Tomato Past

Project Evaluation Series
07/2021
Evaluation of the “Food-loss

reduction through improved
postharvest handling and
value addition of key fruits and
vegetables” project in Ethiopia
Project Evaluation Series
07/2021
Evaluation of the “Food-loss reduction

through improved postharvest handling and
value addition of key fruits and vegetables”
project in Ethiopia
Project code: GCP/ETH/088/GER
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2021
Required citation:
FAO. 2021. Evaluation of the “Food-loss reduction through improved postharvest handling and value addition of key fruits and vegetables”
project in Ethiopia. Project Evaluation Series, 07/2021. Rome.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status
of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of
specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed
or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.
ISBN 978-92-5-134743-0
© FAO, 2021
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence
(CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode/legalcode).
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work
is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or
services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative
Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This
translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content
or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.
Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8
of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual
Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the
Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images,
are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The
risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased
through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request.
Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.
Cover photographs: ©FAO Ethiopia

Abstract
The evaluation of the “Food-loss reduction through improved postharvest handling and value addition of
key fruits and vegetables” project in Ethiopia was undertaken by the Office of Evaluation (OED) of the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) with a view to assessing project outcomes,
their sustainability and impact, as well as identifying future actions to ensure the continuity of the
processes developed.
In addition to providing accountability to the donor – the German Federal Ministry of Food and
Agriculture – key national counterparts and project beneficiaries, the evaluation draws lessons on the
postharvest handling of fruits and vegetables that will inform the development of future interventions
and the mobilization of funds for a new phase of work in Ethiopia.
The evaluation covered all activities implemented by the project from 1 June 2016 to 31 December 2019
in three regions (Amhara, Oromia and the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region) for four
value chains (potatoes, tomatoes, bananas and mangoes). Data collection was mainly conducted through
online and telephone interviews due to the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic and the deterioration
of the security situation.
The project addressed one of the major challenges faced by producers – postharvest losses. Farmers have
adopted project postharvest management practices, techniques and technologies that have helped to
reduce losses and increase food security by boosting income and making more produce available for
household consumption. The results will be sustainable because of the economic gains the farmers are
seeing and the adaptability of practices and technologies. FAO should now work to ensure that the
planned processing facilities finalized and running and that practices, techniques and technologies are
scaled up to other areas.
The project was a good pilot for institutionalizing postharvest management in Ethiopia’s agricultural
extension system; it now features heavily in its horticultural development strategy. Institutional reform to
raise the status of horticulture is a prime illustration of project sustainability. FAO should mobilize
resources for a second phase, focusing on consolidating operations in the original project communities
and replicating the initiative in other areas where the production potential is higher.
iii
Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ vii
Abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................................................ viii
Executive summary .................................................................................................................................. ix
1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of the evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Intended users ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Scope and objectives of the evaluation............................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Stakeholder engagement ....................................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Limitations .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2. Background and context .................................................................................................................. 9
2.1 Project context............................................................................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Project description .................................................................................................................................................... 9
3. Findings ............................................................................................................................................ 11
3.1 To what extent was the project relevant to national priorities and responsive
to beneficiaries’ needs? ........................................................................................................................................11
3.2 Was the project coherent with other projects on fruit and vegetable production
and food loss implemented by FAO or other partners in the same areas? .....................................12
3.3 Have activities implemented by the project contributed to achieving the main
project outputs? ......................................................................................................................................................13
3.4 To what extent has the project contributed to its overarching outcome and
final goal?...................................................................................................................................................................18
3.5 To what extent are project results sustainable? ..........................................................................................22
3.6 To what extent was the project implemented efficiently? ......................................................................24
3.7 Were gender-equality considerations reflected in project design and
implementation? .....................................................................................................................................................26
3.8 What capacity-development results did the project achieve?...............................................................27
4. Conclusions and recommendations .............................................................................................. 29
4.1 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................29
4.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................30
References ............................................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix 1. People interviewed ........................................................................................................... 34
v
Box, figure and tables
Box
Box 1. Main evaluation questions ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure
Figure 1. Outputs, outcome and project end goal...........................................................................................................10
Tables
Table 1. Overview of people contacted for data collection ............................................................................................ 3
Table 2. Project stakeholders and how they could benefit from this evaluation ................................................... 5
Table 3. Summary of outputs planned and achieved by the project ........................................................................14
Table 4. Exposure visits and experience gained ................................................................................................................16
Table 5. Number of documents produced and disseminated .....................................................................................17
vi
Acknowledgements
The Office of Evaluation (OED) would like to thank all those who contributed to this evaluation. The
evaluation team comprised Bezabih Emana, lead evaluator and agricultural economist, and Honey Hassan,
team member and gender expert.
The invaluable assistance, insights, knowledge, advice and comments of FAO Ethiopia personnel at
Country Office and regional field-office level made this evaluation possible.
The evaluation benefited from the inputs of many other stakeholders, including government officers and
experts from the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and the bureaux of agriculture in Oromia, Amhara and
the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR). In the target project woredas, project
focal points, development agents, cooperative representatives and beneficiary farmers responded to
evaluation questions. Their contributions were critical to the team’s work and are sincerely appreciated.
vii
Abbreviations and acronyms
DLS Diffused light storage
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
OED FAO Office of Evaluation
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region
viii
Executive summary
1. The evaluation of the “Food-loss reduction through improved postharvest handling and value
addition of key fruits and vegetables” project in Ethiopia was undertaken by the Office of
Evaluation (OED) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) with a
view to assessing project outcomes, their sustainability and impact, as well as future actions to
ensure the continuity of the processes developed.
2. In addition to providing accountability to the donor, key national counterparts and project
beneficiaries, the evaluation draws lessons on the postharvest handling of fruits and vegetables
that will inform the potential upscaling of the project in Ethiopia, the development of future
interventions and the mobilization of funds for a new phase of work.
3. The evaluation covered all activities implemented by the project from 1 June 2016 to 31 December
2019 in three regions (Amhara, Oromia and the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’
Region [SNNPR]) for four value chains (potatoes, tomatoes, bananas and mangoes). Data
collection was mainly conducted through online and telephone interviews due to the constraints
of the COVID-19 pandemic and the deterioration of the security situation.
Summary of main findings and conclusions
4. The project aligned well with national priorities and filled an existing gap in data on the extent of
fruit and vegetable postharvest losses in Ethiopia. By tackling postharvest losses, the project
addressed one of the major challenges faced by producers. Due to a lack of appropriate storage
facilities and an inability to process the produce, losses are very high. The project focused on four
value chains which are highly relevant to the beneficiaries and the Ethiopian economy, both in
terms of production, food security, nutrition and income.
5. The project introduced improved technologies and practices. These techniques have been widely
disseminated, with capacity-development and awareness-raising exercises conducted in the
target areas and beyond. Fruit and vegetable processing centres were constructed, and
equipment was supplied for use by processing cooperatives. Twenty-four cooperatives (12
focused on fruit and vegetable production and marketing and 12 on processing) were established,
supported and registered.
6. The project’s training approach was effective, reaching a large number of beneficiaries and
stakeholders in the extension sector. Capacity-development activities on postharvest handling
and value addition, including processing and marketing, were conducted for government
personnel, farmers, cooperative members and other stakeholders, consisting of training,
awareness-raising workshops and the development of manuals. Stakeholder awareness was raised
on topics including the causes, extent and mitigation of postharvest losses and the management
and strengthening of cooperatives. While postharvest losses happen all along the value chain,
FAO’s capacity-development efforts with regard to postharvest loss reduction focused mainly on
producers and did not target other actors in the chain.
7. Farmers have adopted project postharvest management practices and technologies and as a
result, postharvest losses in target fruits and vegetables have been reduced. The project directly
contributed to greater availability of food for household consumption over longer periods. In
addition, beneficiaries interviewed indicated increased incomes thanks to the rise in quality and
quantity of produce and improved storage facilities that enabled farmers to choose an
appropriate time to sell, when prices were high. The results will be sustainable because of the
ix
economic gains the farmers are seeing and the adaptability of practices and technologies. No
evidence was found that demonstrated an increase in dietary diversity.
8. The evaluation found that the overall outcome and end goal of the project were only partly
achieved, as the cooperatives organized for processing fruits and vegetables were not yet
operational, as the equipment yet to be installed. The completion of the processing centres was
delayed in part by prolonged administrative processes for acquiring land and also by the
limitations of certain implementation arrangements which affected project efficiency. The
budgetary revision approval process also required long time. In addition, the profitability of the
processing businesses is not yet known as no feasibility study was conducted. Young people
trained in processing for these centres have been waiting for activity to start. They are
unemployed, so desperate to earn a livelihood from the business.
9. Key informants said that marketing has been a major challenge for horticultural products and will
continue to be when the processing centres are completed. Moreover, not all types of horticultural
produce can be processed by the centres. Tailored intervention is needed for the marketing
cooperatives as their requirements differ from those of the processing cooperatives. A shortage
of working capital, inappropriate transport facilities, a lack of proper storage, a dearth of
management skills and market linkages are all key areas that need to be addressed.
10. The study conducted for this project provided evidences of the size and significance of post-
harvest losses, which were previously undocumented. It also showed how use of technologies and
techniques for postharvest handling and processing could help reduce postharvest losses and
boost food security, nutrition and income. Information generated was instrumental in bringing
about the inclusion of postharvest management in Ethiopia’s agricultural extension strategy.
Postharvest management also features heavily in the country’s 10-year horticultural development
strategy prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture. Moreover, a national horticulture development
roadmap is being developed, which will cite quality assurance as key to commercialization and
export.
11. The horticulture sector has started to benefit from institutional reform in the agricultural sector.
As part of the new emphasis placed on horticultural development, the sector is now overseen by
a state minister, while experts have been assigned to fill postharvest management positions at
the country’s Ministry of Agriculture and regional bureaux of agriculture. Institutional reform to
raise the status of horticulture is a prime illustration of project sustainability. Upscaling and
expansion will require greater effort and support, however, as the sub-sector is young and lacking
capacity. Further efforts in this regard should be supported, especially the mainstreaming of
postharvest management in the extension system, guideline development and capacity-building
training.
12. The project did not address gender imbalances or gaps, focusing merely on the inclusion of
beneficiaries based on gender and age. There was no gender analysis to identify inequities or
interventions that could lessen gender inequality. It did not consider the importance of promoting
women’s economic empowerment, decision-making, confidence or leadership capacity. This
could be attributed to FAO Ethiopia’s lack of gender-dedicated personnel. The lack of gender
analysis meant the project was unable to include gender-responsive indicators and gender-
specific activities that could alter the gender power balance and promote gender leadership.
13. Project activities were implemented in partnership with government institutions from federal to
kebele level. The arrangement ensured ownership and sustainability and could contribute to the
potential upscaling of project results. While it was efficient for the most part, the inclusion of the
x
agricultural offices of administrative zones made no significant contribution to project outputs.
Financial transfers were based on letters of agreement between FAO and the implementing
offices. This generally worked well, except for the last instalment, which was based on a
reimbursement. The implementing partners found themselves short of resources to implement
activities and had to mobilize resources elsewhere so they could apply for repayment. The cost-
sharing arrangement adopted by the project was generally effective as an approach, but the real
cost for communities and implementing partners were not adequately estimated in the planning
phase.
Recommendations
14. Based on the main findings and conclusions, the evaluation proposes various actions to complete,
consolidate and expand on the results achieved by the project.
15. The evaluation recommends that FAO ensures the processing units become operational by
completing the construction work, equipping the centers and installing all the required facilities.
Once the work has been completed, refresher training will be needed for the cooperatives on
processing and business management and operational capital will need to be secured to run the
businesses. The evaluation also suggests organizing capacity-development activities for the
agencies in charge of supporting the processing cooperatives. Proper feasibility studies and cash-
flow analyses should also be conducted for the processing cooperatives. Further support should
be provided to the marketing cooperatives by developing their capacity and management skills,
providing appropriate storage and transport facilities and promoting market linkages.
16. To consolidate and expand the results of this project, FAO should work to ensure that
technologies, techniques and practices are scaled up. This can be done by supporting the
mainstreaming of postharvest management in Ethiopia’s extension system, the development of
postharvest handling guidelines and the provision of capacity-building training on a broader
scale. FAO should also mobilize resources for a second phase, focusing on consolidating results
in the original woredas and allowing the replication of successful project activities elsewhere.
17. To ensure the success of future interventions, FAO should review its letters of agreement with
regard to payment schedules to adopt a more flexible and inclusive arrangement that considers
partners’ financing capacity. Attempts should be made to improve procurement and financial
flows, including speedy approval of budgetary revisions. In addition, as recommended by the
Evaluation of FAO’s programme in Ethiopia (FAO, 2020) gender capacity in the Country Office
should be strengthened to ensure that gender is properly mainstreamed in future activities and
gender awareness training be provided to personnel, as well as to key implementing partners.
xi
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the evaluation
1. The project donor, the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, requested an evaluation
of the “Food-loss reduction through improved postharvest handling and value addition of key
fruits and vegetables” project (GCP/ETH/088/GER) during the project formulation stage. The
evaluation was undertaken by the Office of Evaluation (OED) of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) with a view to identifying project outcomes, their
sustainability and impact, as well as future actions to ensure the continuity of the processes
developed.
2. The purposes of the evaluation are:
i. to ensure accountability to the donor, key national counterparts, including the Ministry of
Agriculture of Ethiopia, and project beneficiaries, providing evidence on how resources were
used and the primary results achieved; and
ii. to draw lessons on the postharvest handling of fruits and vegetables, both from project
implementation and the results achieved, to inform the potential upscaling of the
intervention in Ethiopia, to develop future projects and to mobilize funds for a new phase
of work.
1.2 Intended users

