Background
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) that provides relief and development assistance in more than 100 countries around the world. CRS has been working in Madagascar since 1962, supporting relief and development activities in the country. Through local partners, CRS has implemented programs in all 22 regions of the country, focusing on resilience, agricultural livelihoods and land restoration, private sector engagement, education, health, water, sanitation and hygiene, youth, and emergency response and recovery. CRS has also developed strong relationships with government ministries, private sector partners, other NGO actors, including USG programs, and the communities we serve in the country, implementing a portfolio of multi-sectoral programs. CRS has significant programming in southeast and southwest Madagascar, implementing and supporting humanitarian response and resilience projects.
Madagascar’s Anosy and Atsimo Adrefana regions have the highest multidimensional poverty rates in the country (90%), with limited access to basic services such as education, health, water and infrastructure. Approximately 83% of households live in rural areas and depend on agriculture (crops and livestock), with crop sales and farm labor being the most common sources of income. At the same time, people in the target districts face a cycle of food insecurity due to multiple challenges, including climate risks such as recurrent droughts, crop pests, price inflation and insecurity, which have depleted their assets and affected their livelihoods, health and nutrition, leading to food insecurity.
Despite these challenges, both regions offer many opportunities for inclusive and sustainable agriculture-based economic growth. From production to processing, these regions have great potential for market-driven development through partnerships with farming communities, the private sector, and government actors. To address key challenges in these two regions and catalyze opportunities in the agricultural sector, CRS and its partners are launching the new USDA-funded Food for Progress (FFPr) project, called Miranga, which will contribute to the U.S. Government’s Comprehensive Food Security Strategy.
- MIRANGA Project Information
Miranga, with an estimated operating budget of $15.897 million, including a cost share of $300.000, is a USDA Food for Progress (FFPr) project (2024-2029) implemented by CRS, Miarakap, Venture37, and Kansas State University (KSU) in collaboration with the private sector to improve food and nutrition security in southeast and southwest Madagascar by working with 16, 000 producers to strengthen climate-resilient production systems of food and cash crops (pulses, cassava, pink peppercorn, coffee) and leverage more than $5 million in private sector-led investments to expand domestic and international trade. In doing so, the project will catalyze economic growth in the targeted regions and transform the lives of large and small producers and entrepreneurs by strengthening 320 producer organizations (POs) and co-investing in 51 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) through an Innovation and Market Expansion Fund (IMEF) and seed grants to continue and expand activities beyond the project period.
Project goal and objectives
The goal of Miranga is to improve food and nutrition security in Madagascar’s Southeast and Southwest regions through a multi-value chain approach to enhance agricultural productivity, producer incomes, and trade for pulses, cassava, pink peppercorn, and coffee. Table 1 summarizes the project’s Intermediate Results (IRs) and Foundational Results (FRs). The project Results Framework is included in Annex 1.
Strategic Objectives
Intermediate / Foundational Results
SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
- 1.1: Improved Quality of Land and Water Resources
- 1.2: Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Techniques and Technologies
- 1.3: Improved Farm Management (Operations, Financial)
SO2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products (Domestic, Regional, and International)
- 2.1: Increased Value Added to Post-Production Agricultural Products
2.2: Increased Access to Markets to Sell Agricultural Products
2.3: Improved Transaction Efficiency
Foundational results
1.4.1 / 2.4.1: Increased Capacity of Government Institutions
1.4.2 / 2.4.2: Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework
1.4.3 / 2.4.3: Increased Access to Improved Market and Climate Information
1.4.4: Improved Capacity of Key Groups in the Agriculture Production Sector / 2.4.4: Improved Capacity of Key Organizations in the Trade Sector
1.4.5 / 2.4.5: Increased Leverage of Private-Sector Resources
Purpose and Scope of the Baseline
The Miranga Evaluation Plan (EP) is designed to improve program performance by ensuring the achievement of project outcomes, strategic goals, and objectives. The plan complies with the USDA Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Policy, including the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 1499.12 applicable to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FFPr Program. It is consistent with the International Food Assistance Division (IFAD) Monitoring and Evaluation Policy and follows the CRS MEAL Policies and Procedures (MPPs), which integrate best practices for gender-responsive M&E, accountability, and learning. The EP includes three key evaluations: baseline, midterm, and endline.
