural and horticultural value chains in the country. Further, the said organizations came up with strategies on how to improve vegetable marketing by linking

46

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

producers to some exporters or middle level buyers that supply the markets. At the end of the meeting, a joint visit to 9 gardens in WCR and LRR was conducted with some of the buyers. The buyers (TROPINGO and GHE) went to see the garden sites and infrastructures available. TROPINGO has expressed its willingness to work with some of these gardens, and has eventually signed contracts with 5 gardens in WCR. Furthermore, ‘She Trade’ the Gambia with the Ministry of Trade and UP facilitated a meeting between representatives from the hotel association and horticultural producers. This meeting has enabled the interaction between the producers and large-scale buyers – what are the hotels’ need and how producers can link their production to the Tourism industry. The meeting was followed by a two-day training on quality production, packaging and negotiation skills, which was provided

by TROPINGO. At the end of the training, the Ministry of Trade and ‘She Trade’ representatives expressed their gratitude for the partnership with UP and they emphasized their willingness to continue the partnership.

UP has further engaged the hotels and established a Taskforce comprising relevant stakeholders that is mandated to look at how to bridge the gap between the vegetable producers and the hotels. The Taskforce included UP, the Hotel, Restaurants and Chefs Associations, the Ministries of Agriculture and Trade, NEMA and NAVGC. One of the recommendations from the discussions from the Taskforce meetings is the need to establish a vegetable supply centre that will enable hotels and other interested parties know where to go to when they need vegetables. Currently, this is one of the idea being discussed by the Cooperative and they have drafted a small concept on it, which they shared with some institutions. iv.

National Association of Vegetable Growers’ Cooperative (NAVGC). This APEX body was established by the 6 Marketing Federations from the 6 agricultural regions. They serve as the promoter of farmers’ rights at the national level. NAVGC has developed a logo; they also came up with a local name called ‘SOSOLASO’, which means ‘everyone in the country has a stake in vegetable value chain’.

47

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Bintou Danso using natural pesticide in her crops.

She exclaimed, “Organic

pesticides are good for the environment and for my vegetables too! I also encourage my friends to go natural as well.�

48

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

4. CASE STUDIES

Fatou Gassama, farmer “NEMA project is life changing.”

Fatou has been working the land since she was a teenager — over 15 years before the NEMA HORT project began. But in the days before NEMA, the work was hard and the rewards were small. With no in-depth knowledge on proper cultivation and a lack of highly quality seeds, Fatou could only grow low quality produce, the income from which could barely sustain her family. To make matters worse, before the project began, water was only available from a faraway, uncovered well, meaning hours were wasted fetching water, which was unsafe for Fatou and her family to drink. Through no other choice, Fatou and her children drank from the well, and were often get sick as a result.

Since the NEMA Horticulture project began, Fatou’s life has improved significantly. She learnt how to successfully grow nutritious, highly quality vegetables, which provided her family with healthy meals and a proper income. The NEMA project built multiple solar powered boreholes for the easy fetching of clean water, and a gravel road was constructed next to the garden, allowing Fatou and her fellow farmers easy access to the local market, while the increased motorbike traffic brings frequent customers from the surrounding areas.

For Fatou, the NEMA project has been life changing. With her increased income Fatou has been able to keep all her kids in school and purchase the materials they need to succeed, including schoolbooks and uniforms. When her children are sick, she can even take them to a private clinic and ensure they get proper medicines and healthcare. Fatou’s income has grown so large that she has been able to use the surplus to establish her own business — buying clothes, shoes and bags from Senegal to sell alongside her crops in the local market.

49

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Amie Krubally, farmer “Thanks to UP and NEMA, we are now a happier and healthier family!�

Before the NEMA project began, Amie used to work hard on her vegetable garden with little reward as the unfenced vegetables were often eaten by roaming animals, leaving her a limited income with which to support her family.

Since the project began, however, Amie has been able to spend less time working for a far greater reward. Through the project, fences have been built around the garden, protecting the vegetables from livestock and allowing the garden to expand. The NEMA built solar powered boreholes have also made maintaining the larger garden feasible through the easy access to water, which Amie and her family can also safely drink.