3. The intended users of the evaluation are the FAO Ethiopia Country Office and the funding agency,
the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, as well as the various national partners
involved in the project’s implementation. These include the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and,
more specifically, the Horticulture Development and Technology Transfer Directorate; the
Ethiopian Society of Postharvest Management; the regional bureaux of agriculture in Amhara,
Oromia and the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People's Region (SNNPR); the woreda offices
of agriculture in the geographical areas targeted by the project; and Jimma University.
1.3 Scope and objectives of the evaluation
1.3.1 Scope of the evaluation

4. The evaluation covered all the activities implemented over the course of the project life, from
when it started, on 1 June 2016, to when it ended, on 31 December 2019. Data collection took
place from October to December 2020.
5. The evaluation covered all the three regions (Amhara, Oromia and the SNNPR) and all four value
chains selected for the intervention (potatoes, tomatoes, bananas and mangoes). A sample-based
data-collection method was used to collect data efficiently and effectively within the given
timeframe and resources and given the constraints of COVID-19.
1.3.2 Evaluation objectives

6. The objectives of the evaluation were to:
i. assess the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the project’s design and
implementation in view of the country’s policies and strategies;
1
Evaluation of the project GCP/ETH/088/GER
ii. assess actual project outputs and potential outcomes and evaluate the sustainability of
results achieved and the drivers of sustainability;
iii. assess project performance and achievements in terms of gender mainstreaming and
gender equality;
iv. identify lessons learned on project design, implementation and management and assess
whether knowledge-sharing mechanisms were put in place; and
v. propose priority actions for scaling up project experiences and make recommendations
on areas of work that the project did not cover, and which could be included in the future.
1.3.3 Evaluation questions

7. OED, in consultation with project personnel and the donor, translated the evaluation objectives
into eight key questions that guided the evaluation process. The evaluation questions (Box 1)
aimed to generate relevant information and data to assess project performance against the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria (OECD DAC, 2019).
8. Starting with these questions, the evaluation team developed a series of sub-questions in the
evaluation matrix, which also identified the main sources of information in response to each
question.
Box 1. Main evaluation questions

i. Relevance: To what extent was the project relevant to national priorities and
responsive to beneficiaries’ needs?
ii. Coherence: Was the project coherent with other projects on fruit and vegetable
production and food loss implemented by FAO or other partners in the same areas?
iii. Effectiveness: Have project activities contributed to the achievement of the main
project outputs?
iv. Impact: To what extent did the project contribute to its overarching outcome,
namely, “reduced postharvest losses through improved postharvest handling and
processing technologies and equipment” and its final goal of “improved food
security and increased consumption of fruits and vegetables for the resource-poor
rural population in Ethiopia”?
v. Sustainability: To what extent are the project results sustainable?
vi. Efficiency: Have the project activities been implemented in an efficient manner?
vii. Gender: Did project design and implementation reflect gender-equality
considerations?
viii. Capacity building: What are the project’s key results in terms of capacity
development?
1.4 Methodology
9. The evaluation followed the 2016 United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards
for Evaluation and the 2020 UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation (UNEG, 2016; 2020).
10. It was conducted in all three project regions, in five of the six woredas (districts), encompassing
bananas in the Arba Minch Zuria woreda in SNNPR, mangoes in the Bahir Dar Zuria woreda of
Amhara region, potatoes in the Arsi Negele woreda of Oromia region and the Sinan woreda of
Amhara region, and tomatoes in the Dugda woreda of Oromia region.
11. Data were collected by interviewing the focal points of implementing partners, including woreda-
level agricultural offices, the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture, regional bureaux of agriculture and
2
Introduction
the country’s postharvest management platform. The selection of key informants was undertaken
in consultation with project personnel, based on criteria such as good participation in the
implementation of project activities, so that the respondents could provide the genuine and
reliable information needed to fairly evaluate project results.
12. Interviews were organized with beneficiary cooperative leaders and members (male and female,
one member per cooperative) and with youth cooperative members chosen to benefit from value-
adding fruit and vegetable interventions. Efforts were made to include women beneficiaries to
hear their views and assess their level of project participation. Primary data were also gathered by
interviewing FAO personnel in the Country Office and in regional field offices.
13. In total, 43 people were interviewed (35 percent of them female), of which 20 were project
beneficiaries (50 percent female). Only five of the implementing-partner respondents were
female. Table 1 provides an overview of those contacted for data collection; a full list can be found
in Appendix 1.
Table 1. Overview of people contacted for data collection

Beneficiaries Implementers Total
Regions Woreda
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Bahir Dar Zuria 3 2 5 1 1 2 4 3 7
Amhara
Sinan 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 4
Dugda 3 2 5 2 2 5 2 7
Oromia
Arsi Negele 1 3 4 2 2 3 3 6
SNNPR Arba Minch Zuria 2 2 4 2 1 3 4 3 7
Federal
Ministry of 1 1 2 1 1 2
Agriculture
Regional
Bureaux of 2 1 3 2 1 3
Agriculture
FAO
7 7 7 7
personnel
Total 10 10 20 18 5 23 28 15 43
% 50 50 78 22 65 35
Source: Evaluation Team
Note: Beneficiaries include farmers and processing cooperatives; implementers include woreda agricultural offices, Ministry of Agriculture
and Bureau of Agriculture officials and FAO personnel.
14. Checklists were prepared based on the evaluation matrix and questions. Because of the COVID-
19 pandemic and the security situation, interviews with beneficiaries were held by telephone.
Phone and Zoom interviews were held with implementing partners, with the exception of the
Ministry of Agriculture Root Crops Directorate, the Oromia Bureau of Agriculture and the FAO
Oromia field office, where face-to-face interviews were conducted.
15. Interviewing different project partners, implementers and beneficiaries enabled the triangulation
and crosschecking of data, so the team could arrive at concrete conclusions.
16. Quantitative data on project outputs, especially on investment in capacity development at

different levels, were based on the monitoring and evaluation information provided by the project
team and a review of project implementation reports, as well as verified in interviews with
implementing partners and beneficiaries. The review of documents served as important source of
information, especially when it came to verifying the relevance and coherence of interventions.
3
17. The evaluation team also undertook a review of secondary data and documents on relevant
polices and strategies. The data from these sources were analysed and integrated into the report.
Data collected from all sources were cross-checked and/or triangulated and analysed before
being used in this report.
1.5 Stakeholder engagement