CRS is seeking an international independent consulting firm to work closely with a Malagasy consulting firm to lead the Miranga baseline assessment and to support in-country work and logistics. The baseline assessment will be conducted between March and June 2025 with four objectives:
- Establish and verify baseline values for the performance indicators that require a baseline value, as defined in the project’s Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), providing a point of comparison for measuring progress.
- Provide contextual information to validate the critical assumptions of the project ToC for interpreting midterm and final results, including confirmation and validation of selected (or new) value chains to be included in the activity.
- Suggest adjustments to the project design, monitoring plan, and targets, if necessary, before implementation.
- Propose recommendations to potentially improve impact, scalability and move towards sustainability.
- Validate whether the portfolio of value chains proposed by CRS are the ones with the greatest potential to achieve the project’s goal and strategic objectives and are appropriate given the project’s scope and budget
Performance Indicators (PI) that require a Baseline Value (BV)
The following table provides a full list of the indicators that will be part of the proposed baseline study.
#
Strategic Objective or Intermediate Result
Performance Indicator
Type
6
SO1. Increased Agricultural Productivity
Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USDA assistance
Cassava – SE
Standard USDA FFPr Outcome Indicator #1
Cassava – SW
Cowpeas
Black-eyed peas
Lima beans
Coffee
Pink peppercorn
7
SO1. Increased Agricultural Productivity
SO2. Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products
Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance
Cassava – SE
Standard USDA FFPr Outcome Indicator #19
Cassava – SW
Cowpeas
Black-eyed peas
Lima beans
Coffee
Pink peppercorn
8
SO1. Increased Agricultural Productivity
SO2. Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products
Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance
Cassava – SE
Standard USDA FFPr Outcome Indicator #18
Cassava – SW
Cowpeas
Black-eyed peas
Lima beans
Coffee
Pink peppercorn
9
SO1. Increased Agricultural Productivity
SO2. Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products
Daily per capita expenditures (as a proxy for income) in USG-assisted areas
Southeast
FTF Outcome Indicator
#EG.3-j
Southwest
10
SO1. Increased Agricultural Productivity
SO2. Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products
Percent of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS)
Poor FCS
BHA Outcome Indicator
#FS01
Borderline FCS
Acceptable FCS
11
IR 1.1: Improved Quality of Land and Water Resources
Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance
Southeast
Standard USDA FFPr Outcome Indicator #3
IR 1.2: Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Techniques and Technologies
Southwest
12
IR 1.3: Improved Farm Management (Operations, Financial)
Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance
Southeast
Standard USDA FFPr Outcome Indicator #4
Southwest
13
Sub-IR 1.1.1: Mixed Climate-Resilient Production Systems
Farmer’s gross net margin per hectare obtained with USG assistance
Southeast
Custom Outcome indicator
Southwest
14
Sub-IR 1.2.1: Increased Availability of Improved Inputs
Number of farmers utilizing inputs that meet quality standards
Good quality seeds
Custom Outcome indicator
Non-harmful and not banned agrochemicals
15
Sub-IR 1.2.2: Improved Infrastructure to Support On-Farm Production
Number of people implementing risk-reduction actions to improve resilience to climate change as supported by USG assistance
CCS Outcome Indicator #EG.II-6
19
Sub-IR 1.2.4: Increased Knowledge by Farmers of Improved Ag Techniques and Technologies
