case study: pakistan entrepreneurs grant …pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00n1nx.pdf · unemployment...

CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL 1

Z

Grant Completion Report Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC) Improving Financial Governance in Caprivi Conservancies Grant July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013

[Insert Date of report]

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by [Insert grantee] for Chemonics International for activities completed under Contract No. 674-C-00-10-00030-00.

CASE STUDY: Pakistan Entrepreneurs Livelihoods Model

Asia and the Middle East Economic Growth Best Practices (AMEG) Project Chemonics International, Inc. Task Order No. AID-OAA-M-12-00008

January 2016

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development by Chemonics International Inc.

2 CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL

CASE STUDY: PAKISTAN ENTREPRENEURS LIVELIHOODS MODEL

RFP No. Contract No. AID-OAA-M-12-00008

Contract Implemented by:

Chemonics International Inc.

The author’s views in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.


CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................... 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 8

CASE STUDY ..................................................................................................................... 10

A. Context ............................................................................................................................ 11

B. Objectives, Beneficiaries, and Stakeholders ................................................................... 12

C. Approach ......................................................................................................................... 13

D. Impact ............................................................................................................................. 18

E. Key Findings and Lessons Learned ................................................................................. 19

F. Prerequisites for Replication ........................................................................................... 29

ANNEXES

ANNEX A - VC-specific Access and Integration of Women ............................................. 32

ANNEX B - LRP Selection Criteria .................................................................................... 35

ANNEX C - Post-project Status Report, Sustainability Centers ......................................... 36

ANNEX D - Lessons Learned One-pager ........................................................................... 46

ANNEX E - References ....................................................................................................... 47

ANNEX F - Interviewees .................................................................................................... 48

ANNEX G - KFP Beneficiaries by VC ............................................................................... 49

ANNEX H - Entrepreneurs One-pagers .............................................................................. 50

ANNEX I - Organizational Chart ........................................................................................ 59


ACRONYMS

AMEG Asia and Middle East Economic Growth BDS Business Development Services Center Term used to cover CFCs/MCBCs/HCCs collectively CFC Common Facility Center (HEF) CL Cluster Lead DFATD Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada ECDI Entrepreneurship and Community Development Institute EP Empowering Pakistan FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FGD Focus Group Discussion FLEW Female Extension Worker FSA Female Sales Associate FTE Full-time Employment FVMC Female Village Milk Collector HCC Honey Collection Center (honey) HDOD Human Development Organization Doaba HEF Hand embellished fabrics HUJRA Holistic Understanding for Justified Research and Action IDS Innovative Development Strategies ISH Input Supply Hub (dairy) KFP Key Facilitating Partner KPK Khyber Pakhtunkwa LRP Livelihoods Recovery Program MAPs Medicinal and Aromatic Plants MC Marketing Coordinator MCBC MAP Collection and Buying Center (MAPs) MEDA Mennonite Economic Development Associates MENA Middle East and North Africa MFI Micro-finance Institution MT Master Trainer NRSP National Rural Support Program PARRSA Provincial Restoration, Rehabilitation and Settlement Authority SCBS Senior Capacity Building Specialist TA Technical Assistance THAAP Trust for History, Art, and Architecture, Pakistan UC Union Council USAID United States Agency for International Development VC Value Chain VCA Value Chain Analysis VCO Value Chain Officer WESS Water, Environment, and Sanitation Society


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is at a critical juncture. The Arab Spring,

sparked in 2011 by frustration and impatience with limited economic opportunities, has yet to

deliver the jobs and improved livelihoods so many had hoped for. Addressing the jobs crisis in

MENA will require inclusive private-sector growth, driven by more strategic, efficient, and

competitive firms and producers. In response, the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) Asia Middle East Economic Growth Best Practices program (AMEG) is

exploring three approaches to sustainable job creation and income generation in high-

unemployment countries and developing case studies exemplifying solutions. These three

approaches include: (i) enterprise competitiveness, (ii) vocational training and job-matching, and

(iii) sustainable livelihoods development.

Pakistan Entrepreneurs, implemented by Mennonite Economic Development Associates

(MEDA), was chosen as a case study for the sustainable livelihoods approach, based on specific

project elements of relevance to the MENA context:

Integration of home-bound women

A Livelihoods Recovery Program (LRP) that provided a transition from relief activities to

economic growth

A focus on post-project sustainability

By applying a value chain approach to frame sustainable livelihoods activities, the project

objective was a 50 percent increase in the incomes of 120,0001 micro-entrepreneurs and small

enterprise owners, the majority of whom were women (MEDA, web 2015). Entrepreneurs were

targeted in four value chains (VCs): dairy, hand embellished fabrics (HEF), honey, and

medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs). Summary results are shown in the table below.

Entrepreneurs Project Results (MEDA, 2014 and IDS, 2014)

Beneficiaries 85,693

Female beneficiaries 88%

Cost/beneficiary 350 USD2

Income increase (VC Program only) 19%3

Net sales increase 93%

Sustainability 30 sustainability ‘Centers’ established

Contextually, Pakistan bears a strong similarity to many countries within MENA. The 2014

World Economic Forum Gender Gap Report captures the comparability: MENA ranks last on the

Economic Participation and Opportunity subindex and MENA countries dominate the bottom

tier of the combined ranking. On the same subindex, Pakistan ranks 141 out of 142 nations,

outperforming only Syria. Additionally, Pakistan faces political instability, echoing the recent

experiences of many MENA countries. A breakdown of confidence and trust between local

1 Target beneficiary numbers were decreased to 75,000 in 2011, based on a restructuring of the SOW to include a new relief component, the Livelihoods Recovery Program 2 Derived by dividing the project budget by the number of beneficiaries; loose baseline across all AMEG cases 3 Average contribution of project related income to toal household income, due to increase in net sales


communities and Government of Pakistan institutions has led to increased vulnerability to

violent extremism (USAID, updated 2015). U.S. military actions within the borders of the

country have also created a climate of acute sensitivity to U.S. government involvement,

increasing the complexity of U.S. project implementation in the field.

While overall Entrepreneurs project activities and approaches, as presented in the case study

below, are of interest to sustainable livelihoods programming, the three Entrepreneurs elements

of interest noted earlier provide valuable perspectives and actionable models for replication in

the MENA region.

INTEGRATION OF HOMEBOUND WOMEN

Entrepreneurs applied three methods to increase access to, and integration of, the female

population:

Key Facilitating Partners (KFPs) as community mobilizers and project representatives on

the ground

Sales Agents (SAs) to liaise between markets and producers

Cluster/group formation to support micro-level producers

Working in parallel, these approaches allowed the Entrepreneurs project to successfully access

and work with large numbers of women despite the geographical and cultural challenges in doing

so. KFPs were drawn from a pool of locally known, trusted NGOs with positive profiles within

the intervention communities – they were known entities. The SA model, by using more mobile

individuals to access those with less mobility, allowed the project access to a larger pool of

female producers. The cluster/group approach allowed producers to be grouped together, based

on location and willingness to work together, removing much of the assumed vulnerability of

individual women venturing outside the home. The manner in which each of these approaches

was implemented within the VCs, in terms of gendered roles, allowed Entrepreneurs to push

boundaries of acceptable male/female relationships and expand opportunities for women.

Key Findings

1. The SA and cluster/group models are a good fit for more conservative societies.

However, a basic level of access is still required: There must be accessible, willing, local

partner(s) that are trusted within the targeted community.

2. Trust is essential to integrating homebound women. Adequate time must be allowed to

identify and train appropriate partners to undertake effective community mobilization.

LIVELIHOODS RECOVERY PROGRAM

Entrepreneurs worked with local partners to provide livelihoods recovery assistance to

households whose source of revenue had been destroyed or disrupted by conflict and/or natural

disaster (MEDA, 2014b). Through KFP relationships, beneficiaries were identified and

prioritized and asset replacement grants were awarded to selected KFPs for procurement and

distribution of goods and services. Activities included rapid needs assessments, livestock

vaccination, procurement and distribution of toolkits, small-scale production tools, and other

assets to productivity.


The recovery program was initially implemented for six-months in KPK, for populations being

resettled in Swat, post-conflict. As this program ended, the 2010 flooding hit the same area, as

well as substantial portions of the rest of the country. USAID requested that LRP activities be

implemented with the flood-affected populations in KPK and across the country, initiating a

second, six-month LRP. Key Findings

1. Smaller number of sectors allows for more sustainable progress. The shift from post-

conflict to post-flood allowed the project to build on experience and focus on fewer sectors.

A narrower focus enabled the project to introduce the private sector and market linkage

concepts into relief activities, harnessing market forces to help drive the recovery process.

2. Engage private sector partners as soon as possible and in a substantial way. Early

involvement can provide guidance and resource support to make direct seller-buyer

relationships stronger and more sustainable.

3. Providing physical assets as emergency relief, to stabilize a damaged production base,

provides a good transition to more development-focused VC activities incorporating

embedded business development activities.

SUSTAINABILITY

To address the issue of sustainability beyond the project timeline, in the final year of the project

Entrepreneurs created a series of 30 community-based business entities, hereafter referred to

collectively as “Centers” – 12 for Dairy, 15 For HEF, 1 for Honey, 2 for MAPs (Warman, 2014).

Centers were named differently for each of the VCs4, and the intended ownership, or control,

models varied by VC as well. Intended as physical sites where beneficiaries could gather for

business related activities, the overall objective was to have the Centers linked directly with

private sector firms working in that VC, either through direct investment/ownership or

continuous orders.

Key Findings

1. Incorporating a “Sustainability Center” concept into initial project design would increase

odds of success. Incorporating this concept in the last six to nine months of a project does not

allow enough time to develop relationships and mutual understanding of the potential

benefits of such an arrangement for both producers and private sector partners.

2. Private sector support must be linked at levels appropriate to the level of production (quality,

quantity, accessibility) available within the VC.

3. Promoting understanding of private sector needs, approach, and relevance within the

development sector will increase the likelihood of sustainable market linkages within

development projects. Previous private sector experience is essential within program staff.

4 Dairy – Input Supply Hubs; HEF – Common Facility Centers (CFCs); Honey and MAPs – Collection and Buying Centers.


INTRODUCTION

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region remains at a critical juncture in the post-Arab

Spring period, with job creation and improved livelihoods still lagging. Less than one-half of

MENA’s working-age population is employed or in school. As a result of labor market

inefficiencies, the MENA region has the highest youth unemployment rate in the world (28

percent), and the share of women in the workforce is less than any other region. Demographic

trends compound labor market challenges: Since 2003, the region’s labor force has grown at a

rate faster than any other region. MENA’s developing countries experienced 1.2 percent gross

domestic product (GDP) growth in 2014, which is insufficient to significantly reduce

unemployment rates or inequality (World Bank, 2015).