18. FAO led the project design, in addition to managing and providing technical support for the
implementing partners. FAO field-office coordinators and technical personnel, in particular, were
instrumental in implementing the project. They worked closely with regional and woreda focal
points to make participatory activity plans for implementation and liaised with the regions and
project management at the FAO Country Office.
19. Woreda-level government focal points were also crucial to project implementation. The project
created an opportunity for the woredas to engage in postharvest horticultural extension. The focal
points in all woredas were found to be engaged in the implementation of project activities at
cooperative and kebele (ward or community) level. The woreda cooperative promotion office was
also involved in organizing and registering cooperatives.
20. The other project stakeholders were Jimma University, the Ethiopian Society of Postharvest
Management, the cooperatives that were established or supported, and the end beneficiaries
(farmers and youth). Table 2 summarizes the stakeholders, their roles in the project and how they
could benefit from this evaluation.
4
Introduction
Table 2. Project stakeholders and how they could benefit from this evaluation
Key stakeholders Role or participation in the project Potential use of the evaluation
Funder and implementer • Coordinating with FAO Country Office, Regional and Sub-regional Office • See evidence of project outcomes,
• FAO Ethiopia Country Office (project personnel, personnel. sustainability and actual or potential
implementer). • Providing funding for project implementation. impacts, which serve as the basis for
• German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture • Coordinating implementation and collaborating with key project stakeholders and designing future development projects.
(funding agency). implementing partners (government agencies and civil-society organizations). • See evidence of how resources have been
used and the key results achieved.
• For planning and learning lessons to inform
development projects in the future.
Implementing partners • Capacity building, technology promotion, handover of processing technologies, • Use the lessons drawn from the evaluation
• Ministry of Agriculture. provision of land for cooperatives, support for the establishment and registration to inform future project development.
• Oromia Regional State Bureau of Agriculture. of cooperatives, facilitation of market linkages, project coordination at federal and • Scale up and replicate similar interventions
• Amhara Regional State Bureau of Agriculture. regional level. and approaches elsewhere.
• SNNPR Bureau of Agriculture. • Overall coordination and implementation of project activities through assigned • Use the results for planning purposes.
focal points.
• Provision of technical support and organization with relevant stakeholders; liaison
and supervision; monitoring and evaluation.
• Jimma University. • Value-chain studies. • Use lessons drawn from the evaluation to
inform future studies and capacity-building
activities.
• Ethiopian Society of Postharvest Management. • Steering committee member; expected to participate in field visits and review of • Learn lessons for future projects.
project plan and implementation.
Grassroots beneficiaries • Using the best postharvest management options identified to handle mangoes, • Use evaluation results as inputs for future
• Main end beneficiaries in six woredas in the Oromia, tomatoes, bananas and potatoes. performance and lesson learning via
SNNPR and Amhara regions: Dugda, Arsi Negele, • At cooperative level, participation in practical training and receipt of larger feedback through the extension system.
Ezia, Sinan, Arba Minch Zuria and Bahir Dar. processing equipment (jam-, paste- and juice-making machinery, potato flour- • Become beneficiaries of change arising from
• Target communities were small-scale farmers, making machines) and packaging inputs (filling and canning machines, glass jars, the evaluation (directly or indirectly).
horticultural retailers and cooperatives engaged in plastic foils, etc.) for the benefit of members.
processing and marketing. • Rural farmers, women and youth groups receive small-scale processing
equipment, training on postharvest handling, value addition and preparation of
business plans.
• Women and men farmers participate in training in fruit and vegetable processing
methods.
Marketing cooperatives • Participating in capacity building and enhance knowledge and skills. • Use evaluation results as inputs for future
• Twelve fruit and vegetable marketing cooperatives • Participating as a member of potato producing and marketing cooperatives in performance in fruit and vegetable
established or supported in Arsi Negele, Dugda, Ezia, market linkages (Senselet agro-industry). production, processing and marketing.
Sinan, Bahir Dar Arba Minch. • Participating in capacity building in fruit and vegetable production, processing and • Become beneficiaries of changes arising
marketing and market linkage. from the evaluation process.
5
Key stakeholders Role or participation in the project Potential use of the evaluation
• Potato producing and marketing cooperatives in
Sinan, Ezia and Arsi Negele.
• Lante and Kanchama banana-marketing primary
cooperatives in Arba Minch Zuria.
• Two mango cooperatives in Bahir Dar Zuria and two
tomato cooperatives in Dugda.
• Twelve newly established fruit and vegetable
processing cooperatives (two in each woreda) to set
up the processing of fruits and vegetables.
Source: Evaluation Team.
6
Introduction
1.6 Limitations
21. The final project evaluation was conducted at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic continued to
limit mobility. It was necessary to observe preventive protocols, such as social distancing and the
wearing of masks. As a result, face-to-face meetings were constrained, and many people were
reluctant to participate. The team also decided to limit travel to reduce the risk of exposure and
the spread of COVID-19. Consequently, many stakeholders were contacted virtually.
22. There have also been security concerns in Ethiopia, creating uncertainty about safe travel to
project areas. As a result, data collection was done virtually, through Zoom or phone calls with
project beneficiaries. Phone interviews can affect data collection, as people tend to spend less
time talking on the phone than in face-to-face interviews. The restrictions also limited the number
of people interviewed. In the absence of site visits, the evaluation team could not observe the
investments on the ground to check quality of project outputs. Moreover, due to limited travel to
the project woredas and social-distancing requirements, it was not possible to conduct focus-
group discussions with beneficiaries. Therefore, the team missed out data that could have been
gleaned from group discussions or face-to-face communications.
23. Nonetheless, the team managed to collect the requisite data by focusing on people who worked
closely with the project and tried to engage with them numerous times by phone, showing
perseverance and patience even when communication networks were not working properly.
Interviewing continued with as many people as possible until the chance for getting new
information was low (data collection reached saturation point) and all the main findings had been
triangulated and confirmed.
7
2. Background and context
2.1 Project context1
24. Ethiopia is endowed with a diverse agro-ecology that is favourable for growing a variety of fruit
and vegetable crops. Millions of Ethiopian smallholder farmers produce fruit and vegetable crops
for food and income. However, government figures suggest that around 30 percent of fruits and
vegetables are lost in postharvest activities, from transportation and storage to consumption.
Studies conducted as part of the project on the causes and extent of postharvest losses in four
main fruit and vegetable value chains show significant losses – 38.7 percent for tomatoes,
32.2 percent for mangoes, 31.8 percent for bananas and from 37 to 67 percent depending on the
woreda for potatoes.
25. Smallholder farmers lack awareness, skill and access to intermediate processing technologies to
effectively manage fruits and vegetables after harvest. They do not have appropriate on-farm
processing and value-adding technologies, for example, for the drying and cleaning of perishable
fruits and vegetables to reduce spoilage. Lack of effective postharvest management not only
affects individual farmers, but also foreign-currency earnings and the economic growth of the
country, as quality product is required to compete successfully on the international market.
26. Fruits and vegetables are a crucial part of diet, providing an important portion of the daily human
requirements of micronutrients (vitamins and minerals). Today, individual intake of fruits and
vegetables in Ethiopia is far below the World Health Organization (WHO)/ FAO recommendation.
This is partly attributed to low supply of fruits and vegetables due to low production and
productivity, coupled with significant proportion of agricultural output losses from harvesting to
consumption. Increasing the availability, access to and consumption of a good fruits and
vegetables improves diet and food-based nutrition, and would contribute significantly to tackling
malnutrition problems in Ethiopia.
2.2 Project description

27. The “Food-loss reduction through improved postharvest handling and value addition of key fruits
and vegetables (GCP/ETH/088/GER)” project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Food and
Agriculture, was implemented by the FAO Ethiopia Country Office between 1 June 2016 and 31
December 2019, with a total budget of USD 2 million. The project was designed by FAO and the
Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture to address huge gaps in postharvest handling and the value
addition of agricultural products in general and fruits and vegetables, in particular.
28. The project was implemented in three regions – Oromia, SNNPR and Amhara – the major
producers of the target value chains (potatoes, tomatoes, bananas and mangoes). The main
beneficiaries of the project in the target communities were small-scale farmers, horticultural
retailers and cooperatives engaged in horticultural crop production and processing. The project
initially planned to reach 4 000 households engaged in the production of the commodities in
question, but only 3 000 were eventually selected across the six woredas. The target number of
households was revised as the project was aimed at those with good production potential in terms
of land-holding capacity and irrigation use.
1The context is based on information provided in the project document and in the Postharvest Extension Bulletin, FAO
Ethiopia: January – March 2019.
9
29. The main project outcome was to reduce postharvest losses through improved handling and
processing technologies, equipment and practices, thus contributing to better food security and
boosting the consumption of fruits and vegetables by Ethiopia’s resource-poor rural population.
To achieve this and the end goals set out in the project document, the project implementation
focused on five outputs:
i. assessment of postharvest losses and the value chains of four key fruit and vegetable
crops;
ii. the compilation, evaluation, dissemination and adoption of good practices for reducing
food loss;
iii. improved access to processing and other value-adding technologies;
iv. increased capacity for postharvest handling, processing, marketing and other value-
adding activities; and
v. the establishment and strengthening of groups, associations and cooperatives with a
focus on rural women and youth.
30. The project results chain is shown in Figure 1. The activities undertaken to achieve the various
outputs can be found in the next chapter.
Figure 1. Outputs, outcome and project end goal
Output 3:
Improved access to
processing and other
Output 2: value-adding
Output 4:
Good-practice technologies
Increased capacity for
options for reducing
postharvest handling,
food losses compiled,
processing, marketing
evaluated,
and other value-
disseminated and
adding activities
adopted
Reduced
postharvest Output 5:
Output 1: Postharvest losses through Groups, associations
losses and value improved and cooperatives
chain of four key fruit postharvest established or
and vegetable crops handling and strengthened with a
assessed processing focus on rural women
technologies and and youth
equipment
Improved food security and increased

consumption of fruits and vegetables by the
resource-poor rural population of Ethiopia
Source: Project document.
10
3. Findings
31. In this section, the team presents its findings by evaluation question, along with supporting
arguments and justification.
3.1 To what extent was the project relevant to national priorities and
responsive to beneficiaries’ needs?
Finding 1: The project aligned well with national priorities and filled an existing gap in data on the
extent of fruit and vegetable postharvest losses in Ethiopia.
32. The project objectives and activities are considered relevant and aligned with major national
priorities in the agricultural sector. As emphasized by Ministry of Agriculture interviewees, project
intervention packages involving value addition, capacity building and nutrition promotion have
underpinned government development initiatives.
33. The project is also relevant to the global agricultural development agenda. It is aligned with the
globally agreed 2030 Agenda, as the project outputs make a direct contribution to the attainment
of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as the Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want.
34. The project responded to a lack of information on the scale and significance of postharvest fruit
and vegetable losses. This absence of data meant limited attention was paid to postharvest losses
in national agricultural development policies, strategies and programmes, which mostly focus on
increasing production and productivity. For instance, the Ethiopia Growth and Transformation
Plan II, the main national development plan, focuses on quality assurance for increased
commercialization without taking into account postharvest activities, though postharvest
management plays a critical role in ensuring the quality of produce, as evidenced by the project.
35. The studies conducted in six woredas showed postharvest losses of 38.7 percent for tomatoes,
32.2 percent for mangoes, 31.8 percent for bananas and from 37 to 67 percent depending on the
woreda for potatoes. The studies, and the pilots conducted, encouraged experts and officials in
the sector to start paying attention to postharvest losses as part of the agricultural development
programme (see Section 3.4.3).
Finding 2: Postharvest losses of perishable fruits and vegetables are major challenges faced by
producers. Due to a lack of appropriate storage facilities and an inability to process the produce,
losses are very high. Hence, the project intervention was highly relevant with a view to reducing
postharvest losses in important crops (potato, tomato, banana and mango) and addressing the
problems faced by beneficiaries in this regard.
36. As the project worked on horticultural crops, including vegetables and fruits, which are perishable
and require appropriate care during harvesting, storage and transportation, its interventions were
deemed highly relevant. Interviews with the key informants at different levels confirmed that the
focus on postharvest interventions was significant, due to i) the sizeable knowledge and skills
gaps of the producers and ii) the limited handling capabilities of producers when it came to
storage and transportation facilities. In addition, traditional techniques of harvesting fruits and
vegetables were causing physical damage to the produce. The fruits and vegetables were stored
in open fields, exposed to the sun, until transported to the market, causing a deterioration in
quality. The methods of transporting the produce were also inappropriate, exposing them to
damage. The project, therefore, tackled these critical issues of producers, traders and transporters.
11
Finding 3: The four value chains are highly relevant to the beneficiaries and the Ethiopian economy,
both in terms of production, food security, nutrition and income. The project provided evidence
of how low-level technologies and techniques for postharvest handling and processing could help
reduce postharvest losses and boost food security, nutrition and income.
37. The four value chains (two fruit and two vegetable) are high-value horticultural crops, produced
for income generation and consumption (nutrition security). Key informants confirmed that high
postharvest fruit and vegetable losses in the target woredas greatly impacted the food and
nutrition security of those communities. An ever-increasing population and alarming rise in food
demand call for greater food production and productivity, as well as the prevention of food loss.
The sectoral study showed high postharvest losses due to a lack of preservation techniques, so
the project interventions were key to cutting postharvest losses and making more food available
for consumption.
38. The project also responded to a widespread lack of awareness of the benefits of diversified food
consumption. Awareness-raising and training on food processing enabled the beneficiaries to
diversify their diet by including fruits and vegetables in their meals. Producer interviews confirmed
broadened knowledge of recipes using fruits and vegetables.
39. Because of the short time it takes for certain produce, such as papayas, to mature, regional
governments are encouraging the use of available irrigable land to produce fruits and vegetables,
to enable farmers to earn income more quickly. Interviews showed that the project was
implemented in those woredas with the greatest potential for horticultural production and where
the relevance of postharvest loss reduction was high.
40. Although the four value-chain commodities chosen were appropriate in terms of economic
importance and postharvest loss-related problems, some key informants were critical of specific
piloting activities, for example, that mango-related activities did not cover major mango
production areas, such as Benishangul-Gumuz and west Oromia. The context of these areas differs
from where the pilot schemes were carried out.
3.2 Was the project coherent with other projects on fruit and vegetable
production and food loss implemented by FAO or other partners in the
same areas?
Finding 4: There was good coherence between the project and three other related projects on
postharvest handling practices implemented by FAO.
41. FAO implemented three other projects on postharvest losses in the province, namely, food-loss
reduction through improved postharvest handling practices of grain crops (GCP/ETH/084/SWI),
food-loss reduction through improved postharvest handling practices of grain crops II
(GCP/ETH/099/SWI) and the Ethiopia Postharvest Loss Alliance for Nutrition (E-PLAN) project of
the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) Ethiopia. The consistency between the
GCP/ETH/088/GER project and the three other projects was realized through experience sharing
by FAO Ethiopia project management teams.
Finding 5: There was no collaboration with projects outside FAO, other than to share experiences
through the National Platform for Postharvest Management. The project funded the platform,
which led to greater coherence of postharvest management projects. Platform participants learned
from the forum and capitalized on that knowledge.
12
Findings
42. The National Platform for Postharvest Management was established at Jimma University years
prior to the project, but had not been legally registered. With FAO’s support (through
GCP/ETH/088/GER), the platform was registered under the umbrella of the Ministry of Agriculture.
Its registration enables it to formally liaise with other agencies and to raise funds to accomplish
its duties, conduct meetings, hold exhibitions, etc. The forum held two annual meetings during
the project period, with the assistance of FAO, where platform members, including non-
governmental organizations, research institutions, universities, international organizations and
government agencies working on postharvest management, presented and discussed their plans
and achievements. The platform also organizes exhibitions and conferences at which postharvest
management technologies, practices and study results are presented to policymakers and
development actors. The platform is chaired by the Ministry of Agriculture, though a coordination
office has not been established as yet.
43. Platform members interviewed confirmed that they benefited from the knowledge shared at the
forum, which had informed the implementation of their own projects. By supporting the platform,
the project enabled the dissemination of knowledge on postharvest handling technologies and
practices to a wider group of stakeholders. The discussions and exhibitions prompted both the
public and policymakers to pay attention to sectoral issues. FAO may need to lend further
assistance to create a Postharvest Management Platform Secretariat at the Ministry of Agriculture
to allow the platform to function sustainably.
44. GCP/ETH/088/GER is unique in the sense that it is the only project that has focused fully on
postharvest loss reduction in fruits and vegetables. Projects implemented by other agencies, such
as the Sasakawa Africa Association and Save the Children, include the postharvest handling of
fruits and vegetables as a component of integrated projects that include other crops, such as
cereals. Some projects implemented by the International Potato Center and the Irish Aid food
security project, for instance, introduced diffused light storage (DLS) to support seed-potato
systems with a view to ensuring food security in Tigray and SNNPR.
3.3 Have activities implemented by the project contributed to achieving the