Number of individuals who have achieved at least a functional level of competence with USDA assistance
Regenerative Agriculture Competencies
Custom Outcome indicator
Holistic Plant Health and Productivity Competencies
Sub-IR 1.3.1: Improved Knowledge Regarding Farm Management
Financial Competencies
Marketing Competencies
20
IR 2.1: Increased Value Added to Post-production Agricultural Products
Value added to annual sales of firms receiving USDA assistance
Cassava flour
Custom Outcome indicator
Cassava chips
Pulses: dried, sorted, and packed
Lima beans: canned
Coffee: dried and sorted
Pink peppercorn: grade 1
Pink peppercorn: grade 2
22
IR 2.3: Improved Transaction Efficiency
Percentage of product loss in post-harvest handling
Custom Outcome indicator
23
Sub-IR 2.1.1: Improved Quality of Post-Production Agricultural Products
Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance
Higher value markets
Standard USDA Outcome Indicator #18
24
Sub-IR 2.1.2: Increased Efficiency of Post-Production Processes
Percentage of production that meets quality and food safety standards
Custom Outcome indicator
25
Sub-IR 2.1.3, 2.2.1: Improved Marketing of Agriculture Products
Number of producers who have long-term relationships with buyers to sell their products as a result of USDA assistance
Custom Outcome indicator
26
Sub-IR 2.2.2: Improved Linkages Between Buyers and Sellers
Quality and inclusiveness of buyer-seller relationships
Custom Outcome indicator
27
Sub-IR 2.3.2: Improved Management Practices of Buyers’ and Sellers’ Groups Within the Trade Sector
Number of farmers engaged in collective marketing as a result of USDA assistance
Custom Outcome indicator
33
FR 1.4.3: Increased Access to Improved Market and Climate Information
Number of farmers who access climate and production-related information for decision-making as a result of USDA assistance
Southeast
Custom Outcome indicator
Southwest
34
FR 2.4.3: Increased Access to Improved Market and Climate Information
Number of farmers and firms who access market and other relevant information for decision-making as a result of USDA assistance
Southeast
Custom Outcome indicator
Southwest
39
Gender equity and equality
Five domains of empowerment (5DE) score for women
FTF Outcome Indicator EG.3-i
In order to conduct the baseline evaluation, the external evaluation team should therefore be familiar with the project’s results framework, performance indicators, EP, PMP, USDA M&E Evaluation Policy, and USDA/FAS Food Assistance Evaluation Policy, Section 508. Important criteria for the selection of the firm, which will also be contracted for the mid-term and final evaluations, subject to their performance, are 1) proven expertise in evaluation and data analysis, 2) proven ability to analyze and synthesize study findings into an easily readable and clear report and other communication materials suitable for dissemination to various Miranga stakeholders and participants, and 3) expertise in engaging diverse stakeholders in collective interpretation of findings for action. All evaluation reports will be reviewed using the CRS checklist for reviewing USDA evaluation reports.
Data Collection Tools
- CRS will provide the independent consultancy firm with data collection tools 1 and 2, and module 1 for tool 5, as explained below. The external consultants will review these tools and revise them as necessary in consultation with CRS. Once these tools are revised and finalized, CRS will make the data collection forms available on the CommCare mobile platform, using digital systems to improve speed, efficiency and accuracy, and to reduce loss of information. The independent consultancy firm will be responsible for designing / adapting tools 3 and modules 2-4 for Tool 5, which will be reviewed, and revised as needed, in collaboration with CRS and Miarakap.