Addressing the jobs crisis in MENA will require inclusive private-sector growth, driven by more

strategic, efficient, and competitive firms and producers. Yet many MENA businesses lack

formal business training and plans that identify and address the binding constraints preventing

them from increasing sales and, thus, jobs. Further, those that seek growth capital are often

unable to receive loans due to prohibitive collateral requirements. On the producer side, many

input producers are not linked to markets and lack even basic understanding of market needs.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Asia Middle East Economic

Growth Best Practices program (AMEG) supports USAID missions in developing effective and

efficient economic growth programs that address technical and strategic challenges that are

specific to countries in which USAID operates in Asia and the Middle East. Through AMEG,

USAID is able to conduct rapid and strategic economic growth assessments, pilot innovative

approaches in economic growth programming, and consolidate and disseminate best practices in

economic growth projects learned from USAID implementation throughout the world.

In this programmatic context USAID, and its Middle East Bureau in particular, is interested in

exploring three approaches to sustainable job creation and income generation in high-

unemployment countries and developing successful case studies exemplifying solutions. These

three approaches include: (i) enterprise competitiveness, (ii) vocational training and job-

matching, and (iii) sustainable livelihoods development. Using these case studies, the ME

Bureau seeks practical tools to integrate job creation and income generation best practices and

lessons learned into economic growth programming in the ME region.


AMEG MEDA ENTREPRENEURS CASE STUDY

• Workforce Development Advisor Erika Hoffman-Kiess • AMEG Technical Program Manager Blerta Picari • Deputy Chief of Party Isaiah Oliver

ASSESSMENT TEAM AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The desk research and field assessment in Pakistan was

conducted by Erika Hoffman-Kiess of the JOBS

Group, with support from the AMEG technical

program manager, Blerta Picari and Deputy Chief of

Party, Isaiah Oliver.

The AMEG team would like to especially thank the

Adam Bramm and Helen Loftin of the MEDA staff who provided ongoing information during

the desk and field research phase. Additionally, former Entrepreneurs staff and project partner

representatives in Pakistan were invaluable, providing project detail, contact information, and

support to arrange additional meetings with beneficiaries and partners.


CASE STUDY

The USAID Empowering Pakistan Entrepreneurs (Entrepreneurs) project aimed to increase the

incomes, by at least 50 percent, of 75,000 micro-entrepreneurs and small enterprise owners,

primarily focusing on women. The project was a part of the Empowering Pakistan (EP) suite of

programs that included EP Jobs, EP Firms, EP Trade, and EP Energy Efficiency and Capacity.

Entrepreneurs was a five-year, $30 million cooperative agreement implemented by MEDA and

in operation from June 2009 through October 2014. In 2014, the project was granted a three-

month, no-cost extension.

Pakistan Entrepreneurs was chosen as a case study for the sustainable livelihoods approach based

on specific project elements of relevance to the MENA context:

Integration of home-bound women

Incorporation of a Livelihoods Recovery Program that provided a transition from relief

activities to economic growth

A focus on post-project sustainability

Applying a value chain structure to frame sustainable livelihoods activities, Entrepreneurs

increased overall sales and improved project-related household income levels across four value

chains: dairy, hand embellished fabrics (HEF), honey, and medicinal and aromatic plants

(MAPs).

Interviews took place between August and November 2015, remotely and within Pakistan, and

included MEDA staff, former project staff, representatives from partner organizations, private

sector stakeholders, and beneficiaries. Entrepreneurs operated in all four provinces in Pakistan,

but due to time limitations and security conditions, physical site visits and meetings were limited

to the Islamabad Capital Territory and central and southern Punjab (Lahore and Bahawalpur).

Additional discussions regarding activities in KPK took place via telephone.

This case study provides a project overview including context, objectives, approach, and impact.

The report then provides further detail on specific elements of interest as noted above, presenting

key findings and lessons learned, followed by information on activity/approach replication,

considering contextual factors relating to the MENA operating environment. Lessons learned are

summarized in Annex D.


PAKISTAN AT-A-GLANCE

Population 185 million1

GDP 246.9 billion

Growth rate 5.4 %

Poverty rate 22.3 %

Labor force participation 54 %

Labor force participation for women 25.6 %

A. CONTEXT

A1. NATIONAL

As noted above in the Introduction, MENA registers the lowest labor force participation rates in

the world, driven primarily by low levels of female participation. The 2014 World Economic

Forum Gender Gap Report captures the comparability of Pakistan to the MENA region in this

regard. MENA ranks last on the Economic Participation and Opportunity subindex and MENA

countries dominate the bottom tier of the combined ranking. On the same subindex, Pakistan

ranks 141 out of 142 nations, outperforming only Syria, and registers one of the highest negative

percentage changes since 2006. On the overall Gender Gap ranking, Pakistan once again comes

in at 141, outperforming only Yemen. In this, and by many other measures, the Pakistani context

bears a strong similarity to countries within the MENA region - similar growth rates, poverty

levels, and a prevalence of informal economic activity.

Poverty is extreme in Pakistan. More than half of

Pakistan’s population lives below the

international poverty line, living on less than $2

per day (World Bank, 2015). For women,

especially, it is a life of hardship. Most women in

rural Pakistan are marginalized – by poverty,

home confinement and geography. Their

economic contributions – to agriculture,

household duties, and cottage industry production

– are largely invisible (MEDA, n.d.).

Additionally, Pakistan faces political instability,

echoing the recent experiences of many MENA

countries.

“Pakistan faces significant hurdles to progress. It is home to some of the most

unsafe regions in the world. Militants destroy schools and intimidate students

from attending. Even where schools exist, instructional quality needs to be

improved. Diseases eradicated in many parts of the world threaten health and

lives and can become a danger elsewhere. Surging inflation and unreliable

access to electricity and clean water cripple growth and make daily life

difficult, undermining the country’s political stability.” (USAID, 2013)

A breakdown of confidence and trust between local communities and the Government of

Pakistan institutions has led to increased vulnerability to violent extremism (USAID,

updated 2015). U.S. military actions within the borders of the country have also created a

climate of acute sensitivity to U.S. government involvement of any kind, increasing the

complexity of U.S. project implementation in the field.


A2. MEDA

Entrepreneurs built on previous MEDA experience in Pakistan. From 2004 to 2007, USAID

funded the “Behind the Veil” project, supporting rural and urban women in increasing their

incomes by overcoming barriers to participation in the hand embellished garment value chain

(MEDA, 2014). The 2008-2012 DFATD (Canada)-funded “Pathways and Pursestrings” project

helped marginalized women increase their income, self-confidence, mobility, skills, and family

respect through improved commercial linkages.5

A3. USAID PAKISTAN

In 2010, two significant events altered the development landscape in Pakistan:

Nearly 3.6 million people from the northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkwa Province (KPK)

who were previously displaced by armed conflict in their province from 2007 to 2009, started

to return home, many without assets or means of livelihood.

In July, devastating floods displaced thousands more across the country.

In response, USAID adjusted provincial development strategies to focus more effort and

resources on rehabilitation activities (MEDA, 2014). Entrepreneurs’ activities were directed

away from the originally proposed Value Chain Development program and instead focused on

recovery and relief in post-conflict and flood-affected areas.

B. OBJECTIVES, BENEFICIARIES, AND STAKEHOLDERS

B1. OBJECTIVES

Original: The objective of Entrepreneurs was a 50 percent increase in the incomes of 120,000

micro-entrepreneurs and small enterprise owners, the majority of whom were women, (MEDA,

web 2015). This would be achieved by improving the ability of selected micro and small

enterprises in the dairy, HEF, honey, and MAPs value chains, to manage their enterprises and

meet market demands through improved access to business development services (design,

technology, market information, capital) (MEDA, 2014).

Revised: In 2010, USAID requested that MEDA postpone value chain development work in

favor of the Livelihoods Recovery Program (LRP), with a target of meeting the urgent economic

recovery needs of 41,000 families through an asset replacement grants program. A new scope of

work was prepared in 2010 and signed in 2011. Budget allocations were restructured to fund the

new activity while the overall project budget remained unchanged (Bramm, August 2015).

Project beneficiary targets for the value chain activities were decreased from 120,000 to 75,000

to adjust for the foreshortened Value Chain Program timeline (MEDA, 2014).

5 http://www.meda.org/about-pathways-pursestrings


B2. BENEFICIARIES

A unique aspect of Entrepreneurs was that while both men and women were included as

beneficiaries, the project maintained a strong focus on integrating women throughout project

activities (MEDA, 2014). At project close, 88 percent of project beneficiaries were women (IDS,

2014). Micro and small enterprise owners were the nominal target population for project

activities, but much of the beneficiary population was among home-bound female producers –

individuals participating in income-generating activity as suppliers to the enterprises.

The LRP targeted households whose livelihoods had been disrupted by conflict and/or natural

disaster (MEDA, 2014), with preference given to female-headed households and women in need.

B3. STAKEHOLDERS

Entrepreneurs worked across Pakistan, with project activities in Baluchistan, KPK, Punjab, and

Sindh. Stakeholders included relevant academic/scientific institutions (for example, the

University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences in Dairy and Tibbia College in MAPs),

participating private sector businesses, and communities in each of the project locations. Project

stakeholders participated in a variety of ways – providing bureaucratic support for activities

(permissions, attendance at events, certification), market information, product development

expertise, and financing opportunities.

Government participation was minor but supportive in its absence. Some provincial level

authorities publicly supported the project but direct project contribution was limited;

Government-sponsored trade fairs did provide a platform for project beneficiaries to learn about

and access markets. Private sector stakeholders maintained strong, positive relationships with the

project (Loftin, October 2015).

Community support was essential to Entrepreneurs: Without it, project access to women

producers would not have been possible. Target communities were suspicious of the project –

U.S. government funding and a target population of women increased sensitivities (Loftin,

October 2015). Entrepreneurs used locally respected and influential Key Facilitating Partners to

implement mobilization activities, meeting with community leaders and elders, presenting the

objectives of the program, explaining the process, and requesting support in identification of

potential beneficiaries to establish local ownership. See Annex G, KFPs and Beneficiaries by VC

(Entrepreneurs, 2013).

C. APPROACH

C1. STRUCTURE

Entrepreneurs structured work within three broad programs:

1. Livelihoods Recovery Program (2010-2011) – A stand-alone, asset replacement grant

program to support revitalization of economic activity in conflict- and flood-affected


communities. Needs assessments, procurement and distribution of tool kits, small-scale

production equipment, and livestock vaccinations were elements of project support

activities.6

2. Institutional Capacity Building Program (2010 and 2012-2014) – Training in basic

financial literacy and consumer protection, export market research, exposure visits,

development of retail outlets.

3. Value Chain Development Program (2011-2014) – Inclusive economic growth activities

to improve production and product quality, and facilitate sustainable access to markets,

targeting micro and small enterprise owners within the four designated value chains. See

Annex H, Entrepreneurs One-pagers for more detail per value chain.

Activities within these program areas (items 2 and 3, as above) consisted of targeted training and

relationship building, providing enterprise owners/workers with tools to manage business

activities, develop productive professional relationships, and improve the market position of their

products and services through business linkages. The Entrepreneurs project provided additional

support with two cross-cutting programs:

1. Value Chain Micro-finance – A dedicated senior value chain financing specialist assessed

value chain financing within the target VCs and proposed potential financing solutions

for beneficiaries via linkages with MFIs, self-financing, and direct financing options.