main project outputs?
45. This section describes the activities implemented and assesses the results achieved under each
project output.
46. Table 3 presents a summary of outputs planned versus outputs achieved. The project achieved
89 percent of the outcome-level target “farmers adopt good practices of fruits and vegetables
postharvest handling”. While the indicators for Outputs 1, 2 and 4 were also achieved, more
limited resultants were reported for outputs 3 and 5, as discussed below.
13
Table 3. Summary of outputs planned and achieved by the project

End target Achievement
Results Initial Revised Achieved % Comments on end-
level Description Unit target target quantity achieved line data
Farmers adopting good 3 000 farmers
Outcome postharvest handling practices reached and 2 670
for fruits and vegetables No. 4 000 3 000 2 670 89 used the practices
Studies on value chain and
consumption of fruits and
Output 1 vegetables in six woredas No. 5 5 5 100
Capacity needs-assessment in
six woredas No. 1 1 1 100
No. of good-practice options
evaluated No. 5 5 6 120
3 000 farmers
reached and 2 670
Output 2
used the practices;
no evidence to
No. of farmers and processors confirm adoption of
adopting good practices No. 4 000 3 000 2 670 89 processing practices
No. of processing units
established and registered No. 40 40 12 30 Not yet functional
Materials and processing No.
equipment and facilities of
Output 3
distributed to cooperatives sets 41
Equipment distributed to
farmer training centres and
woreda agricultural offices No. 3
Increased capacity by training:
• Farmers 250 250 800
• Experts 267
• Food-processing youth
cooperative members 200
Output 4
Increased capacity through
exchange visits:
• Farmers 421
• Experts 40
• Officials 9
No. of cooperatives established
and registered 30 30 21 70 Not yet functional
No. of cooperative members 4 000 4 000 1 200 30
Output 5 No. of female members 1 600 1 600 325 20
No. of farmers linked to
cooperatives supplying fresh Supply not yet
produce 1 470 realized
Source: Project Team .
3.3.1 Output 1: Assessment of postharvest losses and value chain of four key fruit and
vegetable crops
Finding 6: The project realised all the foreseen studies, including “food loss analysis: causes and
solutions” for four value chains (banana, mango, potato and tomato), one study on household
fruits and vegetables consumption and one on capacity-development needs with regard to
postharvest losses along the supply chain. These studies help to plug a key information gap,
providing evidence of the size and significance of post-harvest losses, which were previously
undocumented. The project made efforts to disseminate these results and raise awareness.
14
Findings
47. The project produced four detailed studies on different value chains, assessing the extent and
causes of postharvest losses in the tomato, potato, mango and banana value chains. One study
assessed capacity-development needs at different levels of the supply chain (for both public- and
private-sector institutions and actors). Another assessed the extent of fruit and vegetable
consumption at household level.
48. The assessments found significant postharvest losses for the crops in question, poor dietary
diversity and malnutrition in project target areas. The study validation workshops helped to
disseminate the findings of the studies, creating awareness of the seriousness of the problem of
postharvest losses in horticulture. This greatly contributed to the institutionalization of
postharvest management in the agriculture sector (see section 3.4.3 for more).
3.3.2 Output 2: Compilation, evaluation, dissemination and adoption of good practice

options for reducing food losses
Finding 7: The project introduced improved technologies and practices, such as mango harvesting
tools, sheds for in-field banana and tomato storage, crates for transportation, DLS and mudbrick
dark-storage facilities for potatoes, and postharvest handling techniques. These techniques have
been widely disseminated, with capacity-development and awareness-raising exercises conducted
in the target areas and beyond.
49. The project identified, documented and promoted a number of postharvest loss reduction, value-
adding and processing technologies and practices in target areas, such as:
i. cutting banana handles prior to transportation and transporting packed bananas in plastic
crates, rather than as a whole bunch;
ii. a dark storage facility constructed from mudbrick to increase storage life for ware
potatoes and DLS for seed potatoes, and the introduction of different potato recipes; and
iii. a cost-effective dry processing technique involving charcoal evaporation for mangoes and
tomatoes, as well as training for unemployed rural young people; the practices have not yet
been applied, however, as processing cooperatives are not yet operational (see section
3.3.3).
50. Best practices on the handling and value addition of tomato, potato, banana and mango crops
were disseminated beyond the project areas.
51. To raise awareness, farmers, extension workers and government officials took part in exchange
visits (both locally and abroad) and in field days. The experience gained from exposure visits
enhanced the adoption of technologies and practices to reduce postharvest losses in the targeted
fruits and vegetables. The visits made and experience gained are listed in Table 4.
15
Table 4. Exposure visits and experience gained

Organization Experience gained
Jeldu woreda Production of quality potatoes and seed-potato business
Holeta Agricultural Research Centre, Potato Potato postharvest handling and research on value addition
Research Division
Ethiopian Agricultural Works Corporation Et-Fruit Quality determination, price-setting and storage operations for
bananas
Senselet food-processing enterprise Processing and packing of potato chips
Ethio Vegfru PLC Production, harvesting and value addition of globally competitive
and European-standard beans, tomatoes, onions and other crops
Merti agro-industry Harvesting and processing of tomatoes
Africa Juice agro-industry Production, harvesting and processing of passion fruit
Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre, horticultural Tomato, banana and mango postharvest handling research,
and agricultural research divisions development of cost-effective processing and value-adding
technologies
Source: Project document.
52. Potato: Potato-seed storage facilities were introduced, demonstrated and handed over to six
producing and marketing cooperatives (five of which were newly established and one existing) in
the Sinan, Arsi Negele and Ezia woredas. Beneficiaries interviewed confirmed having adopted DLS
for seed-potato storage and mudbrick storage for ware potatoes. They also received training in
potato processing and awareness-raising on potato consumption.
53. Tomato: In Dugda woreda, before the project, both ripened and green tomato cherries were
picked together. Awareness-raising was conducted on the timely harvesting of tomatoes, storage
in sheds and sorting practices. In addition, plastic crates were introduced, replacing the sacks and
wooden and bamboo crates that previously heated produce and scratched fruit skin, leading to a
rapid deterioration in product quality.
54. Banana: The major causes of postharvest banana losses in Arba Minch Zuria woreda include the
harvesting of immature bunches, poor harvesting techniques, the transport of fruit in bunches,
poor collection methods and the absence of value addition at producer level. To reduce
mechanical damage to the fruit, the project promoted the cutting of banana hands in the kebeles
before transportation and the use of plastic crates to transport them. It provided crates, banana-
cutting knives and bunch-carrying saddles for banana producers and marketing cooperatives.
55. Mango: In Bahir Dar Zuria woreda, the major challenges of mango postharvest handling included
the harvesting of mature and immature fruits together, limited value addition (such as the washing
of fruit prior to sale), the use of poor harvesting and packaging technologies, and a lack of product
storage sheds. The project promoted and demonstrated a package of working techniques and
technologies that reduced postharvest losses. The technique of picking the fruit based on a
maturity chart was demonstrated and promoted to facilitate the identification of mature and
immature fruit. Fruit picking was made difficult by the height of the mango trees, with farmers
often using unstable ladders to climb the trees or beating the fruit with a stick. The project
introduced mango-picking poles that can be operated while standing on the ground.
3.3.3 Output 3: Improved access to processing and other value-adding technologies
Finding 8: Fruit and vegetable processing centres were constructed, and equipment was supplied
for use by processing cooperatives. However, these are not yet operational due to delays in the
construction of processing sheds and the installation of equipment.
56. Twelve fruit and vegetable processing cooperatives were established and provided with
appropriate processing technologies (such as fruit jam, paste and juice-making machines and
16
Findings
potato flour-making technologies) and packaging materials (technologies such as paste filling
and canning machines, glass jars, plastic foils and other items). They also received practical
training. The cooperatives were registered in accordance with cooperative establishment
guidelines, while the government provided them with land to set up the processing unit, except
in Bahir Dar Zuria woreda, where securing land for a processing unit remained unresolved at the
time of evaluation. The project provided the cooperatives with construction materials to help build
the processing sheds.
57. The outcomes of the processing cooperatives could not be realized, however, because of delays
to construction and equipment installation in all woredas. The internal finishing work was not
completed on schedule and the fixtures for waste disposal were not installed. Implementation
was partly hindered by COVID-19, partly by long procurement procedures and partly by delays in
the approval of revisions to the project activity budget.
3.3.4 Output 4: Increased capacity for postharvest handling, processing, marketing and
other value-adding activities
Finding 9: Capacity-development activities on postharvest handling and value addition, including