Amie is also grateful to NEMA for linking her garden with the BTM bio fortification project. Through this project, they now have access to highly nutritious bio-fortified seeds including orange flesh sweet potato, which have improved the health of not only Amie and her children, but all the mothers and young children in her community. Amie can visibly see how all the children in her community are now a healthy weight and developing well as a result.

Amie also credits the NEMA project with providing her with knowledge on the importance of organic farming. Before the project, the women used unhealthy artificial fertiliser, which came at a great financial and environmental cost. Now, Amie and her fellow farmers know how to make compost from readily available materials including animal waste, ensuring their plants grow quickly and free from harmful chemicals.

Because of the NEMA project, Amie’s garden has expanded from 1.5 hectares to more than 5, giving her a large income to keep her seven children well-fed, healthy, and in school.

50

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Fabakary Jatta, Extension Officer “I love my job at NEMA! I get to earn and at the same time do good for our farmers and communities.”

From the time Fabakary gained his university degree, he felt it was important to help his home community first. However, this task proved challenging alongside his job on a development project, and he had to dedicate weekends to helping the Brefet community garden for free. All this changed when the NEMA project began and hired him as an Extension Officer — improving his technical skills and paying him to assist multiple community gardens expand their own knowledge and increase their yields.

Using his new salary, Fabakary can now send his wife to agricultural school, allowing her to establish her own sustainable garden thereby providing their children with a stable double income.

Furthermore, with his increased income Fabakary has been able to begin beekeeping, further increasing his income by selling honey, while also improving the pollination of the garden and assisting the ailing bee population.

Fabakary also credits his community’s newfound success to the MIS (Market Information System) brought in by the NEMA project, which allows farmers to receive audio messages on crop prices. With this service, Fabakary and the farmers he leads are no longer undercut by market hagglers, allowing all a stable and sustainable income.

51

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Fatoumatta Jarjou, Student “I feel happy and confident …”

Fatoumatta may only be 14, but she has helped her mother cultivate vegetables after school for years.

Fatoumatta never minded helping, knowing that the profits from selling vegetables went towards her school fees and supplies, but before the NEMA project began the work was hard and took up nearly four to five hours of her day due to the time spent watering.

Since the NEMA project began, Fatoumatta is even happier to help. The work now takes under two hours as a result of the new solar powered boreholes, and she receives nutritious vegetables with which to cook — as well as plenty of surplus income with which her family can afford school supplies and healthcare. Moreover, Fatoumatta can now feel comfortable in the garden due to the NEMA built toilet allowing her the privacy and security a teenage girl desires.

Since the NEMA project began Fatoumatta feels happy and confident at school and intends to go on to university and study Social and Environmental Sciences, ensuring her family will experience many years of prosperity to come.

52

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Muhammed is just three years old and lost his mother when he was a baby. He’s being raised by his grandmother, Jaye, but in a country of food shortages, getting enough to eat with the required nutrients is a real struggle. The Baluu – Tim – Maring Ngo (BTM) project aimed with support of the NEMA Horticulture project at reaching women and the under-fives who are especially vulnerable (like Muhammed and Jaye), by increasing their access to, and encouraging them to eat, fortified foods high in vitamins and minerals.

Biofortification involves improving the nutritional quality of food crops through agricultural practices, such as plant breeding. It aims to increase nutritional levels in crops as they grow, rather than through processing or cooking. The project combines a focus on agriculture with an emphasis on healthier ways of food preparation and cooking, to improve nutritional content of food and boost public health.

Jaye (mother) and 3-year old Muhammed

Transforming nutritional health through a nationwide network of Mother Clubs. Another strategy for encouraging babies and toddlers to grow up healthily has involved establishing or strengthening 300 ‘Mother Clubs’ across the country. The rate of child mortality has decreased by over 50% in the last decade, but it is sadly still common for young children to die in the Gambia due to limited knowledge of nutrition and support offered to address this.

The Mother Clubs promote nutrition education, through sharing information and offering cooking demonstrations that show ways of preparing healthy and nutritionally balanced food. We work closely with women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, but also involve all women of child-bearing age.

Through these clubs, current and future mothers learn how to prepare healthy and nutrient-packed food that make up a balanced diet, to give their babies and toddlers the best possible start, at the most crucial time in their development.

“I could go on talking about our Club all day!”