2. Value Chain Marketing – Managed by subcontractor J.E. Austin Associates, a marketing

team worked to serve as a bridge between beneficiaries and key actors up and down the

value chain(s). Marketing activities were based on marketing frameworks designed in

coordination with each of the target VCs.

C2. TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION

6 The relationship between the LRP and Value Chain Development Program is further discussed below in E2, Livelihoods Recovery Program.


Value Chain Selection: Entrepreneurs, applying the approach illustrated above, worked within

four value chains: dairy, hand embellished fabrics (HEF), honey, and medicinal and aromatic

plants (MAPs). USAID Pakistan was interested in activity within proscribed geographical

locations – KPK in general, Swat in particular, rural areas of Sindh, and central/southern Punjab

province. Entrepreneurs limited consideration to sectors that were active in these areas.

At the outset, 20 sectors were assessed through a process of desk research, meetings with private

sector representatives, and interviews with national technical specialists, government bodies, and

NGOs to understand market opportunities. Results of these initial assessments were analyzed

against defined selection criteria, primarily the potential for female involvement. The project

sought sectors that allowed access to large numbers of women and provided the opportunity for

substantive increases in their incomes – increasing the amount of money women were making

for activities they were already doing. Secondary selection criteria included the degree of

existing competition from other actors within the VC, and the potential for meaningful and

productive private sector linkages. This process allowed Entrepreneurs to short-list nine potential

value chains, including HEF and dairy, building on previous work (discussed above at A2.

MEDA). Subsequently, eight in-depth VC assessments were done7 and honey and MAPs were

selected as project VCs.

Partner Selection: Entrepreneurs identified nine key facilitating partners (KFPs) to implement

project activities, applying a grant-making approach. KFPs were selected based on a combination

of the following:

7 HEF was based on previous VC assessments, but Dairy was included in this process for re-validation.


Ability to provide a regional and/or demographic focus

Ready access to target beneficiaries and additional stakeholders – demonstrated

effectiveness in community mobilization

Specialized technical expertise

Capacity to manage and administer programs or to grow into doing so

Potential to act as a path forward for post-project sustainability

Successful KFPs signed an MOU with the project and received support to prepare a grant

application for USAID funding implemented through the Entrepreneurs Grant Management

component. All project work was channeled through two types of grants to KFPs, small grants

and VC grants. Small grants were further classified as 1) capacity building, 2) post-conflict

recovery, or 3) post-flood recovery (MEDA, 2014).

KFP Training: Following selection, Entrepreneurs built KFP capacity by providing formal and

on-the-job training under the Institutional Capacity Building Program. This consisted of two

types of training: Compliance training, to meet USAID “requirements for financial management,

procurement, and human resources so that partners can receive and administer USAID funds,”

and, “technical training … to improve the quantity, quality and marketability of their products.”

(OIG, 2012) After the KFP had received training, they, in turn, “provide(d) instruction to

predominantly female microentrepreneurs [sic] in finance, product design, marketing, and

quality assurance in the four sectors.” (OIG, 2012)

Beneficiary Selection: Participating KFPs were responsible for community engagement and the

mobilization of potential beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were identified and selected through a

combination of community and stakeholder activities coordinated by the KFP. The degree of

community involvement and specific selection criteria varied per VC. For example, in dairy the

beneficiaries were identified by the community with preference given to those women who

provided most of the animal care and did the milking, while in MAPs the beneficiaries were

identified and vetted by the KFP. All beneficiaries were registered with the project.

Accessing Women: Working with project staff, KFPs implemented a sales agent (SA) 8 and

cluster/group model to access and empower participants. Under this model, local women with a

greater degree of mobility in the community, and/or men, were selected as SAs to then reach

producers, many of whom (depending on the VC) were home-bound women. For their part, the

producers were arranged into clusters or groups, based on geographical proximity. This process

allowed the project to address the challenge of mobility outside the home. Selected SAs were

trained on a variety of skills (basic accounting, quality assurance, negotiation skills, product

design, production techniques, etc.) and in turn trained producers. SAs acted as liaisons between

the market and the clusters of producers, providing market information, technical skills training,

and orders to the producers, collecting finished goods for delivery to buyers, and distributing

payment after orders were filled. While the specific titles, structures, and target beneficiaries

differed from one value chain to the next, the above model represents the basic approach

common across all four project value chains. Further discussion on accessing and integrating

female beneficiaries can be found below in section E1. Integrating Homebound Women.

8 Dairy – Female Livestock Extensions Workers and Female Village Milk Collectors; HEF – Female Sales Agents; Honey – Sales Agent (male) or Lead Entrepreneur (female); MAPs – Sales Agent or Lead Entrepreneur (interchangeable).


What is a “Center”? • A neutral place for the FSAs and MTs (trainers) to conduct business related activities including sample development, product development, order management, quality control, sales of products etc. • A place which is easily accessible to buyers for conducting buyer/seller meetings and helping assist the buyers in the purchase of embellished fabrics through the FSAs and the MTs • A space to enable availability of physical work locations and resource material collection and to display samples • A place to facilitate MFI meetings, disbursement, and collection of micro loans

(Entrepreneurs, 2013)

Market Linkage: While KFPs used the SA model to establish linkages down the value chain to

producers, Entrepreneurs worked up the value chain with the Value Chain Marketing component,

led by J.E. Austin Associates. Working with the KFPs and relevant private sector stakeholders

(in coordination with VC program staff), the marketing team opened new channels and

developed markets for the products and goods being produced, linking SAs directly with buyers

through exposure visits, trade expositions, and buyer/seller meetings.

Initially, the VC Marketing team would assess the level of production available within a given

VC. After this was established, the team then used a combination of criteria to assess potential

private sector partners against established criteria – attitude, market size, product line, reputation

in the market, and the outlets available. Based on the outcome of this assessment, potential

partners were approached to negotiate linkages. The Entrepreneurs project acted as a liaison

between the market and the KFPs and SAs, facilitating relationships and communicating relevant

information that would in turn enable increased and/or improved micro and small enterprise

market participation.

Sustainability: To address the issue of sustainability

beyond the project timeline, Entrepreneurs created 30

community-based business entities, hereafter referred to

collectively as “Centers” – 12 for dairy, 15 For HEF,

one for honey, two for MAPs (Warman, 2014). Centers

were named differently for each of the VCs9, and the

intended ownership, or control, models varied by VC as

well (see text box). The overall objective was to have

the Centers linked directly with private sector firms

working in that VC, either through direct

investment/ownership or continuous orders. Further

details are available in section E3. Sustainability and in

Annex C, Post-project Status Report, Sustainability

Centers.

C3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Human Resources: Senior program staff housed in the

Islamabad office provided expertise in strategic planning, enterprise development, training and

capacity building, and value chain financing. The role of the senior program staff was to manage

implementation of the KFP sub-grants, provide technical direction to staff and KFPs, and to

provide timely and accurate information up and down the management chain. Also housed in

Islamabad were three VC Directors – dairy, HEF, honey and MAPs, and staff responsible for

crosscutting functions (training, access to finance, strategic planning, etc.). This enabled closer

coordination across programs and VCs, and timelier reporting and information sharing. See

Annex I, Organizational Chart (Entrepreneurs, 2013).

9 Dairy – Input Supply Hubs; HEF – Common Facility Centers (CFCs); Honey and MAPs – Collection and Buying Centers.


MEDA recognized that Entrepreneurs would require a strong field presence to actively support

the KFPs and project beneficiaries located across the country. Entrepreneurs opened four field

offices, one each in Sukkur and Bahawalpur (Sindh), Swat (KPK) and Quetta (Baluchistan). In

all but Swat, Entrepreneurs field staff co-located with KFP offices. In Swat, in response to

concerns about staff security, Entrepreneurs offices were housed within the Serena Hotel in a

series of long-term rented rooms. These field offices supported a subsequent decentralization and

expansion of monitoring and evaluation staff, security personnel, and VC-specific support

positions, most of which had been housed in the main office under the previous project.

Cost-Share: A set percentage of organizational cost-share was dictated within the original

award agreement.10 MEDA was allowed to use a partial value of other project work in Pakistan

to meet the cost-share requirement. This amounted to $.5 million, a rate at which the cost-share

requirement was more than met (Loftin, October 2015).

Within project activities, grants were made on a cost-share basis, with the ratios dependent upon

the activity.

D. IMPACT

In 2014, Entrepreneurs engaged a local research organization to undertake a third-party

performance evaluation/impact assessment on project work to-date within the Value Chain

Program. Impact was captured in terms of “net sales, production/productivity, adoption of

improved/modern practices, and technical/social benefits of assistance provided …” (MEDA,

2014). The survey was conducted in January and February of 2014, and was based on a sample

of 1710 [775 drawn from beneficiary population and 935 non-beneficiaries drawn from the same

localities as, and with similar characteristics to, the beneficiary population (IDS, 2014)].

Additionally, 11 focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with beneficiaries to capture

more qualitative aspects of the project, things such as awareness, confidence and well-being –

impacts that are evident and visible but difficult to capture quantitatively.

D1. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

Entrepreneurs Project Results (MEDA, 2014 and IDS, 2014)

Beneficiaries 85,693

*Livelihoods Recovery Program 48,779

*Institutional Capacity Building Program 71,077

*Value Chain Development Program 85,693

Female participation 88% of beneficiaries

Cost/beneficiary 350 USD11

Income increase (VC Program only) 19%12

Net sales 93%13

Market linkage 613 buyer-seller meetings; 214 exposure visits

Sustainability 30 sustainability ‘Centers’ established

10 Exact percentage per the award agreement was not available. 11 This is not a MEDA calculation but one used by the AMEG team, derived by dividing the project budget by the number of beneficiaries and used as a loose baseline across all projects reviewed by AMEG. 12 Average contribution of project related income to total household income, due to increase in net sales, across all project VCs; based on self-reported results as there was no agreed project baseline. 13 Average increase in net sales across all project VCs.


* Results as posted per program: Due to KFP segmentation by program it is impossible to tell how/where these independently reported program beneficiaries relate to the overall project total of 85,693. MEDA deferred to VC Development Program totals as project totals as these results were the most thoroughly vetted at a senior staff level (Bramm, October 2015). Further discussion of project M & E challenges and lessons learned can be found below in section E5. Monitoring and Evaluation

D2. QUALITATIVE RESULTS

“One of the chief social benefits of their (women’s) financial success has been the greater

respect they have gained from their families, husbands, and communities. There is no preaching

or sermonizing, no criticisms of their culture. We do nothing specifically directed at women’s

social empowerment. And yet it’s happening. They are treated better by their families; they

channel the funds back into the household through education, better nutrition, and medicines.

Their children – their daughters – are learning about a future that casts off the yoke of poverty

and suppression.” – Helen Loftin, MEDA (Kroeker, 2015)

Findings of the FGDs indicated an overall satisfaction with the services provided and the

relationships established within the project. Specific to affects on income, many participants

indicated that they were able to increase their income through raising the prices of their

goods/services, doing so based on knowledge gained in project activities promoting market

awareness. This improved socio-economic status for most beneficiaries resulted in increased

spending on children’s education and higher levels of confidence among females, many of whom

are now performing tasks previously performed by male family members. Overall, as confirmed

by both the quantitative survey analysis and the FGDs, the project focus on female integration

had a strong positive effect on perceptions of beneficiaries toward women’s empowerment, even

when responses were disaggregated by gender. Anecdotal information gathered during the field

visit indicates that many of these qualitative results have endured.