processing and marketing, were conducted for government personnel, farmers, cooperative
members and other stakeholders, consisting of training, awareness-raising workshops and the
development of manuals. Stakeholder awareness was raised on topics including the causes, extent
and mitigation of postharvest losses and the management and strengthening of cooperatives.
58. The project provided training on postharvest handling and value addition, reaching 800 farmers,
267 experts and 200 food-processing youth groups. Nine officials, 40 experts and 400 farmers
participated in exchange visits and field days. It supported the preparation of eight marketing and
12 processing business plans and trained the cooperatives organized to process fruits and
vegetables on technical aspects.
59. The awareness-raising exercises trickled down to farmers, including many who were not
beneficiaries. Moreover, development agents in Arsi Negele woreda have been using the manuals
(both in the local language and English) to train farmers under the government extension scheme,
by integrating FAO training components into periodic awareness-raising sessions. Women made
up the majority of participants trained on a weekly basis, especially in cooking new recipes and
food processing.
Table 5. Number of documents produced and disseminated

Type of document No. of Remark
documents
Tailor-made training poster 4 1 each for potato, tomato, banana
and mango
Fruit and vegetable postharvest supply-chain assessment 4 1 each for potato, tomato, banana
and mango
Mango and tomato processing unit set-up plan 1
Mango and tomato processing unit business plan 1
Potato and banana-processing units set-up business plans 1
Capacity development needs for supply-chain actors 1
Household fruit and vegetable consumption survey 1
Postharvest handling of fruit and vegetable manual 1
Sweet potato and potato seed production manual 1
Bulletin on the postharvest management of fruits and vegetables 2 Issued twice
Brief leaflet 5 1 each for potato, tomato, banana,
mango and the project
Source: Project Team .
17
3.3.5 Output 5: Establishment and strengthening of groups, associations and

cooperatives with a focus on rural women and youth
Finding 10: Twenty-four cooperatives (12 focused on fruit and vegetable production and
marketing and 12 on processing) were established, supported and registered. The training
provided helped to increase motivation. However, the processing cooperatives are not yet
functional and refresher training will be needed once they will become operational.
60. The cooperatives were trained in business-plan preparation and cooperative strengthening
packages (cooperative establishment guide, business preparation, market linkages, storage
management, bookkeeping and other skills). Experts from the Hawassa University nutrition
department also provided capacity-development training on nutrition to members of the
processing cooperatives, focusing on banana as the main fruit, but also mango and other fruits
produced in the Arba Minch area. The training and exposure visits provided to the agro-
processing cooperatives spurred great motivation in the selected woredas, though actual
processing activities have not yet started.
61. Interviewees appreciated the training and practical sessions. However, they have not undertaken
any processing activities due to delays in the completion of the processing centres, reportedly
down to tardy equipment supply and installation of machinery, electric power, water and waste-
disposal facilities. In addition, at the time of the evaluation, acquiring land for the processing
centre in Bahir Dar Zuria remained a challenge. It is, therefore, possible to conclude that the
cooperatives have not yet achieved the desired value-added targets for the chosen commodities.
The knowledge gained has faded somewhat and will require additional refresher training to
process the products.
62. Processing cooperatives were established by involving male and female jobless youths. Efforts
were made to improve the participation of women. In the Arba Minch Zuria woreda, the banana-
processing cooperative in the kebele where the data were collected had 12 members (ten young
women and two young men), while in the Dugda and Arsi Negele woredas, four tomato and
potato processing cooperatives were formed, consisting of 16 women and four men. Women’s
participation, therefore, averaged 80–83 percent.
63. Potato production and marketing cooperatives were linked with an agribusiness that makes chips.
To enhance cooperative capacity, continuous monitoring and follow-up were conducted. As the
cooperatives have not started to process any of the products for which they were trained, due to
delays in the construction of the processing centres and the installation of equipment, they have
not yet capitalized on this connection. Cooperative members are desperate to engage in the
processing and marketing of their produce.
3.4 To what extent has the project contributed to its overarching outcome
and final goal?
64. This section presents the project’s contributions to its overarching outcome – “reduced
postharvest losses through improved postharvest handling and processing technologies and
equipment” – and its higher-level end goal of “improved food security and increased consumption
of fruits and vegetables for the resource-poor rural population in Ethiopia”. It also presents some
interesting systemic policy and institutional changes.
18
Findings
3.4.1 Contribution to the overarching project outcome

65. Achievement of the overall project outcome and final goal was defined as the sum of the five
outputs. However, as seen, at the time of the evaluation, some of the outputs had not yet been
realized. A distinction can be made between: i) the pilot postharvest loss reduction, for which the
evaluation can affirm that results were achieved, leading to increased income and food security
for the farmers involved and ii) the organization of cooperatives to process fruits and vegetables,
the results of which will be seen once they will become fully operational. The results described in
this section on postharvest loss reduction and income improvements, therefore, only relate to the
pilot postharvest loss reduction component.
Finding 11: Postharvest losses in target fruits and vegetables have been significantly reduced
thanks to the intervention.
66. Reducing the postharvest losses of targeted horticultural crops was the project’s primary
objective. The reduction in losses is a cumulative effect of awareness-raising and capacity-
development activities, resulting in the adoption of postharvest technologies and practices.
Responses of the key informants suggest that this objective was achieved in the pilot intervention
areas and has strong prospects for wider impact if the project is scaled up and out.
67. The capacity-development training on postharvest handling provided at different levels, especially
to farmers and cooperative members, brought about positive change in attitudes and practices,
filling knowledge gaps at household and community levels. Key informants said that they had not
known about such technologies and harvesting techniques prior to the project.
68. Potato: The potato producers in the project area used to sell potatoes immediately after harvest
at lower prices in order to minimize the damage caused when storing them using locally available
materials. The factors that helped to reduce postharvest losses were capacity-development
through training on postharvest handling and the use of proper harvesting, shed and storage
facilities. Participants said that DLS technology had helped them to keep the tubers for more than
five months, reducing postharvest losses and giving them a better chance of food security and
higher income. In addition, farmers also confirmed that conserving potato seeds solved the
problem of seed shortages in slack times and enabled them to sell their seeds at a higher price.
69. Tomato: Awareness-raising interventions on proper harvesting, sorting and storing tomatoes in
sheds prior to transportation resulted in better quality tomatoes, as farmers could engage in
timely harvesting and used the sheds to protect the fresh tomatoes against the sun. Key
informants said the use of plastic crates significantly reduced postharvest losses. The project’s
awareness-raising activities in the Dugda woreda, for example, improved farmer know-how on
what can damage the quality of tomatoes and cause postharvest losses. The use of sheds and
sorting techniques, as well as care in packing and transporting tomatoes, also played an important
role in reducing losses. At household level, too, project beneficiaries said that using cooling
systems made of locally available materials (cool sand) helped to keep tomatoes for a longer
period prior to sale.
70. Banana: The provision of crates for the proper handling and transport of bananas was cited as a
critically important intervention that reduced postharvest banana loss. The project brought about
a change in farmers’ attitudes after they observed the extent of the improvement in banana
quality after using sheds to keep the fruit out of the sun prior to sale. This resulted in greater
bargaining power and higher market values for their produce. In Arba Minch Zuria woreda, the
project supported the construction of sheds with cement floors. The sheds were constructed using
19
locally available materials and farmers were encouraged to keep their produce in the sheds, rather
than on the ground, which could damage them.
Case study: Impact of potato storage techniques
Belaynesh Mekonnen is married and has five children. She is one of the potato-storage beneficiaries in
Sinan woreda. She participated in training on ware potato-store construction and practices to store
potatoes and reduce losses. Based on this training and exposure visits, she constructed her own ware
potato storage from mudbrick. Consequently, she could store her potatoes for 4–5 months rather than
the previous 2–3 months. She earned ETB 1.5 (USD 0.04) more per kg due to price changes over time
(the potato price increased from ETB 5.5 (USD 0.13 per kg to ETB 7 (USD 0.17 per kg). She can feed her
family for the whole year now rather than just eight months, as was the case before the project.
Interview with Belaynesh Mekonnen, November 2020.
71. Mango: Prior to the project, farmers had harvested mangoes by hitting the fruit to make them
fall to the ground, leaving around 18 percent of the fruit damaged at the point of harvest. The
project showed farmers how the use of special poles for harvesting could also reduce the risk of
scratches on the fruit. Also, before the intervention, there was no sorting of mangoes based on
size, quality or maturity, resulting in low overall prices. Interviewees confirmed that the new
technologies and practices resulted in a significant reduction in postharvest losses. Project
beneficiaries were able to sell mangoes at higher prices because of their improved quality. In
addition, introducing mango harvesting technology and creating awareness simplified mango
harvesting methods, saving labour and lives. Key informants said that six people had died and
two were injured in Bahir Dar Zuria woreda before the project, having fallen from mango trees
while trying to pick fruit from the tips of branches.
3.4.2 Contribution to the final project goal
Finding 12: The rise in quality and quantity of produce brought about by the project enhanced the
food security of producers. Improved storage facilities also enabled farmers to choose an
appropriate time to sell, when prices were high, thus increasing their income.
72. The evaluation found that farmers’ bargaining power increased with the rise in quality and ability
to store, enabling them to sell their products at higher prices and reducing postharvest losses.
While an end-line study is not available to quantify the increase in income, evidence collected
from interviews with beneficiaries and key informants during this evaluation support this finding.
73. Potato: Potato producers used to sell potatoes immediately after harvest, partly due to the
immediate need for money, but mostly because they could not store them for longer periods, as
they are perishable. However, potato prices are at their lowest level at harvest time. DLS
technology resulted in a greater chance of higher prices and, therefore, income. In Arsi Negele,
interviewees reported that ware potato storage and later sales resulted in a gain of ETB 4-6
(USD 0.10-0.14) per kg. Dark storage facilities constructed from mudbrick in the woreda of Sinan
in the Amhara region were said to have increased the shelf-life of ware potatoes from about two
months to four or five months, making potatoes available for consumption for a longer period.
This extended storage period also enabled farmers to sell their produce at higher prices during
slack periods, resulting in increased income.
74. Tomato: In Dugda woreda, project beneficiaries said that the project’s capacity building through
training and awareness-raising, the use of sheds for tomato storage and the use of plastic crates
for transportation reduced postharvest losses and maintained product quality. This resulted in
greater bargaining power and higher prices, increasing the income earned from product sales.
20
Findings
Market brokers refused to use the crates. Interviewees believed that this was because
standardized crates prevented them from cheating farmers on weight. The farmers were able to
sell their products to other buyers, however, and thus boost their income.
75. Banana: Training in banana handling and the construction of sheds for storage changed farmers’
attitudes towards product quality and they started to keep freshly harvested bananas in sheds.
The use of crates for transporting bananas also resulted in better quality. Consequently,
beneficiary cooperatives reported good bargaining power, better prices and increased income.
76. For example, better banana handling and transport in crates, as well as the overall knowledge
gained on product-quality management and handling from harvest to sales, reduced losses
significantly and resulted in a price increase of around ETB 20 (USD 0.48) per kg for the Lante
Banana Cooperative, which has banana shops in Hawassa City. The Cooperative management
expressed its appreciation for the impact of the project on its banana marketing.
77. Mango: Improved methods of harvesting and transporting mangoes in crates generated higher
selling prices as the quality of produce improved (there was no physical damage, fruit were sorted
and transported by crate).
Finding 13: The project contributed directly to greater diversity and availability of food for
household consumption over longer periods. This was a direct result of the reduction in
postharvest losses and increased knowledge of food processing. No evidence was found that
demonstrated an increase in dietary diversity.
78. As seen, the project affected food security in various ways. It had a direct impact through the
reduction of postharvest losses and the longer shelf-life of produce which meant more food was
available for household consumption for a longer period. In addition, the improvements in
quantity and quality also led to an increase in household income and therefore an increased
capacity to buy food on the market.
79. The project also aimed to enhance horticultural consumption through greater awareness-raising
on nutritive value. Both men and women interviewees said that the training and demonstration
of potato processing enabled them to prepare different types of food from potato and to reduce
wastage. While beneficiaries made more diverse use of potatoes in their cooking, however, there
was no clear evidence that this knowledge translated into greater dietary diversity.
80. As the young people organized to participate in fruit and vegetable processing could not earn
any income from this activity and the processing centres were not yet functional, no changes in
their food security or nutrition were observed.
3.4.3 Contribution to policy and institutional change
Finding 14: While not a stated goal, the project contributed to institutional capacity and systems
building by filling gaps in the country’s agricultural policy and development strategy.
81. The project conducted baseline value-chain studies of potato, tomato, banana and mango
farming. The studies established concrete postharvest loss figures all along the value chain, from
production to the end market in Addis Ababa. Information generated by these studies played a
decisive role in promoting horticulture to official subsector levels led by a state minister,
increasing the number of personnel for postharvest management (from zero to three at the
Ministry of Agriculture) and creating a number of government-funded positions in certain
regional bureaux of agriculture and woredas.
21
82. A Ministry of Agriculture interviewee said that the government intended to increase the
production and productivity of horticultural products, including fruits, vegetables and roots, but
was not paying attention to postharvest losses. The baseline studies showed very high postharvest
losses, the reduction of which, coupled with quality assurance before and after harvest, could
contribute to food security, increased income and exports. The studies encouraged institutional
reform within the Ministry of Agriculture, with postharvest handling now given greater emphases.
This presents a good opportunity for the use of the project’s approach, technologies and practices
on a wider scale, sustaining the results obtained.
83. According to a key informant at the Ministry of Agriculture, “the project is new in kind to specifically
address postharvest losses in horticulture crops. It revealed the high level of postharvest losses in
potato, tomato, mango and banana at different nodes of the value chain and contributed
convincingly to the priority given to postharvest handling in the agricultural sector transformation
agenda”. Further institutionalization and institutional capacity development are necessary.
3.5 To what extent are project results sustainable?