Muhammed and Jaye are just two of the thousands of rural people who have benefited from our Mother Clubs project. When Jaye stepped in to bring Muhammed up, she found herself confused and at a loss. Having weaned her own children many years earlier, she was not sure how to go about feeding her young grandson without breastfeeding. She explains how their involvement in the Club has been invaluable to helping her find a solution: “Before I joined the Club, I had limited knowledge on how to prepare proper food for babies under three months old. The support of the Mother Club and training on how to prepare nutritious and healthy wholegrain porridge and healthy feeding practices, helped bring him up to this level.

“Before the start of the Mother Club, it used to be very difficult to bring up babies that had lost their mothers as there was no support. Many died due to limited knowledge and support. The importance of the Club to our community cannot be over-emphasised. I can go on talking about our Club all day!”

53

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

A group of young boys while waiting for their parents to finish their gardening work are enjoying a healthy and nutritious meal with vegetables harvested by their parents from the community garden.

54

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

5. RECOMMENDATIONS Acknowledging that there are still much that needs to be done despite of the success of the NEMA HORT project, these recommendations are based on the needs expressed by the communities. For the second phase of the project under NEMA ROOTS program, UP will put together a proposal that will mainly focus on:

Promotion of the development of the horticulture subsector by strengthening backward and forward linkages in the value chain of the subsector. The overall aim is to improve productivity, quality, value addition, and market linkages within the subsector to enhance its competitiveness towards reduced imports and increased exports as well as job creation, improved beneficiary incomes and increased economic opportunities for women and youth in the rural sector. It would serve to encourage farmers to diversify to high value crops production.

Specifically, to address the main constraints identified by the evaluation participants, the Examples of realistic follow-up action ideas focused on good agricultural practices (GAP) are cited as follows: •

Input supply: Ensure more diversified varieties and sustain good seed quality and if possible decentralised seed supply as much as possible;

•

Water management: Rehabilitation or construction of irrigation infrastructure in all the gardens, and advocate for an irrigation sector reform to the government;

•

Full season production: Train farmers on full season production and market-driven production. More diversification of vegetable items grown is needed with special focus on niche products at the expense of common vegetables to reduce market gluts. Rainy season production needs to be further developed as well through the introduction of more heat tolerant varieties for more successful staggering mainly in Western Region.

•

Improvement of technical knowledge and skills for improved agronomic practices and Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA). Increase the knowledge and capacity for improved production among smallholder farmers and processors as well as training of trainers to ensure the provision of advice and training on a continual basis to the farming community towards project sustainability;

•

Strengthening the capacity of national and local extension staff. Enhance the knowledge and skills of national and local extension staff to increase their effectiveness in the delivery of agricultural services to the farming communities. Support technical trainings in good agronomic practices, climate-smart technologies, etc.

55

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

The Prototype Onion Store

ANNEXES

56

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

ANNEX A. Questionnaire for Farmers This questionnaire is for the final evaluation of the United Purpose and NEMA project called ‘Improved Horticulture Techniques for Market-Oriented Enterprises in the Gambia’. Please answer all the questions as honestly as possible. Your answers will help us further improve the design and implementation of our future projects, as well as better meet your needs. The data/information that you will provide will be kept confidential.

Thank you very much.

Name (optional): _________________________________________ Garden: ______________________________ I.

Region: ________________

Village: __________________________

Sociodemographic characteristics

I.1 Respondent’s Sex:

a. Female

b. Male

I.3 What is your household size? a. 1-3 people b. 4-5 c. 6-8

I.2 Respondent’s Age: __________ d. 9-10 e. 11-20 f. more than 20

I.4 How long have you been a member of your garden group? ___________ I.5 Is horticultural production your main economic activity? a. Yes b. No If no, what is your main source of income? a. Livestock production & marketing b. Rice production & marketing c. Other agriculture, please specify ______________________________________________________ d. Small business, please specify what kind of business ______________________________________ e. Remittance from family members within country & abroad f. Others, please specify _______________________________________________________________ II.

Adoption of Improved Horticultural Techniques

II.1 What are the technical support you received from the NEMA project? Circle as many as apply. Kindly rate each of the item you encircled as to their level of importance for you.