E. KEY FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED

E1. INTEGRATING HOMEBOUND WOMEN

Eighty-eight percent of project participants were female, many of them homebound women.

Entrepreneurs used three methods to increase access to, and integration of, the female

population:

KFPs as community mobilizers and project representatives on the ground

Sales agents to liaise between market and producers

Cluster/group formation to support micro-level producers

Working in parallel, these approaches allowed Entrepreneurs to successfully access and work

with large numbers of women despite the geographical and cultural challenges in doing so. As


discussed above in B3. Stakeholders, KFPs were drawn from a pool of locally known, trusted

NGOs who already had positive profiles within the intervention communities – they were known

entities. The SA model, by using more mobile individuals to access those with less mobility,

allowed the project to engage a larger pool of female producers while the cluster/group approach

allowed producers to be grouped together, based on location and willingness to work together,

removing much of the assumed vulnerability of individual women venturing outside the home.

The manner in which each of these approaches was implemented within the VCs, in terms of

gendered roles, allowed Entrepreneurs to push boundaries of acceptable male/female

relationships and expand opportunities for women.

KFPs reached out to men in the villages, to convey that women were the target beneficiaries and

explain how the project would work. Meetings with community leaders, elders, and officials

established early buy-in before any further work commenced. This approach was very effective –

there were a few instances of women starting the program and men in their family subsequently

pulling them out, but generally it worked the other way. After men saw the benefits afforded

through female participation, they would bring other women in their family to take part. When

women outside the project saw the benefits to the women participating, more sought to take part

themselves, stating that the increased freedom of women within the group was appealing

(Bramm, October 2015).

To implement the SA model, project management first sought to identify individuals who might

be considered outliers within the communities – those people (male or female) that were more

mobile and visible, and not only interested in improving their own economic outlook, but willing

to help others. In this way the “entrepreneurs” aspect of the project was realized, identifying SAs

as those individuals that could develop into business leaders. Each of the VCs applied the SA

concept differently, depending on the gender profile within their VC, as well as cultural norms

governing the operational area. See Annex A, VC-specific Access and Integration of Women for

further detail per VC. In dairy and MAPs, the gender profile of the SAs was mixed, some male

SAs and some female, while in the remaining two VCs, HEF fielded all female SAs and honey

all male.

In the cluster/group element, producers were able to undertake income-generating activity

together, rather than as individuals, working under the leadership of the SAs. This approach was

a significant part of the project’s success in accessing homebound women, building trust among

the project, beneficiaries, and their families. Members of a cluster/group were available to help

each other with production challenges in terms of technical skills, access to raw materials,

quality assurance, marketing, negotiation, and other areas. Additionally, the cluster/group

approach addresses a common cultural concern for the security of women on their own, allowing

for a safety-in-numbers perspective and increasing women’s relative freedom and social capital.

In some cases the cluster/group became the organizing unit supporting a sustainability center

(Bramm, October 2015).

LESSONS LEARNED

Trust is essential to integrating homebound women. Adequate time must be allowed to identify

and train appropriate partners to undertake effective community mobilization.


For a U.S. government program targeting female beneficiaries in conservative areas of Pakistan,

it was necessary to establish a high level of trust, a common situation across the MENA region.

At project initiation, the perception of the U.S. government in Pakistan was not positive; many of

the localities targeted by project interventions harbored a deep sense of mistrust toward the U.S.

Additionally, USAID rules and regulations are extensive, particularly in relation to livelihood

products and services. To meet the requirements, KFPs needed to be well established and, if

without policies and procedures in place initially, have the capacity to do so with training. All of

this takes time and should be adequately incorporated into project timelines and expectations

from the design phase through implementation.

E2. LIVELIHOODS RECOVERY PROGRAM (LRP)

Under the LRP, Entrepreneurs worked with local partners to provide livelihoods recovery

assistance to households whose source of revenue had been destroyed or disrupted by conflict

and/or natural disaster (MEDA, 2014). Through KFP relationships, beneficiaries were identified

and prioritized and asset replacement grants were awarded to selected KFPs for procurement and

distribution of goods and services. Activities included rapid needs assessments, livestock

vaccination, procurement and distribution of toolkits, small-scale production tools and other

assets to productivity.

The LRP was initially implemented as a six-month program in KPK, for populations being

resettled in Swat, post-conflict. As this program ended, the 2010 flooding hit the same area, as

well as substantial portions of the rest of the country. USAID requested that the LRP activities be

implemented with the flood-affected populations in KPK and across the country, initiating a

second, six-month LRP.

Ms. Shamim Akhtar, VC Director for honey and MAPs, was working with Entrepreneurs at this

stage and she has provided the following implementation detail.

Post-conflict LRP: In KPK, the first stage of the LRP targeted 7200 beneficiaries in the most

remote and inaccessible areas, in hopes of balancing assistance (more easily accessible areas

were receiving much more assistance). In this process Entrepreneurs worked with the Provincial

Restoration, Rehabilitation, and Settlement Authority (PaRRSA), a regional government entity.

PaRRSA had already done surveys to identify those most in need and provided union council-

level demographics to assist in further geographical targeting. Their offices provided local

support in Swat, and approved project activities, establishing government buy-in. Additional

coordination was carried out within a UN body wherein all entities working in the KPK space

were able to share experiences and challenges to leverage access and resources.

LRP Approach

To identify KFPs, Entrepreneurs circulated an Expression of Interest document, held a project

orientation, and then assisted interested NGOs in applying to participate in the project. Five


applied, using a pre-assessment form including programmatic and financial information.

Following an assessment to establish organizational capacity and validate information provided

in their application, three were accepted.14 Each KFP was linked to a specific geographical area

and had an equal share of the $1.8 million budget.

KFPs then reached out to the target communities to identify potential beneficiaries, prioritizing

women-headed households and women in need. These potential beneficiaries were then scored

on the basis of a series of selection criteria, found in Annex B. Those individuals with high

scores were then visited to verify the level of need and help prioritize those needs. Options as to

types of support were presented to allow beneficiaries some degree of personal choice.

Distribution of assistance was centralized due to the scattered locations of the beneficiaries and

the rough terrain. Pre-selected beneficiaries would come together in a centralized location,

present their national identity cards and receive goods per pre-determined requirements (seed,

sewing machines, barbering tools, livestock, hand construction equipment, etc.). Three

distribution cycles were completed over the six-month project. Some additional, seasonally

dependent products, such as seed, were distributed outside of this cycle, but it was a small

percentage. Roughly 16 different types of businesses were represented in the goods and services

provided under the post-conflict LRP.

Flood-affected LRP: During the last cycle of the post-conflict LRP, the 2010 floods struck the

country. Project activity in the flood-affected LRP expanded to include selected districts in

Baluchistan, Punjab, and Sindh provinces, in addition to KPK. Building on the experience of the

previous LRP, the second stage of the program followed the same basic model but chose to limit

activities to the four business sectors, or value chains, which the project had intended to target

(dairy, HEF, honey, and MAPs). Given the additional focus of VC specific activity (and per

USAID requirements) a second selection process was undertaken to establish a new group of

KFPs, with a single KFP identified to implement activities within each VC and within each

geographical area (MEDA, 2014b). Through the introduction of a smaller number of target

value chains, Entrepreneurs was able to add sample preparation, exposure visits, and linkage

meetings to the assistance package, piloting activities for potential incorporation into the

eventual VC Development Program (VCD Program).

Transition to VCD Program: In the shift from LRP to the VCD Program activity, Entrepreneurs

maintained a priority for female beneficiaries and reintroduced the focus on income growth,

targeting a 50 percent increase. Former Entrepreneurs staff estimate that approximately 50

percent of the LRP beneficiaries migrated to the VCD Program.

LESSONS LEARNED

Clarity of objective, agreed selection criteria, transparency in implementation, and close

coordination across partners were keys to success.

A smaller number of sectors allows for more sustainable progress.

14 Initially there had been two partners identified, but after the issues of accessibility were fully understood (very remote areas, insecure and unstable) a third partner was added to allow for better service to the beneficiaries.


The shift from post-conflict to post-flood allowed the project to build on experience and focus on

the four VCs that had already been targeted. A narrower focus enabled the project to introduce

the private sector and market linkage concepts into relief activities, harnessing market forces to

help drive the recovery process.

Engage private sector partners earlier and in a more substantial way.

While the focus on a smaller number of business-types was beneficial, as noted above, MEDA

stated that the engagement should have happened even sooner. If the private sector partners had

been engaged more at the beneficiary identification/selection stages, perhaps their involvement

could have provided guidance and resource support to make direct seller-buyer relationships

stronger and more sustainable.

Providing physical assets as emergency relief, to stabilize a damaged production base, provides

a good transition to more development-focused VC activities.

The Entrepreneurs project’s LRP experience indicates that this type of program can be used as a

transition activity, relief programming that supports value chain development/redevelopment in

post-conflict or similarly unstable environments. One challenge to be considered is the asset-

provision aspect of the program. The move from LRP to the VCD Program introduced large

numbers of new beneficiaries to the established beneficiary pool. The newcomers were provided

with “soft” support only, no livelihoods assets were included as under the LRP. This created a

challenge early in the transition, in terms of beneficiary expectations, but with advanced

consideration, program design can alleviate this difficulty. The LRP has changed how MEDA

looks at sustainable livelihoods and micro-grant types of initiatives, considering them as “feeder”

activities for VC work in unstable areas. They have since integrated this type of initiative into

other VC program designs, specifically working with IDPs and refugee populations in Jordan.

E3. SUSTAINABILITY

In the final year of the project, Entrepreneurs engaged two consultants to develop a

comprehensive sustainability strategy, one that would build on project activity to date to support

impact over the longer term. While the consultancy was not a part of the work plan,

Entrepreneurs was looking for a way to extricate the KFPs without compromising project impact

on the VCs15 and beneficiaries (Bramm, October 2015). Entrepreneurs’ sustainability

consultancy was structured in two parts – Part 1: Setting the Framework, and Part 2:

Operationalizing Producer/Market Centers and Fostering Market/Private Sector Sustainability.

Dairy was more advanced in establishing sustainability, so the consultancy focused on the

remaining VCs (Warman, 2014).