84. This section assesses the sustainability of project results from an institutional, technical, economic
and environmental perspective.
Finding 15. Institutional sustainability: Postharvest management is becoming one of the major
pillars of the country’s agricultural extension strategy.
85. The study conducted for this project, indicating that food security and higher income for farmers
could not be attained unless postharvest losses were minimized, was instrumental in bringing
about the inclusion of postharvest management in Ethiopia’s agricultural extension strategy. The
Ministry of Agriculture has also prepared a ten-year horticultural development strategy that
includes postharvest handling. Moreover, a national horticulture development roadmap is being
developed, which will cite quality assurance as key to commercialization and export.
86. The horticulture sector has started to benefit from institutional reform in the agricultural sector.
As part of the new emphasis placed on horticultural development, the sector is now overseen by
a state minister, while experts have been assigned to fill postharvest management positions at
the Ministry of Agriculture and regional bureaux of agriculture. If this continues, there is no doubt
that postharvest management practices will be further institutionalized at all levels and become
sustainable.
87. The project’s awareness-raising sessions also trickled down from participating farmers to non-
participant farmers in project areas. Moreover, development agents are still using the training
manuals to train farmers under the regular extension system by integrating FAO training
components into their periodic awareness-raising exercises.
Finding 16. Technical sustainability: The postharvest management technologies and practices
introduced are technically appropriate and suited to production and use in the intervention areas.
88. Most of the technologies promoted, such as DLS, mudbrick, sheds and mango harvesting tools,
can be locally manufactured and modified. These technologies are also easily managed by the
beneficiaries. The promoted postharvest handling practices are highly adaptable to prevailing
conditions and farming systems. It was also found that good technologies and practices had been
adopted by farmers who were not directly targeted by the project. However, the supply of some
materials, such as crates, was limited. The processing machinery and spare parts may not be as
easily produced at local level, due to their complexity and the lack of local capacity.
22
Findings
89. Additional efforts are needed to ensure the sustainability of fruit and vegetable processing.
Training on the technical aspects of processing was given some time ago and this has not been
translated into skills. Some youths have already called for refresher training. Moreover, the
operation and maintenance of machinery and utilities require further technical skills development.
90. Although 12 marketing cooperatives were registered to receive support from this project, no
marketing activities were observed, except for the cooperatives organized to promote mangoes
and bananas. Despite the current increase in farmer income, as more farmers produce
horticultural products, the need for market linkages to buyers will increase. Establishing market
ties with individual smallholder farmers is unrealistic, hence the need to strengthen marketing
cooperatives. However, marketing has been a major challenge for horticultural products in the
project areas. Lack of appropriate transport facilities, storage, management skills and market
linkages are key problems cited. Capacity development in marketing and business management
remain major areas where producers and processors need support. Interviewees displayed a lack
of adequate training in business management. If the processing of fruits and vegetables is
launched, business management, marketing and financial management will become crucial, so
should be provided. Without strong management and technical capacity, the cooperatives cannot
function sustainably.
Finding 17. Economic sustainability: The postharvest management technologies and practices
introduced are financially affordable at scale and sustainably used.
91. According to interviewees, the materials used for fruit and vegetable storage are often locally
available, affordable and modifiable by farmers and local artisans. Improved product quality has
also resulted in better product prices, indicating high potential for financial sustainability.
92. The beneficiary cooperatives have mobilized some money to use as working capital when they
start functioning. In Bahir Dar Zuria woreda, the cooperatives mobilized savings of ETB 200 000
(around USD 4 785), while in Sinan woreda, the cooperatives saved ETB 100 000 (about
USD 2 392) as working capital, which is to be used for operational expenses when the business is
launched. Some of the services/inputs that need investment can be accessed through rural savings
and loan organizations, which provide loans at affordable interest rates. However, the levels of
working capital required or operating costs involved have not been adequately estimated for each
of the processing cooperatives, so the cooperatives do not know exactly how much they need in
order to embark on a successful processing business. Some cooperative members said they were
told to run complementary businesses to diversify their income and ensure the sustainability of
the processing businesses. However, these complementary businesses were not identified and
their feasibility was not studied.
93. The youth cooperatives for fruit and vegetable processing have not yet started operating. Many
participants complained about the delay. Some of the young people were registered with day-
labour associations and left to join the agribusiness cooperatives to make a better living. Many
are now leaving the cooperatives, as they have lost hope and need to find alternative ways of
earning a living. For example, of the 25 members of one banana processing and marketing
cooperative in Arba Minch Zuria, five (20 percent) have left. Twenty-four of the 30 (80 percent)
have left the Getnet Wubrist and Friends Vegetable Processing Cooperative in Sinan woreda. The
situation is similar in all the intervention areas.
94. The initiatives linking cooperative members trained in processing with suppliers of vegetables is
a good step in sustaining project initiatives and should bear fruit when the processing facilities
are completed and functioning. However, as the processing has not yet started, it was impossible
to ascertain the precise effect of these market connections.
23
Finding 18. Environmental sustainability: Postharvest loss-preventing technologies and practices,

such as sheds, DLS, mudbricks and crates, cause no environmental damage.
95. Most of the technologies and practices introduced by the project involve reusable and recyclable
objects and will have minimal environmental impact. The technologies use clean energy sources,
such as electricity, solar energy and low-carbon fuels. However, the team was unable to assess
the positive or negative impacts of the agro-processing interventions of the project. The
evaluation team believes an environmental impact study is needed to make sure that proper
disposal of solid and liquid waste management is included in the implementation of the
horticulture processing activities.
3.6 To what extent was the project implemented efficiently?