- CRS will provide mobile data collection devices (Tablets)
Tool 1: Competencies and Profitability Assessment Digital Application (CRS)
This data collection tool is designed using tested questionnaires that will be adapted to collect data from crop producers to evaluate indicators related to cassava, pulses, coffee and pink peppercorn producers’ competencies, production, productivity, production costs, sales and profits. This data collection tool includes the following modules, which will be applied to a sample of participating producers as appropriate:
- MODULE 1.1: Introduction and consent
- MODULE 1.2: Field and crop information
- MODULE 1.3: Cassava competencies, production, costs and sales
- MODULE 1.4: Pulses competencies, production, costs and sales
- MODULE 1.5: Coffee competencies, production, costs and sales
- MODULE 1.6: Pink peppercorn competencies, production, costs and sales
- MODULE 1.7: Other crops production costs and sales
- MODULE 1.8: Financial and agricultural marketing competencies
Tool 2: Producers’ household survey (CRS)
This data collection tool is designed using tested questionnaires that will be adapted to collect data from project participants to collect household level data and includes three modules:
- MODULE 2.1: Abbreviated household expenditures
- MODULE 2.2: Five Domains of Empowerment (5DE) score for women in agriculture
- MODULE 2.2: Food Consumption Score (FCS)
- Tool 3: SMEs Survey (Consultant)
This data collection tool will be designed / adapted to collect data to estimate the indicators related to participating SMEs from each type of SME: 1) input suppliers (seeds and other inputs); 2) service providers (extension agents, PSPs, agribusiness coaches and cooperative managers); 3) POs and cooperatives; and 4) individually owned SMEs.
- MODULE 3.1: Volume and Value Commodity Sold
- MODULE 3.2: Quality and food safety standard
This data collection tool will be designed and applied in consultation with Miarakap. The consultant will need to engage with project private sector beneficiaries to present the security management and security protocols that will be used for ensuring that their sensitive business information will be protected. This will be essential to gain their confidence for them to share the needed data to evaluate the indicators that depend on this data.
Tool 4: Module 1: LINK methodology scorecard (CRS)
The Link Methodology Scorecard is designed to assess relationships among value chain actors and will enable the program to evaluate the quality and inclusiveness of buyer-seller trading relationships within new business models, access to agricultural finance, and access to market information. The methodology is based on facilitated group discussions and semi-structured interviews with supply chain actors. This will require conducting:
- At least 40 semi-structured interviews with different supply chain actors, 10 for each of the selected supply chains: cassava, pulses, coffee and pink peppercorn.
- Four workshops with different value chain actors, one for each of the above supply chains.
- A maximum of 20 semi-structured interviews with different supply chain actors for supply chains with potential that were not selected in the project design phase.
Tool 4: Modules 2-4
- Modules 2-4 of Tool 4 will be designed by the consultancy firm in consultation with CRS and Miarakap to collect data on:
- MODULE 5.2: Public-private partnerships
- MODULE 5.3: Value of new public and private investment leveraged
- MODULE 5.4: Secondary context data on climate, production, demand and price trends, and relevant policies
- This will involve a maximum of 20 semi-structure interviews with key informants at the national, regional, and local levels, and the collection and analysis of secondary data.
Required Application Components
Interested consultants should submit:
(1) A technical proposal and budget for carrying out the baseline assessment of no more than 15 pages;
(2) Letters of reference for similar/related assignments carried out in the last 5 years;
(3) CVs of the international consultant (team leader) and the local consultant (for International Firm).
(4) A sample of similar work carried out by the consultant.
(5) Completion of Annex A.
Technical proposals should include/specify the following:
- A description of the individual’s expertise and a list of relevant evaluations undertaken in the last 5 years (maximum 2 pages).
- The consultant’s understanding of the ToR, the appropriateness of the proposed evaluation design, and corresponding timeline (maximum 2 pages).
- A description of the selected methodologies and the corresponding collection tools to be used (maximum 4 pages).
- A detailed plan for data analysis and reporting (maximum 2 pages)
- A detailed implementation plan outlining all the activities that will be undertaken to meet the purpose, scope and objectives of the evaluation (3 pages).
- A detailed budget with explanatory notes (maximum 2 pages).
- The CV of the selected local consultant/firm to oversee the data collection, to ensure data quality, to coordinate with the various stakeholders to conduct focus groups and/or in-depth interviews, and to organize the local logistical support to conduct the baseline evaluation.
Daily rate and payment
- Daily rate will be agreed upon between the consultant and Miranga/CRS and paid as outlined in the final consultancy agreement.