Part 1 assessed the process of establishing the Centers and reviewed the status of private sector

interest, per specific VCs, in investing in the Centers longer term. While most of the findings

were applicable at the individual VC level, the following were ascertained across all VCs:

15 At the end of the project KFPs were blurring the line between market actor and market influencer.


A preferred form of registration and/or ownership was identified

There was a need for continuing technical assistance to the producers

Mentorship of individual Centers would be required

Provision of communications and marketing materials was necessary: sets of marketing

materials, communications strategies, and VC directories including producers and buyers

Encouragement for private sector linkages was essential – through investment and/or

continuous orders

Based on this research, Center design was modeled, potential locations identified, and private

sector expressions of interest documented, creating a foundation for the second phase of the

consultancy. Part 2 focused on three key priorities:

Support project staff in securing private sector partnerships with the Centers

Assess “Sustainability Gap” of each Center – where they are now and where they need to

be at the close of the project

Provide training and technical assistance recommendations to bridge the gaps as

identified above (Brunnell, 2014)

Specific Center implementation/ownership approaches varied across all four of the VCs. Where

private sector entities were functional investment partners (honey and MAPs), the Centers were

established under their ownership, based on a cost-share agreement with the project to fund

Center start-up, and functioned as early stage processing units (extraction, drying, etc.). MAPs

was able to sign an MOU with Herbion, a top-tier firm with more than $25 million in annual

sales, in Pakistan and abroad (Warman, 2013). In establishing the Centers, Herbion put up

70-80 percent of the investment, with the remainder coming from Entrepreneurs. In the cases

where private sector interest was in the form of continuous orders (HEF) the Centers were

established as small businesses, registered to individual FSAs/lead entrepreneurs supported by a

cluster/group and functioning as resource and sales centers. In the dairy VC, the small business

model was also followed, with the Centers owned by individual female extension workers

(FLEWs) and providing equipment and services to support livestock management and product

quality assurance.16

The Center model was most developed in the HEF value chain. To encourage private sector

support, Entrepreneurs signed MOUs with four private sector Sustainability Partners (Asasah,

Indus Heritage Trust, Texlynx, and The Indus Entrepreneurs network - TIE) to provide ongoing

support after project close. Asasah, Indus

Heritage Trust, and Texlynx were intended to

support specific Centers in making linkages work

for member beneficiaries, while TIE was to

provide business management mentoring support

across all HEF Centers. An additional 15

memoranda of cooperation were signed with

companies and organizations to help facilitate

sustainable linkages between beneficiaries, SAs,

and buyers (MEDA, 2014).

16 Milk sales channels were established with private sector partners, and they were able to provide assistance in developing the Centers to supply quality/quantity.

They (embroiderers) would not accept the market information – they did not believe that their products did not meet market demands. So we took them to market for them to see for themselves, then they understood.

– Tabinda Jaffery, Asasah


“Involve us (the sustainability partners) earlier than the last moment; that way we can better educate the FSAs on how to use post-project support. So far we have had a few requests for assistance, but they are asking for help to get more business, not for management support.”

- Zishan Shahid, The Indus Entrepreneurs (TIE)

At the time of this review, the functionality of three of the Centers was confirmed, all within the

HEF chain. None of the Centers established for honey and MAPs were functional, and no

information was available on the 12 dairy Centers. Interviews and site visits indicate that while

the model does not appear to have been successful in establishing sustainable linkages between

the Centers and the private sector, it was successful in mobilizing the clusters/groups and linking

them to the Centers. Anecdotal evidence identifies a lack of access to, and understanding of,

relevant market information at the producer level as a significant barrier to successful linkages

with the private sector.

Further detail is available in Annex C, Post-project Status Report – Sustainability Centers

LESSONS LEARNED

Private sector partners in general, and sustainability partners specifically, should be integrated

into the sustainability design and implementation process at the earliest possible point.

Implementing the sustainability process in the last six to nine months of the project did not allow

enough time to develop mutual understanding of the potential benefits of such an arrangement

for producers and private sector partners. Without exception, interviewees indicated that one of

the biggest challenges was the concept of markets and helping beneficiaries understand how

and why to link with the market successfully through product design, quality, timeliness,

quantity, pricing etc. With more time and exposure, producer groups with access to business

development services and possible financial support would more fully understand how to use the

services available.

In the dairy VC, Shakarganj Foods was approached

early in the VC development process and helped to

provide technical training and infrastructure. Early

involvement enabled the business to be fully integrated

into VC activities at the end of the project. The cost-

share arrangement mitigates investment risk for private

sector partners, allowing motivated businesses to

expand into less accessible geographical areas and to

develop customized product lines. Success of the

activity with Entrepreneurs has convinced Shakarganj

to expand further, into additional, more remote areas, under the Australian Aid Market

Development Facility. This type of market expansion was always of interest to the firm, but

without the additional funding to offset the investment risk, the company would not have

targeted such remote areas for market growth. After the groundwork has been laid with donor

assistance, the company can maintain operations at a level of risk with which they are

comfortable, and without threatening profitability.

Private sector support must be linked at levels appropriate to the level of production available

within the VC.


“Linking FSAs to buyers could have worked – there was a lot of private sector interest – but there was a mismatch between what the beneficiaries could produce and the amount and quality that were in demand.” – Derald Smart, Marketing Advisor

“A private sector mindset is needed at the program level.” – Tabinda Jaffery, Asasah

“There is a general lack of understanding about how important the private sector is to development – the role (of the private sector) is not appreciated.” – Salmaan Farooq, Entrepreneurs Director Dairy VC and HEF (Sindh)

“To ensure sustainability - balance economics with social objectives.” – Naguib Saigal, CFO Shakarganj Foods

In HEF, while private sector interest was high and connections with big name fashion houses

were forthcoming, a lack of understanding on the part of the KFPs and program staff made

successful linkages at this high level very difficult.

KFPs could not accurately assess production

capacity of the beneficiaries. While a first round of

top-level linkages were successfully completed,

subsequent Center-buyer relationships were not

sustained at this level. Issues of product quality and

consistency, and timeliness of delivery were cited.

Where those Centers are still functional, they are

operating at lower levels within the market – serving local or regional buyers. Honey and MAPs

Centers closed down due to a mismatch in levels of production.

Promoting understanding of private sector needs, approach and relevance within the

development sector will increase the likelihood of positive, sustainable market linkages.

In discussions of the HEF value chain in general, there

was consensus among the former VC staff that work

in the HEF VC was too supply driven. The marketing

staff perspective was that the project needed to break

away from the ‘livelihoods’ concept that you train people, and they link up the VC. Rather, the

argument was that the motivation and direction has to come from the commercial channels and

work down, to drive product and training decisions so that linkages can function to the benefit of

both business and beneficiary. This was a point that was raised across HEF, honey, and MAPs.

Additionally, many development activities that target the

private sector for partnership follow a Corporate Social

Responsibility model. Entrepreneurs experience in this

regard is telling. In approaching potential private sector

partners, Entrepreneurs Marketing team found that many

companies had been overwhelmed by approaches for

CSR ‘opportunities’. While the companies attended to

Entrepreneurs proposals, there was not a lot of follow-

through … their CSR quota was already being filled. Sustainable market linkage activities cannot

be linked to CSR alone, they must be linked to concrete business strategy.

Management coordination within the VC program is essential.

Relationships with potential private sector buyers are based

on accurate production information to determine the most

appropriate market linkages. Where management

coordination is lacking, and inaccurate information results,

these relationships are damaged, negatively reflecting on

the project and undercutting attempts to create successful linkages.


E4. VALUE CHAIN SELECTION

Lessons Learned

A demand-driven focus in sector selection will maximize potential for sustainable income

generation.

Of the four VCs included in the Entrepreneurs VC Development Program, three exhibited

sufficient potential for demand-driven growth to secure significant private sector investment by

project close. Dairy, honey, and MAPs were each “adopted” by private sector entities, as

discussed above in section E3. Sustainability Centers, while HEF struggled to match production

with market opportunities. Due to issues of competition, product quality, and lack of market

information (products were not ‘on-trend’) the project had difficulty establishing long-term

linkages with the private sector.

Adequate time, a degree of physical access, and appropriate technical expertise is required for

accurate VC assessments.

Project experience with the honey VC exemplifies the importance of pre-project VC assessments

and feasibility studies. An OIG Audit report in 2014 indicates that inadequate sector assessment

played a role in implementation delays. Discussions with early project leadership support this

conclusion: The most significant obstacle to success in the honey VC were programmatic

challenges stemming from inadequate preliminary research. MEDA was working in the Swat

area at the request of USAID and honey was chosen as the sector with the most potential in

Swat. Preliminary research was done under time pressure (activity start-up was expedited) and

the area targeted was very unstable and inaccessible, making it difficult to provide a thorough

pre-project VC analysis (Bramm, January 2016). Inappropriate technologies were adopted,

technical expertise sourced was not relevant to the KPK environment, and capacity of potential

project partners was not adequately considered (Loftin, October 2015). At project close,

Entrepreneurs met beneficiary targets within the honey VC, but only after projections for the VC

had been revised downward, from 3,000 beneficiaries to 1,500.

E5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Part of the innovative design of the original Empowering Pakistan (EP) suite of projects was a

centralized M&E component. Designed to be a clearinghouse for project performance data, it

fulfilled the M&E function for all EP projects, and different indicators were housed within

different projects’ performance plans. In 2010, when much of the EP suite was closed out the

centralized M&E component was also eliminated. There was no allowance made for this drastic

change in the M&E structure of the remaining projects, such as Entrepreneurs. New indicators

were eventually identified, but these did not accurately reflect project activities already in

progress.

Subsequently, USAID rolled out an entirely new M&E plan, for existing projects as well as new

work, but the integration into existing projects was challenging. Under this new mandate, large

scale evaluation projects were to incorporate an arm’s-length evaluative function, rather than

relying on project M&E staff. Entrepreneur’s M&E subsequently re-configured their delivery of

M&E, and contracted out components of evaluation to a consulting house. Entrepreneurs M&E


system was not strong. MEDA was aware of these challenges and introduced a variety of

solutions to address them, with varying levels of success:

1. The project developed a Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) that was subsequently

approved by USAID, and which provided a comprehensive list of relevant indicators and

sub indicators at various levels for monitoring the project activities.

2. A uniform data base structure was developed by Entrepreneurs, and provided to each

KFP. While the system was managed/validated by MEDA’s M&E staff, the data base

was populated and maintained by each of the KFPs. Periodic field monitoring visits were

carried out with a three pronged approach. First, M&E visits were conducted by the KFPs

staff; second, the project’s VCOs and M&E officers also conducted field visits; and third,

value chain staff also accompanied visitors from USAID, consultants and OIG officials

for field visits. Monthly progress reviews were conducted internally by the M&E

department in coordination with value chain teams.

3. Periodic surveys on income assessments were also carried out by the M&E and program

departments, besides the third party evaluations. The team also instituted a number of

rapid assessments, collecting data on certain programming elements to feed to program

management.

4. Facing the issue of collecting real time net sales in the dairy value Entrepreneurs M&E

piloted the use of SMS based technology in Punjab and Sind provinces. Sales agents in

these locales reported performance data (sales volume/% of milk fat/price sold for) on a

daily basis through an SMS application. The pilot was successful but was introduced late

in the project life cycle and was unable to provide a substantial amount of data.

Lessons Learned

Capacity to meet USG reporting requirements is an important selection criteria when identifying

project partners.

Increased income was one of the top two project objectives (focus on female beneficiaries was

the other) but all income-related data was gathered by the KFPs. Each KFP had their own system

for information collection, which did not integrate effectively into a project-wide system. Due to

these complexities, it was impossible to determine a clear baseline. A third-party income

baseline survey was done mid-way through the project but failed to provide a commonly

accepted baseline. The Baseline Survey was conducted among micro-entrepreneurs in selected

districts across the country where the project was operating or intended to start the project’s

activities. The sample size was crafted to be representative of the proportion of total beneficiaries

to be assisted distric wise. Post evaluation, the survey implementation contractor disagreed with

this approach, positing that the lowest (village) level sample was no longer a probability sample.