Finding 19: Project activities were implemented in partnership with government institutions from
federal to kebele level. The arrangement ensured ownership and sustainability and could contribute
to the potential upscaling of project results. While it was efficient for the most part, the inclusion of
the agricultural offices of administrative zones made no significant contribution to project outputs.
96. Project management arrangements followed FAO modalities. FAO Ethiopia acted as project
manager, while the partners at regional, administrative zone, woreda and kebele levels had
different roles in the implementation of the activities. Implementers benefited from capacity
development and experience sharing and the arrangement was found to be practical. However,
key informants noted that while the inclusion of administrative zones in the implementation
arrangement added another level to project financial transfers, they had no technical role in
project implementation. According to them, implementation would have been more efficient
without the involvement of the administrative zones.
97. At federal level, FAO seconded a project manager as project focal point and coordinator, stationed
in the Ministry of Agriculture, unlike other FAO projects implemented in partnership with the
Ministry. This enabled the focal point to increase their involvement in the implementation of
project activities and to closely manage the project by building strong connections within the
Ministry, resulting in better joint implementation of project activities.
98. Implementation was carried out based on approved project documents, comprising lists of project
activities at output level. The steering committee chaired by the Ministry of Agriculture was
responsible for approving the activity plan presented by FAO and overseeing implementation.
Steering-committee meetings were conducted on three occasions during the project. In a few
cases, it revised the original plan. For example, it decided to establish 12 strong cooperatives with
the capacity to meet the demand of the target areas, rather than 30 smaller cooperatives. The
number of target farmers was also reduced from 4 000 to 3 000 and the number of farmers
producing fruits and vegetables was adjusted in the target kebeles. This suggests over-estimation
during the project design phase.
99. FAO Ethiopia has field offices in the Oromia, Amhara and SNNPR regions. These offices worked
closely with the focal points assigned by the regional bureaux of agriculture. As in the Ministry of
Agriculture, the FAO regional field offices are in the same buildings as the agricultural bureaux,
enabling close and immediate information sharing and quick decisions. FAO field-office
coordinators and experts provided technical support to the woreda-level focal points, the most
direct implementers of project activities. This arrangement enabled the government institutions
to take ownership of the projects.
24
Findings
100. The efficiency of some activities, such as studies and procurement, was dependent on FAO rules
and procedures. Though the implementation arrangements were appreciated, key informants said
FAO needed to improve its procurement efficiency to avoid delays.
101. In Oromia region, the Bureau of Agriculture implemented the project through its horticulture and
extension department, in close cooperation with the FAO field office. The initial letter of
agreement was signed with the Oromia Irrigation Development Authority (OIDA), home to
horticultural development before it was restructured and moved to the Bureau of Agriculture. In
the initial phase, the transfer of funds from OIDA to the Bureau of Agriculture proved challenging,
affecting implementation efficiency, though things speeded up later on, offsetting the delay.
Finding 20: Financial transfers were based on letters of agreement between FAO and the
implementing offices. This generally worked well, except for the last instalment, which was based
on a reimbursement. The implementing partners found themselves short of resources to
implement activities and had to mobilize resources elsewhere so they could apply for repayment.
102. There were delays in disbursing funds, as the approval of budget changes and additional activities
took longer than expected. With regard to financial performance, FAO’s core personnel at regional
level are responsible for facilitating financial flows, with funds transferred based on letters of
agreement with the FAO Country Office. Financial revisions are undertaken twice a year, according
to budget lines and corresponding project activities. At the Ministry of Agriculture’s request, there
were some new activities that were not included in the project document, which had been
incorporated through budget revisions. The evaluation found that such revisions led to delays
due to the time needed for their approvals.
103. In most cases, 30 percent of the funding was released upon signing, with partners required to
present financial justification for the next instalment of 50 percent. The remaining 20 percent was
payable after the final project implementation report was delivered. The partners reported
challenges in meeting this last obligation due to a lack of budget for implementing the remaining
activities prior to reimbursement. They attempted to find other sources of funds to complete the
outstanding project activities. At the time of evaluation, all letters of agreement were closed
following the satisfactory completion of the activities, as planned.
104. The process of transferring funds to implementers at woreda level seems excessively long, as the
funding passes from FAO to the region, then to the administrative zone and/or woreda. There
were also delays and a lack of project ownership from government financial personnel, as they
were busy with other transactions and lacked motivation to prioritize this project. On this, serious
concerns were raised in woredas in the SNNPR region, though the concerns were widespread.
Finding 21: The cost-sharing arrangement adopted by the project was generally effective as an
approach, but the real cost for communities and implementing partners were not adequately
estimated in the planning phase.
105. To use resources efficiently, project activities were conducted using a community cost-sharing
mechanism and target beneficiaries were mobilised for shared contributions in kind, such as local
materials for constructing DLS and sheds. The woreda administrations were also responsible for
providing the land, materials and utilities, such as water, electricity and sewerage, necessary to
establish the agro-processing units.
106. While the cost-sharing arrangement was necessary to ensure ownership and sustainability, the
value of the contribution of the community and woreda offices (such as the cost of land provided
by woreda administrations) were not estimated in monetary terms during project planning. It was
25
difficult for the partners to meet such costs during implementation. The woredas also had to plug
gaps that arose from the under-budgeting of certain activities (such as labour costs in excess of
the budget, as was the case in Arba Minch Zuria woreda).
3.7 Were gender-equality considerations reflected in project design and

implementation?
Finding 22: The project targeted men, women and girls and young farmers. It did not aim to change
social gender structures and dynamics, however, as the intervention was not underpinned by gender
analysis. The assessment showed gender-mainstreaming weaknesses in project design, which could
be linked to a lack of gender-dedicated personnel in the Country Office.
107. The project was designed in a gender-neutral way, with no attempts made to alter existing social
gender structures in the target community. The project document did not give details of any
expected achievements in terms of gender equality and empowerment, though the number of
target beneficiaries was disaggregated by sex.
108. Despite the clearance of gender-related formalities during preparation, review and approval, per
FAO’s requirements, the project documents did not take gender-equality concerns sufficiently
into account. This is in part due to the fact that the FAO Country Office lacked gender-dedicated
personnel. The assessment recently conducted by the Country Office showed a lack of capacity
on gender and recommended the appointment of a gender focal point.
109. No specific gender analysis was conducted prior to the planning and implementation of activities
to identify gender gaps or imbalances in access and control of resources and income, so as to
properly identify interventions that would correct those inequalities. Gender analysis would have
enabled the planning and implementation of capacity-development activities to promote
women’s empowerment in terms of economic improvement, decision-making, confidence, self-
esteem, capacity for leadership and many other areas.
110. Nor did the various studies conducted under the project include gender aspects. The only
exception was the processing units survey, which considered women’s domestic role in processing
food at household level to decide whom to involve in the processing cooperatives.
111. During implementation, the project promoted the inclusion of young women and girls as
beneficiaries in the processing cooperatives. According to interviewees, their inclusion varied from
place to place. For example, about 80 percent of cooperative members in the Dugda and Arsi
Negele woredas of Oromia region and the Arba Minch Zuria woreda of the SNNPR are women or
girls, while membership in Amhara region is very much male dominated. In Bahir Dar Zuria woreda,
the beneficiary cooperative for the postharvest management and processing of mango belongs
to a mango producers’ cooperative, where the members are mostly male. The cooperatives plan
to employ jobless youth when the processing units are up and running, but the gender balance
of the young people to be employed was not known at the time of evaluation.
112. Women and girls play a significant role in agricultural production in general and in horticultural
production, in particular, especially in harvesting. Female interviewees said they had participated
in the capacity-enhancement trainings provided to farmers to improve postharvest management
practices. The project also included women in training on how to use a mix of food crops (dietary
feeding) and encouraged women to attend awareness-raising and recipe sessions.
113. In contrast, the target beneficiaries of DLS (for potato) and sheds (for tomato and banana) were
selected based on their access to land and irrigation for horticultural production, and gender was
26
Findings
not a criterion in their selection. As land ownership is largely in the hands of heads of household,
which are predominantly men, the producer cooperative members targeted by the project were
dominated by men.
3.8 What capacity-development results did the project achieve?

Finding 23: The project invested in developing capacity at individual and organizational level. It
adopted effective and sustainable approaches to capacity development, targeting producers. It
also contributed to the creation of an enabling environment to reduce postharvest losses by
supporting the Ethiopian Society of Postharvest Management and by gathering evidence on the
importance of postharvest management.
114. At both the individual and organizational level, the project trained experts, farmers and processors
on postharvest technologies and practices, food processing, marketing and management. It
provided cooperatives with materials and equipment. It raised awareness by organizing
workshops to share knowledge generated by different studies and exposure visits.
115. A training-of-trainers approach was used to cascade capacity-development activities on different