Technical support Level of importance 5 = extremely important; 4 = very important; 3 = important; 2 = slightly important; 1 = low importance; 0 = not at all important a. Farm demonstration b. Training on compost making and organic fertilizers application c. Training on agronomic practices (nursery management, transplanting, plant management, etc) d. Mentoring on the development of business plans, production plans and market analysis e. Advises on Pest management f. Training on harvesting and marketing g. Seed Fairs (Advises on seed quality) h. Post-harvest techniques (processing and preservation) i. Others, pls specify I I.2 How satisfied are you with the design of the training and mentoring you received from the project?

5 Very satisfied 4 Satisfied 3 Slightly satisfied 2 Slightly dissatisfied

57

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

1 0 Why?

Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

II.3 How satisfied are you with the approaches of delivering the training and mentoring?

5 Very satisfied 4 Satisfied 3 Slightly satisfied 2 Slightly dissatisfied 1 Dissatisfied 0 Very dissatisfied Why? II.3 Did the training and mentoring support increase your knowledge and skills on horticultural techniques?

5 To a large degree 2 Little 4 To a medium degree 1 Very little 3 To some degree 0 Not at all How would you rate your skills on the following before and after the project?

Skill set Level of skills 5 = Exceptional; 4 = Very Good; 3 = Good; 2 = Slightly good; 1 = Weak/poor; 0 = Extremely poor/weak Before the project After the project Production plan development (crop production forecasting and crop estimation) Effective product preparation and marketing (cleaning, grading & sorting, storing, packaging and labeling) Collective bargaining and negotiating of the price of the product Collective marketing and selling of the product Business plan development and business management Market price collection and management Effective leadership Financial management and record keeping Financial literacy and savings Yield data collection / record keeping Others, pls specify III. Horticultural Production and Marketing III.1 Apart from the communal garden, where do you undertake horticultural production? (circle as many as apply) a. Home garden / individually owned garden b. In somebody’s orchard c. Farmer Field School d. Other, pls specify __________________________________________________________ III.2 Do you have knowledge about the different high-quality seed varieties, either obtained from attending the seed fairs or second-hand information from your co-farmers? a. Yes b. No If yes, were the Seed Fairs helpful in providing you information about high quality seed varieties? a. Yes b. No Why, or why not? ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ If no, proceed to Question III.5

58

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

III.3 What are the types of seeds that you obtained or learned about from the Seed Fairs? What was your experience in using those seeds, what can you say about the seeds’ quality, in terms of drought resistance, nutritional value, viability and accessibility? If the space is not enough, attach a different sheet of paper.

Types of the seeds Variety Quality 5 = Extremely Good; 4 = Very Good; 3 = Good; 2 = Slightly good; 1 = Weak/poor; 0 = Extremely poor/weak (Rate each seed characteristic accdg. to the scale above, encircle the number) drought resistant: nutritional value: viability: accessibility: Others, pls specify

5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0

III.4 Would you say that you are more knowledgeable now and are using more ‘improved and indigenous quality’ of seeds compared to before the project’s interventions?

Why, or why not?

a. Yes

b. No

III.5 What horticultural crops do you mainly produce? Circle as many as possible. We would like to understand how your crop yields have changed since the project has taken place in your community.

In a normal year (characterized by dry spells but no significant drought), what did your crop yields look like before the project intervention in 2017, and what is your average yield in the most recent agricultural year?

Vegetables Yield in GMD (kg) Yield in GMD (kg) Before the project Most recent agricultural year a. Tomatoes b. Okra c. Onion d. Cabbage e. Egg Plant f. Bitter Tomatoes g. Carrot h. Sorrel i. Hot Pepper j. Sweet Potato k. Cassava l. Big Pepper m. Others, pls specify III.5 What proportion of the produce is consumed (most recent agricultural year)? a. Less than 25% b. 25 – 50% c. 50 – 75% d. 75 – 100%

e. 100%

III.6 What proportion of the produce is sold (most recent agricultural year)? a. Less than 25% b. 25 – 50% c. 50 – 75% d. 75 – 100%

e. 100%

III.7 What proportion do you sell to: Consumers: a. all b. half (1/2) c. small (1/4) d. none Retailers: a. all b. half (1/2) c. small (1/4) d. none Wholesalers: a. all b. half (1/2) c. small (1/4) d. none Middlemen: a. all b. half (1/2) c. small (1/4) d. none Hoteliers / Restaurateurs: a. all b. half (1/2) c. small (1/4) d. none III.8 Do you know the prices of vegetables at the market before you harvest your produce? a. Yes b. No If yes, how do you determine what is the vegetable price at the market? a. I get the market and price information from colleagues through UP/NEMA’s Market Information System b. I get the market and price information from extension services and other NGOs c. I have no idea of the market situation, I just harvest

59

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

d. e.