Thus the contractor was of the opinion that the findings of the survey could not be generalized

over the entire population. With disagreement over the baseline, measurement of project impact

on income was difficult.

Identification of specific indicators (per VC, per objective, or per geographical area) at project

outset, as well as assignment of roles and responsibilities and creation an information

management structure, allow for project impact reporting with a higher degree of


responsiveness and utility.

As project objectives evolved both KFPs and Entrepreneurs M&E staff were tracking numbers.

Numbers were also reported per program office and there was frequent crossover of beneficiaries

between programs, so totals per program did not match up with total overall beneficiary

numbers. MEDA project staff were never able to get the various sets of numbers to match and

thus they deferred to Entrepreneurs M&E staff figures as the most thoroughly checked and

vetted. Additionally, the two main project objectives were increased income and a focus on

women but the only indicator capturing impact on women was the number of female

beneficiaries. MEDA project staff recommended incorporation of more indicators capturing

impact on women specifically, such as measuring changes in their agency in governing their own

productivity (Bramm, October 2015).

Geography and security must be considered in creation of monitoring and evaluation plans,

identification of indicators, and in the reporting format.

When working in remote and insecure areas, where project staff are limited in their ability to

monitor progress, additional time and attention are required to create an effective M&E plan.

Roles and responsibilities must be clearly delineated per the plan. Additionally, indicators should

be tailored to the realities on the ground, and/or impact results reported relative to the local

context to capture incremental improvements under especially challenging circumstances.

F. PREREQUISITES FOR REPLICATION

F1. INTEGRATION OF HOMEBOUND WOMEN KFPs: The SA and cluster/group model

are a good fit for more conservative societies. However, a basic level of access is still required.

There must be an accessible, willing, local partner that is trusted within the targeted community

and who has the capability, or capacity to grow into the capability, to meet the funding

requirements of the donor. Depending on the context, this may be a government, or quasi-

government entity, or in more developed areas, an NGO or other civil society organization, or a

respected community group supported by local religious authorities. Identity of the KFP is not as

important as the local profile – they must be known, trusted and respected by those stakeholders

who have access to female populations. Also dependent on the context is the level of U.S.

government visibility versus that of the KFP. In some locations within MENA, a high level of

USG visibility in and of itself may translate to a lack of community support. Timeframe:

Depending on the presence and capacity of potential KFPs, time must be allowed for both

effective community mobilization and internal, institutional capacity building. A large part of the

capacity building should focus on the design and implementation of monitoring and evaluation

systems to ensure transparency of information and relevance to project objectives. The less stable

an environment, the more time is required in this regard.


F2. LIVELIHOOD RECOVERY PROGRAM

Local Economy: Entrepreneurs post-flood LRP is an excellent model for income generation

activity within areas affected by conflict or natural disaster. These situations destabilize the local

economy and the LRP, with its initial asset replacement grants as based on carefully identified

selection criteria, introduces the first stages of stability within selected VCs. Follow-on VC-

linked activities can support the transition from early stage relief efforts to more embedded

business development activities.

Flexibility: Post-conflict and natural disaster situations are fluid and a degree of flexibility is

required to allow for activities that are responsive to changing needs. Populations will first seek

relief, then start to look for recovery, and finally meet basic needs more sustainably to the degree

that business development efforts would have support. Over the course of this process, project

design must be flexible enough to support this transition – providing resources and structure to

frame interventions. Starting to look at market linkages when the capacity for income generation

at the local level is still destabilized will not build a sustainable local economic base. However,

the relationships established and assets distributed at the relief stage can form a very solid

foundation for further efforts in VC development if structured properly at the outset.

Additionally, VCs targeted early in the relief and recovery process may not be the same VCs that

are targeted as the activity moves to a development approach – project and donor staff must be in

close enough coordination, working from reliable reporting, that this mobility and transition of

objectives is possible.

Security Profile: The LRP model can be effective within volatile security environments and this

once again highlights the role of KFPs. Trusted local partners have entrée to areas that may or

may not be accessible to project staff, allowing for needs assessments and initial stages of relief

work to be established. While the security profile must be such that KFPs may move around,

local knowledge and relationships allow activities to commence much sooner and lend

legitimacy to overall efforts. Regular security assessments can provide input on the situation in

the field, informing the evolution and timing of transitional activities into more growth-related

VC interventions.

F3. SUSTAINABILITY

Incorporation Into Project Design: Incorporating a “Sustainability Center” concept into initial

project design may increase odds of maintaining Center operations post-project. Under

Entrepreneurs, the sustainability Center activities were designed in the last year of the project,

and implemented in the last six to nine months. This schedule did not allow enough time to

resolve challenges that were identified – mismatches between product quality and market

demands, for example – before the project ended. It is difficult to determine at this point what the

exact impact would have been had there been a sustainability component integrated from day

one. But evidence from the field indicates that a greater degree of success at the Center level may

have been possible if the concept had been a part of the project objectives from earlier on.

HR Requirements: Private sector experience is essential within the program staff, not just

within a marketing component. Sustainable VC development activity targeting livelihoods and

levels of production requires an understanding of the private sector – how it works, why it works,


and when and where it works. Project staff at all levels – management and field – must be able to

comprehend limitations to, and potential for, production capacity to appropriately link to the

private sector actors within a given VC. Entrepreneurs experience specifically in the HEF value

chain is an example of what happens when this understanding is lacking at the program level.

F4. VALUE CHAIN SELECTION

Viable VCs: VC selection will influence the degree and level of project impact. There must be

demand for the production - or the potential to develop a demand within the parameters of the

project - geographical accessibility, an accurate security profile, a reasonable timeframe, and

appropriate staff profiles (technical expertise versus private sector background). If political or

geographical imperatives are driving VC selection, as opposed to demand, then this must be

transparent and reflected in the projected impact.

F5. OVERALL PROJECT MANAGEMENT

National-level Government Support: Entrepreneurs experience with the GoP was cumbersome

(Loftin, January 2016). The GoP was not particularly interested in the project, perceiving it as a

women’s project working only in the informal sector. While not necessarily required from an

implementation perspective (this is very dependent on the form of government), from a logistics

perspective, national-level government support is absolutely essential. Experience within

Pakistan indicates what happens when national-level government support is not available. The

NGO law has made project management impossible in many cases, due to a failure to provide

visa access for expatriate management and technical experts. Maintianing national-level support

can help to overcome this type of challenges on a case-by-case basis.

Security Profile: In addition to the relevant points raised above in section F1. regarding the U.S.

government profile, MENA countries are increasingly falling under the new Partner Vetting

System which was piloted in Pakistan. Entrepreneurs experience indicates that the primary

impact of this system was to increase the amount of time required to hire local staff, at all levels

of authority. This has implications for start-up schedules and must be considered in

implementation scheduling. Entrepreneurs had some limited experience with potential staff

declining offers due to the perceived implications of the additional levels of information sought,

but project management did not feel that this negatively impacted project functionality beyond

additional time required to fill positions.

Donor Commitment: It is essential to have transparent and consistent donor objectives,

meaningful and stable indicators, and a partnership approach to the donor-implementer

relationship. Complex operational environments such as those found in Pakistan and in the

greater-MENA region make this all the more important. If political imperatives are driving

activity this must be transparent and reflected in the M&E indicators and projected impact.


ANNEX A - VC-SPECIFIC ACCESS AND INTEGRATION OF WOMEN

DAIRY

Challenge

Women are most involved in milk production, but they have limited mobility in the community

and limited access to vital resources and services because these are controlled by men. Women

earn very little relative to their labor input.

Solution

1. Identify appropriate private sector partner to link to VC activities. Partner provided technical

expertise, industry knowledge, and 50 percent of project funding for chillers to establish cold

chain.

2. General training for dairy producers at-large to provide training on modern livestock

management practices to enhance milk production and improve animal health.

3. Identify and train FLEWs (female livestock extension workers) to provide services vital to

dairy production; knowledge of animal husbandry, livestock management, animal health and

nutrition, livestock first aid and preventive medicine, vaccination, basic business management.

4. Identify and train FVMCs (female village milk collectors) to provide marketing services at the

village level, buy from producers, and supply buyers at processing companies. Encourage

competition among buyers, build linkages with alternative buyers, and build and maintain

connections with FLEWS for service delivery as required.

Beneficiary Contributions

Following the successful completion of a training session (general, FLEW, and FVMC)

participants were provided with tools to support their learning. General training participants

received water troughs and animal care charts. FLEWs and FVMCs were provided a tool kit, at a

20 percent cost share, to support the start-up of their own businesses.

Gender breakdown

Beneficiary population was mixed, but predominantly female. FLEWs and FVMCs were mixed,

but predominantly female.

HEF

Challenge

HEF is the main source of livelihoods for women, but isolation from the public has weakened

their bargaining power and product position in the market. They earn very little relative to their

labor inputs.

Solution

Provide direct access to markets, improve business management knowledge, and increase access

to market information and improved product development.

1. Identify female sales agents (FSAs) through KFPs, recognizing more mobile, visible women


in the community to promote the program with home-bound producers.

2. Train FSAs to provide lessons to producers on basic business management and marketing,

including costing, pricing, and negotiation, and technical training on product development,

design, marketing information, and product presentation.

3. Establish market linkages between producers and mid- to high-end markets through

collaborative training sessions and market exposure visits for FSAs, in conjunction with private

sector partners. FSAs are permitted a 10 percent commission on sales.17


Following training sessions, FSAs and producers were provided sample banks on a cluster/group

basis and artisan tool kits on an individual basis. Sample banks were developed in partnership

with local design consultants to determine content, based on geographical area served. The kits

consisted of home reference guides to reinforce quality assurance at the home level through

pictorial ‘discussion’ of design concepts, common challenges, and time management and a color

chart. There does not appear to be a cost-share model for provision of sample banks or tool kits.

Gender breakdown

Beneficiary population and all FSAs were female.

HONEY

Challenge

Sector was hit particularly hard by the flood.

Solution

1. Select geographical area for intervention based on availability of honey and potential for

beneficiary participation.

2. Awareness campaign to introduce project in selected areas.

3. Beneficiaries were identified at the local level and organized into interest groups (IGs). Within

each IG, a lead entrepreneur and a SA were identified.

4. Technical training for all beneficiaries, presenting modern beekeeping practices, honey

testing, and honeybee care.

5. Training for lead entrepreneurs and SAs on advanced beekeeping and marketing skills.

Knowledge was passed down to all IG beneficiaries.


Based on a feasibility study done at the beginning of the VC intervention, it was determined that

a new type of hive would increase efficiency of production due to increased mobility and

improved hygiene. Designed in conjunction with national agricultural agencies and academia,

2,250 alternative transitional hives were distributed to beneficiaries, but there does not appear to

have been a cost-share component in the distribution model.

17 10% was per project guidelines. The HEF VC Director shared that the commission levels were higher in practice, even during the project. Post-project CFC analysis indicated same.