levels. The process allowed attendees to deepen their knowledge as they passed on their training.
As part of the training-of-trainers process, the Ministry of Agriculture took responsibility for
facilitating and providing training at regional, administrative zone and woreda level, using its
technical personnel to support the project. Various training sessions were conducted at regional
and woreda level, where agronomists and project focal points were trained based on capacity
needs assessments. The experts trained in these sessions then trained direct project beneficiaries.
116. Workshops were used as a forum for disseminating study results. The findings of the baseline
studies were shared in a validation workshop, which boosted the attention paid to the postharvest
management of horticulture at federal and regional level. Exposure visits abroad by officials also
added to their awareness of technologies and practices used to reduce postharvest losses. Thus,
the project’s various interventions contributed to the creation of an enabling environment for
postharvest loss reduction in the Ministry of Agriculture and this has gradually spread to the
regions.
Finding 24: While postharvest losses happen all along the value chain, FAO’s capacity-development
efforts with regard to postharvest loss reduction focused mainly on producers and did not target
other actors in the chain.
117. The project’s capacity-development study confirmed the need to introduce better practices and
technologies for postharvest handling, processing and value addition to reduce postharvest
losses. The findings of the six woreda-based studies served as a baseline for measuring
postharvest losses, household consumption of fruits and vegetables and capacity gaps in the
target areas and helped in the design of necessary interventions.
118. The project’s capacity-development activities focused on investment in sheds, DLS and
postharvest handling by producers – activities with the potential to significantly reduce
postharvest losses and maintain quality. However, the studies conducted by the project showed
losses at farm level, in storage, during transport and in traders’ warehouses. Therefore, unless
other activities are implemented to strengthen the capacities of the other actors involved, losses
will continue all along the value chain, right down to the consumer.
27
4. Conclusions and recommendations
4.1 Conclusions
Conclusion 1. By tackling postharvest losses, the project addressed one of the major challenges faced by
producers. Farmers have adopted postharvest management practices and technologies introduced by the
project that have helped to reduce losses and increase food security by boosting income and making more
produce available for household consumption over longer periods. This was possible due to a significant
effort to raise awareness of the scale of postharvest losses, coupled with training in postharvest
management practices and techniques, capacity development and the provision of technology to farmers.
The results will be sustainable because of the economic gains the farmers are seeing and the adaptability
of practices and technologies to the intervention areas.
Conclusion 2. The interventions served as a good pilot for the institutionalization of postharvest
management in Ethiopia’s agricultural extension system. As a result, postharvest management features
heavily in the country’s horticultural development strategy. Institutional reform in the agricultural sector
to raise the status of the horticulture sub-sector is the best illustration of project sustainability. However,
scaling up and expanding these technologies and practices will require greater effort and support, as the
sub-sector is young and lacks capacity. The efforts under way in this regard should be supported, in
particular, by the mainstreaming of postharvest management in the extension system, the development
of guidelines and the provision of capacity-building training on a wider scale. A concerted effort by
stakeholders, including the Ministry of Agriculture, the regional bureaux of agriculture and other agencies,
is required. Extension efforts should also cover other value-chain actors, such as brokers, who have been
found to resist the use of new equipment, such as tomato crates.
Conclusion 3. The pilot interventions on processing and value addition for vegetables and fruits were not
sufficiently advanced to demonstrate impact and sustainability. The planned processing centres are not
completed or operational, with equipment yet to be installed. The young people trained in processing for
these centres have been waiting for activities to start. They are unemployed, so desperate to earn a
livelihood. Due to the delays, some members of the cooperatives have started to leave in search of work
elsewhere. This undermines sustainability.
Conclusion 4. It was assumed that fruit and vegetable producers would benefit from supplying their
produce to the processing centres. However, the centres have not been completed and not all types of
horticultural produce can be processed by them. This suggests that problems with vegetable marketing
will persist. While 12 marketing cooperatives were registered to receive support from the project, the only
marketing activities observed were in the mango and banana cooperatives. Marketing has been a major
challenge for horticultural produce. The requirements of marketing cooperatives differ from those of the
processing cooperatives, so tailored intervention is needed. A shortage of working capital, inappropriate
transport facilities, a lack of proper storage, a dearth of management skills and market linkages are all key
areas that need to be addressed.
Conclusion 5. The project’s training approach was effective and covered a large number of beneficiaries
and stakeholders in the extension sector. However, the effectiveness of capacity development for
cooperatives will depend on the profitability of the processing businesses. No feasibility study was
conducted for the cooperatives’ processing businesses, which should have been done before procuring
the processing equipment.
Conclusion 6. The planning and implementation of this project did not address social gender imbalances,
merely focusing on the inclusion of beneficiaries based on gender and age. There was no gender analysis
to identify the gender gaps, inequities of access or control of resources or income, to identify interventions
that could lessen gender inequality. The capacity-development component did not consider the
importance of promoting women’s economic empowerment, decision-making, confidence and self-
29
esteem or leadership capacity, for example. This could also be attributed to a lack of gender-dedicated
personnel within FAO Ethiopia. Due to this lack of gender analysis, however, the project was unable to
include gender-responsive indicators and gender-specific activities that could alter the gender power
balance and promote gender leadership. The producers’ cooperatives, for instance, were male dominated
due to a lack of effort to include women members.
A gap in addressing gender issues by FAO Ethiopia was also emphasised in the Evaluation of FAO’s
country programme in Ethiopia (FAO, 2020). The Evaluation recommended that the Country Office define
a strategy on how to mainstream gender within its projects and programmes to bring about greater
change in the lives of men, women, girls and boys. It suggested that the Office build on the
recommendations of FAO’s country gender assessment for Ethiopia (FAO, 2019) to better institutionalize
gender in the country programme and the Office itself.
Conclusion 7. The findings of this assessment revealed that the overall outcome and end goal of the
project were only partially achieved, as the cooperatives organized for processing fruits and vegetables
were not functional. The completion of the processing centres was delayed, partly due to prolonged
administrative processes for acquiring land, but also (and crucially) due to the long approval process for
budgetary revisions. Moreover, the limitations of certain implementation arrangements affected project
efficiency, for example:
i. Overestimating government capacity to implement the project. The third and final payment in the
letter of agreement stated that 20 percent of the budget would be refunded to the implementer
after the project activities had been completed. However, the woreda partners found this
challenge because of their resource limitations. This means the arrangement is likely to exclude
partners with low financing capacity.
ii. Including administrative zones in project implementation arrangements added extra
administrative steps without adding value in terms of project results.
iii. Long procurement procedures also contributed to delays in the implementation process.
4.2 Recommendations
The evaluation team makes the following recommendations based on the above conclusions.
Recommendation 1. FAO should work to ensure that technologies and practices are scaled up. It should
also support key actions, such as the mainstreaming of postharvest management in Ethiopia’s extension
system, the development of postharvest handling guidelines and the provision of capacity-building
training on a broader scale.
Recommendation 2. To ensure that the processing units become operational, FAO should ensure that
the following activities are accomplished as soon as possible:
i. When completing construction work on the processing units, it is important to pay attention to
the type of processing involved and to put appropriate facilities in place for liquid and solid-
waste management, in line with the environmental protection policy. If certification of the
processed product is desired, environmental safety becomes a key criterion. The administration
has not yet secured land for the processing centre in Bahir Dar Zuria. Critical decisions must be
taken by the administration, as the machinery for the centre is still in storage.
ii. Securing and installing water and electricity supplies may take longer. Involving the relevant
authorities in the finishing process may help to speed things up.
iii. To ensure efficiency and meet required standards, the installation of water and electricity
supplies and waste-disposal systems should be aligned with the installation of the machinery
and equipment.
iv. Once all the above are achieved, refresher training will need to be organized for the
cooperatives on processing and business management (finance, human resources, inventory
30
Conclusions and recommendations
management and marketing). It is also vital to secure the operational capital needed to run the
business.
v. Capacity-development activities will need to be organized for those agencies supporting the
processing cooperatives.
Recommendation 3. FAO Ethiopia should provide support for conducting proper business studies for
the processing cooperatives on the feasibility of intended businesses, to determine the type of product
processed, the market for the product, marketing strategy, pricing policy, raw-material supply (by day,
week, month and year), source of raw materials, procurement policy, inventory management, etc. It should
also conduct cash flow analyses to compare the cash income of business operations, as well as the cash
required to procure materials for processing, salaries, wages and utilities and to service outstanding debts.
Recommendation 4. FAO Ethiopia should work hard to support the marketing cooperatives, also by
developing capacity and management skills, providing appropriate storage and transport facilities and
promoting market linkages.
Recommendation 5. In future projects, FAO Ethiopia should conduct a gender analysis to set gender
objectives and strategies, identify needs, plan activities and develop gender-sensitive indicators to
monitor results. As recommended by the Evaluation of FAO’s country programme in Ethiopia, gender
capacity in the Country Office should be strengthened to ensure that gender is properly mainstreamed in
future activities. Gender awareness training should be provided to FAO personnel, as well as to key
implementing partners.
Recommendation 6. Implementing these recommendations will require the consolidation of project
results to date. FAO should mobilize resources for a second phase of the project, focusing on the woredas
of the first phase and scaling up results to add further woredas where the production potential is higher
(for example, mango production in the western part of the country, in west Oromia and Benishangul-
Gumuz). The second phase is needed not only to consolidate activities in the current project woredas and
enable the implementation of the evaluation recommendations, but also to allow the replication of
successful project activities elsewhere.
Recommendation 7. FAO should review the letter of agreement with regard to the final payment
schedule, which states that 20 percent of the budget will be refunded after project activities are
accomplished, so as to adopt a more flexible and inclusive arrangement that considers the financing
capacity of partners. Attempts should also be made to improve the procurement process and financial
flows, including speedy approval of budgetary revisions.
31
References
Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI) & ICF. 2019. Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey
2019: Key Indicators. Rockville, MD: EPHI and ICF.
FAO. 2019. National Gender Profile of Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods: Ethiopia. Country Gender
Assessment Series. Addis Ababa. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/ca3224en/ca3224en.pdf)
FAO. 2020. Evaluation of FAO’s country programme in Ethiopia 2014–2019. Rome. (also available at
http://www.fao.org/3/cb1354en/cb1354en.pdf)
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 2016. Growth and Transformation Plan II (GTP II)
(2015/16-2019/20). Volume 1: Main text. Addis Ababa: National Planning Commission. (also available at
https://ethiopia.un.org/en/15231-growth-and-transformation-plan-ii)
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. 2010. Ethiopia’s Agricultural Sector Policy and
Investment Framework 2010-2020. Final Report. Addis Ababa. (also available at
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/eth149550.pdf)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance
Committee (DAC). 2019. Better Criteria for Better Evaluation: Revised Evaluation Criteria Definitions and
Principles for Use. Paris. (also available at https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/revised-evaluation-
criteria-dec-2019.pdf)
United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG). 2016. Norms and Standards for Evaluation. New York City,
United States of America. (also available at http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/1914)
UNEG. 2020. Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. New York City, United States of America. (also available at
http://www.uneval.org/document/detail/2866)
World Health Organization (WHO). 2012. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Report
of the joint WHO/FAO expert consultation. WHO Technical Report Series, No. 916. Geneva, Switzerland.
(also available at https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/trs916/en/)
33
Appendix 1. People interviewed
List of key informants
Last name First name Organization Position
Abay Teshager FAO Ethiopia Office Project manager
Vegetable crop expert and project focal
Abebaw Kidist Sinan woreda
point
Alemu Shumye FAO Amhara field office Amhara field-office coordinator
Asaminew Dereje FAO Hawassa field office Field-office coordinator
Oromia regional Bureau of Director of the Crop Development
Beyene Mamo
Agriculture Directorate and alternate focal point
Beyera Desta FAO Oromia field office Field-office coordinator
Desalegn Abebech SNNPR Bureau of Agriculture Horticultural expert and project focal point
Arsi Negele woreda Office of
Emana Firomsa Development agent
Agriculture
Amhara regional Bureau of Horticulture crop expert and project focal
Emiru Lakachew
Agriculture point
Dugda woreda Office of Focal point and now Deputy Head of the
Gossaye Chali
Agriculture Dugda woreda Office of Agriculture
Dugda woreda Office of Horticultural team leader and project focal
Haji Kemal
Agriculture point
Jateno Workicho FAO Ethiopia Office Assistant representative
Ethiopian Postharvest
Mohammed Ali President
Management Society
Mulat Yitateku Bahir Dar Zuria woreda Development agent
Director of the Horticultural Technology
Ministry of Agriculture of
Negash Abdela Transfer Directorate, alternate project focal
Ethiopia
point
Nikus Olani FAO Oromia field office Oromia field-office agronomist
Ministry of Agriculture of Root & tuber crops team leader and
Shiferaw Meseret
Ethiopia project focal point
Arsi Negele woreda Office of
Temam Ahmad Focal point
Agriculture
Arba Minch Zuria woreda
Tesfaye Mekonen Postharvest expert and project focal point
Office of Agriculture
Arba Minch Zuria woreda
Teshome Firew Development agent
Office of Agriculture
Tiruneh Yibeltal FAO Ethiopia Office Crop team leader
Horticulture team leader and project focal
Yenewa Alene Bahir Dar Zuria woreda
point
34
Appendix 1. People interviewed
List of beneficiaries contacted for data collection

Region Woreda Gender Value chain
Male Mango
Female Mango
Bahir Dar Zuria Female Mango
Amhara Male Mango
Male Mango
Male Potato
Sinan
Female Potato
Male Banana
Male Banana
SNNPR Arba Minch Zuria
Female Banana
Female Banana
Male Tomato
Male Tomato
Oromia Dugda Male Tomato
Female Tomato
Female Tomato
Female Potato
Female Potato
Oromia Arsi Negele
Female Potato
Male Potato
35
Office of Evaluation
evaluation@fao.org
www.fao.org/evaluation
CB5837EN/1/07.21
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome, Italy

Tomato Past

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tomato Past

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tomato Past

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Evaluation Series

Evaluation of the “Food-loss

Evaluation of the “Food-loss reduction

Project code: GCP/ETH/088/GER

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Cover photographs: ©FAO Ethiopia

Summary of main findings and conclusions

2. The purposes of the evaluation are:

1.2 Intended users

1.3 Scope and objectives of the evaluation

1.3.1 Scope of the evaluation

1.3.2 Evaluation objectives

1.3.3 Evaluation questions

Box 1. Main evaluation questions

Table 1. Overview of people contacted for data collection

16. Quantitative data on project outputs, especially on investment in capacity development at

1.5 Stakeholder engagement

2.2 Project description

Figure 1. Outputs, outcome and project end goal

Improved food security and increased

Source: Project document.

3.3 Have activities implemented by the project contributed to achieving the

Table 3. Summary of outputs planned and achieved by the project

3.3.2 Output 2: Compilation, evaluation, dissemination and adoption of good practice

Table 4. Exposure visits and experience gained

3.3.3 Output 3: Improved access to processing and other value-adding technologies

Finding 9: Capacity-development activities on postharvest handling and value addition, including

Table 5. Number of documents produced and disseminated

3.3.5 Output 5: Establishment and strengthening of groups, associations and

3.4.1 Contribution to the overarching project outcome

Case study: Impact of potato storage techniques

3.4.2 Contribution to the final project goal

3.4.3 Contribution to policy and institutional change

3.5 To what extent are project results sustainable?

Finding 18. Environmental sustainability: Postharvest loss-preventing technologies and practices,

3.6 To what extent was the project implemented efficiently?

3.7 Were gender-equality considerations reflected in project design and

3.8 What capacity-development results did the project achieve?

115. A training-of-trainers approach was used to cascade capacity-development activities on different

List of beneficiaries contacted for data collection

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

You might also like