Based on experience, I harvest knowing that there is demand for the produce any time I risk and harvest

III.9 What proportion can you sell anytime you harvest? a. All b. About half c. ¼ (small)

d. Almost none

III.10 What proportion is wasted? a. About half b. ¼ (small)

d. Almost none

c. 1/10 (very small)

III.11 Do you do any of the following before you sell your produce? Do you consider them a priority or not (priority level)? How often do you do any of them (frequency)?

Priority level Frequency 5 = essential; 4 = high priority; 3 = medium 5 = always; 4 = often; 3 = sometimes; priority; 2 = low priority; 1 = not a priority 2 = rarely; 1 = never Cleaning Grading and sorting Packaging Storage Preparation IV. Income from Horticultural Production IV. 1 We would like to understand how your income has changed since the NEMA Hort project has taken place in your community.

In a normal year (characterized by dry spells but no significant drought), what did your income look like before the project intervention in 2017, and how much did you earn in the most recent agricultural year?

Vegetables Income (GMD) Income (GMD) Price in GMD (per kg) Before the project Most recent Most recent agricultural agricultural year year a. Tomatoes b. Okra c. Onion d. Cabbage e. Egg Plant f. Bitter Tomatoes g. Carrot h. Sorrel i. Hot Pepper j. Sweet Potato k. Cassava l. Big Pepper m. Others, pls specify IV.2 How much do you spend producing horticultural crops each season on average? a. D1-500 b. D501-1000 c. D1001-1500 d. D1501-2000 e. D2001-2500 g. D3501-4000 h. above D4000

f. D2501-3000

IV.3 In total, how much money would you say you make from your gardening activities each season based on what you earn from the sale of produce and the money you spend of gardening?

IV.4 Comparing your income from last season or last agricultural year and prior to the start of the project, would you say that there were any improvements in your income? a. Yes b. No If yes, up to how many percentages? a. Less than 25% b. 25 – 50% c. 50 – 75% d. 75 – 100% e. 100% IV.5 If no, what do you see as your top three biggest problems hindering you from earning more from your gardening activity? (insert codes – if Code 18. Other Please Specify)

60

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Most important…………

If Other, please specify………….…………………………

Second most important…

If Other, please specify………….…………………………

Third most important…..

If Other, please specify………….…………………………

Codes: 1. access to enough good quality land 10. access to improved watering systems, i.e.

2. security of tenure on land pumps, drip irrigation 3. poor soil 11. knowing about market demand and price 4. poor quality infrastructure in garden (e.g. before harvesting fences, wells) 12. marketing skills 5. access to affordable, good quality seeds 13. poor linkages with the market and other 6. money to spend on tools or inputs (e.g. horticultural value chain actors fertilizers, compost, manure) 14. storage of produce 7. time for gardening 15. transport for taking produce to market 8. labour for gardening 16. organization/business skills 9. insufficient knowledge of improved 17. pest control horticultural techniques 18. others (please specify) V. Perception about the Marketing Federation In relation to your Marketing Federation, rate the following statements according to: 5 = Strongly agree; 4 = Agree; 3 = Somewhat agree; 2 = Disagree; 1 = Somewhat disagree; 0 = Strongly disagree; 77 = I do not know Statements Rating Comments The officers and/or board/committee members of our Marketing Federation have adequate competencies and skills to perform their tasks The services of our Federation respond to the needs of its members Our Federation defends the interests and needs of the members Our Federation is efficient in providing information and training to the members Our Federation is efficient and effective in providing us with access to inputs (seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, etc) We collectively sell our products through our Federation Our Federation facilitates access to credit and other financial services VI. Others VI.1 If there will be a second phase of the project: (If the space is not enough, pls. attach a different sheet) • What do you propose to do differently?