Gender breakdown

IGs were gender segregated. Women’s IGs had female lead entrepreneurs and male SAs and

both were generally of the same household, in keeping with local cultural norms. Men’s IGs had

male lead entrepreneurs and SAs.

MAPs

Challenge

Collectors of plants are predominantly women but they do not have knowledge of market value,

sustainable harvesting techniques, or post-harvest handling.

Solution

1. Conduct focus groups in communities of target geographical area to identify specific

intervention localities.

2. Identify beneficiaries through KFPs and organize them into clusters of 35 to 40 beneficiaries.

Each cluster identified an SA/lead-entrepreneur and a cluster lead (CL).

3. Train SAs/lead entrepreneurs to impart training on basic business management and marketing

techniques, and CLs on proper MAPs collection, processing, and transportation approaches.

4. Site visits and market exposure to gain knowledge and create linkages between collectors and

private sector interests.


To maximize the products value, feasibility studies indicated that solar dryers were required.

KFPs and linkage with a private sector partner enabled the procurement of two solar dryers for

use by beneficiaries. There does not appear to be a cost-share contribution from the beneficiaries.

Gender breakdown

SAs/lead entrepreneurs and CLs were both male and female, the majority were males.


ANNEX B - LRP SELECTION CRITERIA

LRP Selection Criteria

Required

1. The beneficiaries should be a resident of Preferred UCs (Union Councils) by PaRRSA

2. The beneficiaries should have a NIC (national identification card) number or have a

family member with a NIC number who can vouch for her/him.

3. The beneficiaries should be victims of terror (lost capital assets or lost family members as

a result of the conflict). Note: The beneficiary must provide evidence of the loss.

4. The beneficiary should not be involved in any kind of terrorist activity (provide evidence

through screenshots of checks against the USAID required websites).

5. The beneficiaries should be willing to receive the in-kind grant of Entrepreneurs and

provide assurance in writing that the grant received from Entrepreneurs will be used for

the purpose which she/he claims in her/his registration form.

6. The key person (who may be the head of the village/union council or another person who

has been previously identified by other donors/programs) from the community

recommends her/him for grant.

Preferred criteria (for prioritization)

7. Woman-headed families in the Zakat list

8. Families who lost family member(s) due to the conflict

9. Families who lost most of their assets and have no or limited alternate sources of income

10. Families who did not receive any grant for livelihood recovery from other donors

Note: A family that scores 4/4 for preferred criteria will get top priority, then those who score 3/4

will get second priority, and so on.


ANNEX C - POST-PROJECT STATUS REPORT, SUSTAINABILITY CENTERS

Project: Empowering Pakistan Entrepreneurs (Entrepreneurs)

Duration: June 2009 - October 2014

Budget: $30 million USD; Cooperative Agreement

Implementer: MEDA (Mennonite Economic Development Associates)

Objective(s): To increase the incomes, by at least 50 percent, of 75,000 micro-entrepreneurs

and small enterprise owners, primarily focusing on women.

BACKGROUND

Using a value chain (VC) structure to frame sustainable livelihoods activities, Entrepreneurs

increased overall sales and improved project-related household income levels across four value

chains: dairy, hand embellished fabrics (HEF), honey, and medicinal and aromatic plants

(MAPs). To address issues of sustainability of project impacts, Entrepreneurs designed and

implemented a series of 30 community-based business entities, hereafter referred to collectively

as “Centers” – 12 for dairy, 15 For HEF, one for honey, two for MAPs. Centers were identified

differently for each of the VCs and the intended ownership, or control, models varied by VC.

The intent was to have the Centers linked directly with private sector firms working in that VC.

Under the USAID-funded Asia Middle East

Economic Growth Best Practices program

(AMEG), Entrepreneurs was selected as a case

study for sustainable livelihoods development.

USAID Pakistan requested that, in the course of

preparing the case study, the team provide a

report as to the current status of the Centers as

identified above. Interviews took place between

August and November 2015, remotely and within

Pakistan, and included staff from MEDA (the

project implementing organization), former

project staff, representatives from partner

organizations, private sector stakeholders, and

beneficiaries. Entrepreneurs operated in all four provinces in Pakistan, but due to time limitations

and security conditions, physical site visits and meetings were limited to the Islamabad Capital

Territory and central and southern Punjab (Lahore and Bahawalpur). Additional discussions

regarding activities in KPK and Sindh took place via telephone.

PROJECT APPROACH

In the final year of the project, Entrepreneurs engaged two consultants to develop a

comprehensive sustainability strategy, one that would build on project activity to-date and

support impact over the longer term. While the consultancy was not a part of the work plan,

Entrepreneurs was looking for a way to extricate the KFPs without compromising project impact

What is a Center?

• A neutral place for SAs (sales agents) and trainers to conduct business related activities including sample development, product development, order management, quality control, sales • A place which is easily accessible to the buyers for conducting buyer/seller meetings • A ... physical work location (for) resource material collection, (to) display samples, and facilitate MFI meetings (for) disbursement / collection of micro loans

- Entrepreneurs, 2013


on the VCs18 and beneficiaries (Bramm, October 2015). Entrepreneurs sustainability consultancy

was structured in two parts – Part 1: Setting the Framework, and Part 2: Operationalizing

Producer/Market Centers and Fostering Market/Private Sector Sustainability. Dairy was more

advanced in establishing sustainability, so the consultancy focused on the remaining value

chains. (Warman, 2014)

Part 1 assessed the process of establishing the Centers and reviewed the status of private sector

interest, per specific VCs, in investing in the Centers longer term. While most of the findings

were applicable at the individual VC-level, the following were ascertained across all VCs:

A preferred form of registration and/or ownership was identified

There was a need for continuing technical assistance to the producers

Mentorship of individual Centers would be required

Provision of communications and marketing materials was necessary: Sets of marketing

materials, communications strategies, and VC directories including producers and buyers

Encouragement for private sector linkages was essential through investment and/or

continuous orders

Based on this research, Center design was modeled, potential locations identified, and private

sector expressions of interest documented, creating a foundation for the second phase of the

consultancy. Part 2 focused on three key priorities:

Support project staff in securing private sector partnerships with the Centers

Assess “Sustainability Gap” of each Center – where they are now and where they need to

be at the close of the project

Provide training and technical assistance recommendations to bridge the gaps as

identified above (Brunnell, 2014)

IMPLEMENTATION

Sustainability Centers

Sustainability approaches varied per each VC. Each is considered individually below.

18 At the end of the project KFPs were blurring the line between market actor and market influencer.


Sustainability Centers # Center Province Location Status*

Dairy – Input Supply Hubs

1-12 No data/information available

HEF – Common Facility Centers

1 Bahawalpur Punjab Dear Bakha, Hasilpur Road

2 Lodhran Punjab Ward 2, Hassanwala F

3 Multan Punjab Hs. 1429, St. 6, Umer Chowk, Amin Abad, Hazuri Bag Road or Al Rasheediya House, Model Town, Sher e Muneer, Kosar Road, ban bosan bypass

4 Pishin Baloch. Killi Sharan, Khanoozai

5 Quetta Baloch. Nawan Keli, UC, Kotwal or Zarghon Road

6 Pishin Baloch. Qasim Mohallah, Pishin

7 Kanju KPK Shahi Bazaar, Kanju, Swat F

8 Fatehpur KPK Chekrae, Fatehpur, Swat

9 Swat KPK Islampur F

10 Chakdara KPK Chakdara, Dir

11 Batkhela KPK Batkhela, Malakand

12 Wakro, Larkana Sindh Village Wakro, Tehsil Dhokri

13 Clifton, Karachi Sindh Shop 4, Ground Floor, Samwood, Block B

14 Badin Sindh Hs. 23, Block B, Bhawani Sugar Mills Colony, Talhar

15 Sangarh Sindh C/O Abida Baloch, House 138/21, Central Colony, Shansha Colony

Honey – Collection Center

1 Fatehpur KPK Main Road, across from Army check-point NF

MAPs – Collection and Buying Center

1 Swat KPK NF

2 Upper Dir KPK NF

* Status: F=Functional NF=Not Functional

Dairy: Private sector linkages in the milk collection side were well established and fully

functional, with significant cost share taken by the private sector partners – Engro Foods and

Shakaraganj Foods. Shakarganj Foods bought milk all year long in order to gain trust and

establish themselves as a reliable partner to suppliers. To this end, they also conducted training

sessions to impart knowledge on small-, low-, or no-cost approaches that could boost milk

production, showing beneficiaries that improving their income would ultimately serve the needs

of the company as well.

Having established private sector relationships on the production side, Entrepreneurs focused

sustainability efforts on developing Input Supply Hubs, organized as a small business wherein a

program-trained FLEW was the owner. These Hubs were linked directly to input suppliers (for

medicines, testing equipment, etc.). The project provided support in connecting the FLEW with

microfinance support, but the majority of the start-up costs were borne by the FLEW. Thereafter,


“For FSA(s)-owned CFCs, continued orders (rather than ad-hoc) are critical for sustainability of CFCs.”

– (Warman, 2014)

the Hub served as a supplier of tools, equipment, and services focused on livestock management

and product quality assurance.

HEF: Sustainability efforts in the HEF value chain focused on the common facility centers

(CFCs), a series of 15 centers intended to be legally registered, small businesses owned by a

group of FSAs/Lead Entrepreneurs and operated by a group of beneficiaries. There were two

models – market based (located within a commercial market) and home based (located within the

home of an FSA or Lead Entrepreneur). Each CFC was equipped with resource materials, sample

catalogues, sample books, training manuals, current fashion magazines, and other relevant

resources.

For private sector support, Entrepreneurs signed

MOUs with four private sector sustainability partners

(Asasah, Indus Heritage Trust, Texlynx, and The

Indus Entrepreneurs network - TIE) to provide

ongoing support after the project end. Asasah, Indus

Heritage Trust, and Texlynx were intended to support specific CFCs in making linkages work for

member beneficiaries, while TIE was to provide business management mentoring support across

all CFCs. An additional 15 memoranda of cooperation were signed with companies and

organizations to help facilitate sustainable linkages between beneficiaries, SAs, and buyers

(MEDA, 2014).

Honey: A Collection Center premises was established, owned and operated by Mr. Bee Honey19,

at which Mr. Bee bought the product directly from the beneficiaries at a fair market price. The

Center functioned as a bulk center (combining product from many beneficiaries) and semi-

processing unit where product was extracted, collected, labeled, and packaged (Warman, 2014).

Mr. Bee and Entrepreneurs shared the start-up costs of the Center 50/50 and procured and

installed honey extractors, with Mr. Bee providing running costs after project close. This Center

was to be linked to mini-collection centers established throughout the activity area, allowing for

greater accessibility to homebound women. It is unclear if these mini-centers were ever

established.

MAPs: Within the MAPs value chain, two Collection and Buying Centers were established. Two

solar dryers were procured, one for each of the Centers, allowing the beneficiaries to improve the

quality of the product by decreasing drying time and exposure, minimizing degradation by mold

and other contaminants (MEDA, 2014). Over the course of VC activities, multiple site visits and

exposure trips functioned to establish and strengthen linkages between the beneficiaries and the

private sector stakeholders. MAPs was able to sign an MOU with Herbion, a top-tier firm with

more than $25 million in annual sales, in Pakistan and abroad (Warman, 2013). In

establishing the Centers, Herbion put up 70 to 80 percent of the investment, with the

remainder coming from Entrepreneurs.