•

What do you want to see happen? Any new or scaled-up activities & strategies you want to propose?

VI.1 Any other comments and/or recommendations to UP and NEMA.

61

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

ANNEX B. FGD with the Farmers General Information (To be filled out by the facilitator) Fill this out in advance as much as possible.

Region: _____________________ District/Village: ____________________________ Number of Garden Groups represented: _______ List down the name of the garden groups:

Number of participants present: __________ Male: ___________

Female: __________

Date: ____________ Start time: _______________

Finishing time: _______________

Informed Consent Hello. My name is ______________________________ (please introduce the rest of the team as well), and we are working in United Purpose on our ‘Improved Horticulture Techniques for Market-oriented Enterprises’ project for its Final Evaluation. We are conducting focus group discussions and would appreciate your participation. We would like to ask you a few questions concerning the project. This information will help us to assess the project in order to improve it for the possible next phase. The focus group usually takes about 60 to 90 minutes to complete.

Participation in this focus group discussion is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any individual question or all of the questions. However, we hope that you will participate since your views are important. There are no right or wrong answers. We are here to gather information not to achieve concensus. Please respect when someone is speaking. You can freely speak in the language you are comfortable with. We‘ll have soda and biscuits for participants at the conclusion of the focus group discussion.

Do you agree to participate in this FGD? Please raise your hands if you agree. We’re also passing an attendance sheet and consent forms for you to fill out and sign.

At this time, do you want to ask me anything about the focus group discussion?

Self-introduction of the Participants: Ask the participants to introduce themselves briefly, their name, which garden and district are they from.

Discussion begins, make sure to give the participants time to think before answering the questions and don’t move too quickly. Use the probes to make sure that all issues are addressed, but move on when you feel you are starting to hear repetitive information.

62

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Questions: 1.

How relevant do you think the project is in addressing your needs and your community’s needs? In a rate of 1 to 4, 4 being the highest and 1 the lowest, how would you rate the project’s relevance or importance?

Probing questions: • Were you consulted during the project’s design stage, and did the project’s activities and approaches sufficiently consider your and your community’s needs and priorities?

• How effectively did the project compliment or overlap with other related development initiatives in your community?

2.

In what ways has the project assisted you in improving your horticultural techniques? What new skills and practices have you gained?

3. Did you use the skills you acquired to improve your situation? Why or why not?

Probing questions: • What can you say about the design of the training and mentoring you received from the project? How about the approaches in delivering those trainings? Were they effective in building your skills? Why or why not?

• What have been the main contributing factors for the results achieved?

• What have been the main limiting factors for the results achieved?

4.

What can you say about the Marketing Federation? Have the Federation improved their roles of and capacities on managing the gardens, and on linking the gardens to the markets? Why or why not?

Probing question: • What needs to be improved so that the marketing federations can effectively fulfill their roles?

5.

What has been the most significant change (positive or negative) in relation to the NEMA Horticulture project interventions? Ask each participant.

Probe on the following: 5.1 Describe your situation before the project (For example, ask the participants, how do their yield and income have changed since the NEMA Hort project has taken place in their community? What did their yield and income look like before the Nema Hort intervention in 2017, and how much did they harvest and earn in the most recent agricultural year?)

5.2 Why do you think the change did not happen before?

5.3 Describe your situation after the project. What has changed? What are they key outcomes/impacts to you and your family?

5.4 What do you consider the most significant change?

Possible themes/domains: A. Change in productivity, income and food security B. Women’s participation and changes in status C. Participatory market chain approach and changes in market access for the smallholder farmers D. Skills on horticultural techniques and large-scale awareness E. Agro-enterprises formed along the horticultural value chain, partnership development and job creation 6. We talked about the personal changes that happened to you, now how did this project impact the community? Talk about the actual change that happened in the community.

7. In your view, what have been some of the project’s main challenges or constraints?

Probing: • These could be external or internal constraints • How do you feel UP and partners have responded to these challenges?

• How could they improve on these challenges in the future?

Challenges How to Improve 8.

If ever there’ll be a project’s phase 2, what do you want to see happen? Any new or scaled-up activities & strategies you want to propose?

63

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

ANNEX C. FGD with the Marketing Federation (For the Facilitator & Note Takers) General Information (To be filled out by the facilitator) Fill this out in advance as much as possible.

Region: _______________________________ _____________________________________ Number of participants present: __________ Male: ___________

Marketing

Federation:

Female: __________

Date: ____________ Start time: _______________

Finishing time: _______________

Informed Consent Hello. My name is ______________________________ (please introduce the rest of the team as well), and we are working in United Purpose on our ‘Improved Horticulture Techniques for Market-oriented Enterprises’ project for its Final Evaluation. We are conducting focus group discussions and would appreciate your participation. We would like to ask you a few questions concerning the project. This information will help us to assess the project in order to improve it for the possible next phase. The focus group usually takes about 60 to 90 minutes to complete.

Participation in this focus group discussion is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any individual question or all of the questions. However, we hope that you will participate since your views are important. There are no right or wrong answers. We are here to gather information not to achieve concensus. Please respect when someone is speaking. You can freely speak in the language you are comfortable with. We‘ll have soda and biscuits for participants at the conclusion of the focus group discussion.

Do you agree to participate in this FGD? Please raise your hands if you agree. We’re also passing an attendance sheet and consent forms for you to fill out and sign.

At this time, do you want to ask me anything about the focus group discussion?

Self-introduction of the Participants: Ask the participants to introduce themselves briefly, their name, which garden and district are they from.

Discussion begins, make sure to give the participants time to think before answering the questions and don’t move too quickly. Use the probes to make sure that all issues are addressed, but move on when you feel you are starting to hear repetitive information.

9.

How relevant do you think the project is in addressing the needs of your Federation? In a rate of 1 to 4, 4 being the highest and 1 the lowest, how would you rate the project’s relevance or importance? Why? Probing questions: • Were you consulted during the project’s design stage, and did the project’s activities and approaches sufficiently consider your and your community’s needs and priorities?

• How effectively did the project compliment or overlap with other related development initiatives in your Federation / community?

10. To what extent has the project contributed to strengthening your Marketing Federation? Did you use the knowledge and skills you acquired to improve your Federation? Why or why not?

64

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Probing questions: • What have been the main contributing factors for the results achieved?

• What have been the main limiting factors for the results achieved?

11. Did the project governance facilitate good results and efficient delivery? Is there a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities by all partners involved? Do you have a clear understanding of the Federation’s role? How efficient is the communication between UP and partners to manage the project?

12. What has been the most significant change (positive or negative) for your Federation in relation to the NEMA Horticulture project interventions?

Probe on the following: 12.1Describe the Federation’s situation before the project 12.2Why do you think the change did not happen before?

12.3Describe your situation after the project. What has changed? What are they key outcomes/impacts to the Federation?

12.4What do you consider the most significant change?

Before the project: Main constraints: Why the change did not happen before?

After the project: Key outcomes Most significant change: 13. In your view, what have been some of the project’s main challenges or constraints?

Probing: • These could be external or internal constraints • How do you feel UP and partners have responded to these challenges?

• How could they improve on these challenges in the future?

Challenges How to Improve

14. If ever there’ll be a project’s phase 2, what do you want to see happen? Any new or scaled-up activities & strategies you want to propose?

A second part of the FGD with the Marketing Federations is a self-assessment. Distribute the questionnaire to the participants.

• Ask the participants to fill out the socio-demographic section of the questionnaire. They should be done in 2 mins.

• Then, ask the participants to rate the following statements according to: 5 = Strongly agree; 4 = Agree; 3 = Somewhat agree; 2 = Disagree; 1 = Somewhat disagree; 0 = Strongly disagree; 77 = I do not know, and write the number of their choice in the second column of the table. Go through each of the statement, and ask them if they understand the statement. To help them in answering, ask them the discussion points below, just ask 1-2 people per question and try to control their responses – make it really brief but concise.

Give them at most 30 seconds to answer each statement.

Statements II.1 MEMBERSHIP BASE A. Our group has clearly formulated the objectives it wants to reach

Discussion Points

Responses to the Discussion Points

• What does formulating objectives entail? How did your group formulate the objectives?

• To what extent are objectives translated in practical results to be achieved and monitored?

B. These objectives are shared with all individual members of the Marketing Federation

65

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Statements C. The conditions/requirements for adhering to our organization are clearly defined D. In our community, all people who want to, can be member of our Marketing Federation E. We have a member register that is up-to-date

F. Communication with our Federation is well organized, and members are well informed G. All members regularly pay their membership fee and other contributions

Discussion Points

Responses to the Discussion Points

Are the requirements for being a recognized member and obligations for being a member clear & properly communicated?

This statement relates to the preceding on, and will also show that the conditions for adherence may or may not precisely defined.

Does the Federation analyses member characteristics (gender, age, size of holding, livestock ownership, etc) and more importantly, how does your group adapt services to the needs of different members?

How does communication / information flow in your group?

What are the membership fees and other contributions? Are the fees fixed rates for all or do they vary? How are they collected? By whom? Are there any sanctions for late payees? Are these applied?

H. All members actively participate in • What can be done to improve member the activities of our Federation participation?

• What are the activities that could be undertaken by the Federation to improve member participation?

II.2 GOVERNANCE, LEADERSHIP AND INTERNAL DEMOCRACY I. The internal regulations of our • Do you have written regulations or byorganization are well documented laws?

• How were the regulations formulated?

J. All members know the internal regulations K. The statutory bodies of our • Are the officers effectively performing organization (committee/ board, their roles and responsibilities? Do they officers, etc.) function according to have the right skills? Why or why not? their mandates • What needs to be improved?

L. The officers and/or members of the How are they elected? board/committee are democratically and transparently elected M. Women and youth are sufficiently • How many are women and how many represented in the elected bodies are youth officers and/or in of our organization boards/committees at different levels?

N. Important decisions are taken • How often does the meeting occur? during meetings during where Who are involved in the meetings? everybody can share his point of • Do participants in meetings inform view other members about decisions that were made?

Score for this can be related to some concerns about internal communication

66

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Statements

Discussion Points

Responses to the Discussion Points

• Do they have written plans? How do they do planning?

• How can planning be improved?

• How often do you do monitoring? What do you monitor, i.e. yields, income, etc?

Who does the monitoring?

• How can monitoring and evaluation be improved?

II.3 MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES Q. The officers and/or • What skills are available and enhanced board/committee members have through the project? adequate competencies and skills • What skills need to be improved? to perform their tasks R. We write down important financial data of the organization S. Our organization has a manual describing how money is handled T. Important documents are well kept What does ‘keeping important documents’ entail?

U. Our organization can function well • How much is the actual budget that you without outside financial support are handling? Apart from membership fees, where do you get your funds?

• How do you think you can achieve financial independence?

V. The officers and/or board/committee explains how resources and income of the organization have been used II.4 COLLABORATION AND ALLIANCES W. Our Federation is legally recognized X. If we want something to be done Who do you collaborate with? NGOs? we seek collaboration with others Other marketing federations?

Y. We work together with local and How is your relationship with the local national authorities and national authorities? What types of support you do you get from them?

Z. Our organization works together Are there concrete examples of with non-governmental collaboration with NGOs? Which NGOs? organizations and projects AA. Our organization has formal Are there concrete examples of relations with private collaboration with the private sector? enterprises/organizations Which private org?

BB. We exchange our experiences Which Marketing Federation/s? with other Marketing Federations II.5 SERVICE PROVISION TO MEMBERS CC. The services of our Federation What are then the services that are most respond to the needs of its appreciated? members DD. Our Federation defends the How do you defend the interests and interests and needs of the needs of the members? members EE. Our organization is efficient in providing information and training to the members O. Every year, our Federation elaborates an annual plan that indicates what we are going to do P. We regularly monitor and evaluate the results that we have obtained

67

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Statements FF.

Thanks to our Federation we can have inputs (seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, etc) we would otherwise not have

GG. We collectively sell our products through our Federation HH. Our Federation facilitates access to credit and other financial services

Discussion Points

Responses to the Discussion Points

• To what extent does the Federation manage to facilitate access to inputs of farmers/farmers groups? • Any key issues to facilitating access to inputs?

How does your Federation facilitate collective selling? Where do you sell?

How does your Federation facilitate access to credit and other financial services? Any concrete examples where the Federation successfully facilitated access?

68

Final Report and Evaluation of the NEMA HORT project

Photo credits: Jason Florio

69