19 Appeared to be some internal project disagreement as to quality of Mr. Bees involvement as the private sector partner. Questions were raised as to the sincerity and ethics behind the company’s involvement in the honey VC.


“We used to have to call the doctor, and pay him. Now I am the doctor. People call even from other villages and I help them, and they pay me.”

– FLEW, Hashmira

“You have provided a platform for the poor to do something useful, not subversive. It has stopped the negativity in my community.”

– Fouzia Bibi, Goth Mehro

CURRENT STATUS (NOVEMBER 2015)

Due to the national nature of project activities, accessibility challenges in many project areas,

and imperfect information, reporting on the current status of the various sustainability centers is

based on the following limited evidence:

Discussion with dairy program and marketing staff and one of the two private sector

partners, Shakarganj Foods

Interaction with dairy and HEF beneficiaries in Goth Mehro and Hashmira, both in

Bahawalpur

Meetings and calls with HEF program and marketing staff, and three of the sustainability

partners for HEF – Asasah, Indus Heritage Trust, and TIE

One site visit to a HEF CFC in Lodhran

Meeting with the honey VC private sector partner, Mr. Bee Honey

Calls with MAPs program staff

Dairy: Anecdotal evidence indicates that project

interventions in the dairy VC have had lasting, positive

impact. Interactions while in the field in Bahawalpur

provided some evidence that the FLEW and female

village milk collector (FVMC) models have manifested

in more confident, empowered, and independent

beneficiaries. Both field visit meetings were conducted in conjunction with HEF participants

and, while smaller in number – approximately 20 percent of the total attendance – without

exception, the dairy beneficiaries present were more comfortable sharing ideas and had stronger

positive associations with the project and what it has done for them and their communities.

An assessment of the Input Supply Hubs specifically

was not possible as the locations of these facilities

could not be determined. Nor could it be determined

how the relationships between the private sector

partner and beneficiaries had played out since project

close, as identification of beneficiaries per company chiller site was not possible. However,

feedback from dairy beneficiaries encountered during the field visit indicated that they did not

use ‘company’ milk collection facilities as they were too far away, did not pay cash on delivery,

and did not pay on time for post-delivery arrangements. Whether or not the ‘company’ they

referenced was Shakarganj Foods was not clear.

Discussions with Shakarganj Foods established that partnership with Entrepreneurs allowed the

company to expand into remote markets that they otherwise would not have pursued. While

comfortable with a degree of risk, the cost-share component of the project enabled the company

to experiment with developing supply chains in higher-risk remote and inaccessible areas while

maintaining a comfortable internal risk profile. Experience to-date has provided the business

with enough evidence as to the viability of working in these areas that they have continued

working with many Entrepreneurs beneficiaries, and are now participating in a similar project

with a different geographical focus (with Australian Aid). They are also exploring further,

independent, forays into additional challenging markets.


Challenges to HEF High-end Linkages

• Poor product quality • Insufficient quantity produced • Designs not trend-responsive • Lack of professionalism (on-time delivery, accurate order filling, cash-on-delivery demands) • Vulnerability of proprietary designs

Based on these limited findings, in terms of female empowerment the dairy VC intervention was

successful. Sustained private sector market linkages also appear to have been successful, but it

was not discernable to what degree this impacts Entrepreneurs beneficiaries specifically.

HEF: HEF was the most geographically dispersed of the VCs and was targeting the largest

proportion of beneficiaries. From a sustainability perspective, evidence from this review

indicates that it was also the most challenging VC in terms of ongoing market linkages. Of the 15

CFCs established under the project, three can be confirmed as operational in some fashion –

Lodhran (site visit), Islampur, and Kanju (met with sustainability partner). Operational status of

the remaining 12 CFCs was impossible to determine; CFC locations were too dispersed and in

variously insecure areas to allow for physical site visits in the time available.20

Having said this, based on discussions with former

project staff, current sustainability partners, the

Lodrhan CFC, and some of the beneficiaries it is

probable that many of the CFCs, while not functional

per the Entrepreneurs model, are functioning to some

minimal degree. High-end market linkages did not

survive for a second round – those that were

documented at project close were the only ones that

have occurred. The majority of the current business at

the CFCs appears to be local markets, private sales,

and one-off exhibitions and melas. Some limited success has been had in regional markets (90

percent of Bahawalpur clusters are selling into Multan market). At the beneficiary level,

participants state that they are now able to bear household expenses and pay for education and,

especially, health care.

Over the course of this review, three of the Sustainability Partners – Asasah, Indus Heritage

Trust, and The Indus Entrepreneurs network (TIE) – were consulted directly. In the case of

Texlynx (the fourth sustainability partner) direct consultation was not possible, but their

impressions were related via third party discussions with Entrepreneurs staff and Asasah, to

whom Texlynx is known.

Asasah continues to work with two CFCs in KPK. Earnings from these CFCs totaled just

over $350,000 in the July 2014 to July 2015 period. While the centers are still functional,

with beneficiary groups using the facilities and producing products, Asasah shared that

they are facing difficulty, as these products are not selling well. While Asasah has been

providing financial support and linkage opportunities, the lack of access to, and

appreciation of, market information was the main barrier. They have recently undertaken

a market assessment for shawls in Lahore, Multan, and Murree and found that CFC

production does not meet the quality needs of the market, and the lower-end markets are

taken by Indian production.

20 At the time of this review, the former HEF VC Director was reaching out to determine where the CFCs were currently located and if they were functional.


Recommendations for Honey VC Activity

• Apiculturist rather than entomologist for technical expertise • More research on appropriate bee strain for locality • Establish a model apiary to show beneficiaries • Incorporate more practical training, using the model apiary • Address broader issue of disappearing flora that is essential to honey production

Indus Heritage Trust has essentially (per experience during the field visit) absorbed some

of the CFCs in southern Punjab into a new, World Bank-funded project – Developing

Artisanal Livelihoods in Rural Pakistan (RANG). The current project manager for

RANG, in Bahawalpur, was the HEF KFP coordinator for the area under Entrepreneurs,

so it was difficult to ascertain Entrepreneurs beneficiaries from RANG beneficiaries. But

on all counts, the Indus Heritage Trust appears to be honoring the MOU.

TIE is also honoring the responsibilities under the MOU, making monthly contact with

CFCs and FSAs. TIE shared that very little has been asked of them in terms of business

development or mentoring support. They feel that the late incorporation of the

sustainability partners, especially their business services component, limited the

opportunity for beneficiaries to become fully aware of the services available to them

post-project.

Texlynx. Asasah and Entrepreneurs VC Director for HEF (Sindh), both of whom know

the Texlynx CEO, indicated that Texlynx has not successfully worked with their CFCs,

due to the mismatch between the level of production coming out of the beneficiaries and

the demand of the market within which they work. This has not been confirmed with

Texlynx directly.

Honey: Per the input of Mr. Bee Honey, the Collection Center is no longer functional due to lack

of product. Early challenges within the VC stemmed from the fact that activities targeted a

beneficiary population that were not beekeepers but, rather, farmers that happened to have bees.

Estimates provided indicate that about 10 percent of the beneficiaries were professional

beekeepers, while 90 percent were farmers. Alternative colonies of a high-producing bee

varieties were provided and promptly died due to lack of adequate care and improper hives.

The second phase, in which Mr. Bee was involved, was

based on increasing production of the native species of

bee through the design and introduction of alternative

transitional hives (ATH). Unfortunately, the second

phase happened late in the project timeline and had

limited impact due to a lack of time for education and

practical technical training. ATH required the moving

of bee colonies and the beneficiary population was not

convinced that this would increase production – they

were more fearful that the change would compromise

production at the established rates. An intermediary

step was introduced to transfer stray hives to ATH, but

the activity was never able to realize substantiated

increases in production. Even as the project ended,

production was low, quality was low, and beneficiaries were reverting to the use of traditional

barter and exchange systems with established, local traders rather than using the Collection

Center. These challenges have been compounded by environmental impacts due to changes in

weather patterns. Mr. Bee states that the past two years have not been honey years and even

established beekeepers are leaving the business.


“Involve us (the sustainability partners) earlier than the last moment. That way we can better educate the FSAs on how to use post-project support. So far we have had a few requests for assistance, but they are asking for help to get more business, not for management support.”

– Zishan Shahid, The Indus Entrepreneurs (TIE)

In response to these issues, Mr. Bee Honey has closed the Collection Center though it seems the

equipment and fixtures remain in Swat and the company is anxious to re-start the activity based

on further donor support for a redesign.

MAPs: Neither of the MAPs Collection and Buying Centers (CBC) is operational. According to

the two KFPs working in this VC – HDOD (Upper Dir) and NRSP (Swat) – Herbion has closed

both centers and relocated all equipment and fixtures to premises elsewhere in the country

(Islamabad or Lahore were most frequently mentioned). This was not confirmed with Herbion

directly.

According to NRSP, one of the main reasons that the Swat CBC closed was its location. Swat

was far away from the main collection area and the small profit made by the beneficiaries was

taken away in transport costs. Producers opted to sell MAPs to local traders. The KFP

recommendation was to open a CBC in Madyan as it is in closer to the gathering area, but project

staff decided otherwise. Reasoning behind the selection of Swat over other options was unclear.

Anecdotal evidence from various former Entrepreneurs staff indicates that MAPs beneficiaries

are still gathering and selling, gaining higher rates for their product based on technical training as

provided by the project – just not through commercial channels as established with the CBCs.

LESSONS LEARNED

Private sector partners in general, and sustainability partners specifically, should be integrated

into the sustainability design and implementation process at the earliest possible point.

Implementing the sustainability process in the last six to nine months of the project did not allow

enough time to develop mutual understanding of the

potential benefits of such an arrangement for both

producers and private sector partners. Without

exception, interviewees indicated that one of the

biggest challenges was the concept of markets and

helping beneficiaries understand how and why to link

with the market successfully through product design,

quality, timeliness, quantity, pricing etc. With more

time and exposure, producer groups with access to

business development services and possible financial

support would more fully understand how to use the services available.

In the dairy VC, Shakarganj Foods was approached early in the VC development process and

helped to provide technical training and infrastructure. Early involvement enabled the business

to be fully integrated into VC activities at the end of the project. The cost-share arrangement

mitigates investment risk for private sector partners, allowing motivated businesses to expand

into less accessible geographical areas and to develop customized product lines. Success of the

activity with Entrepreneurs has convinced Shakarganj to expand further, into additional, more

remote areas, under the Australian Aid Market Development Facility. This type of market

expansion was always of interest to the firm, but without the additional funding to offset the

investment risk, the company would not have targeted such remote areas for market growth.


“Linking FSAs to buyers could have worked – there was a lot of private sector interest – but there was a mismatch between what the beneficiaries could produce and the amount and quality that were in demand.”

– Derald Smart, Marketing Advisor

“A private sector mindset is needed at the program level.”

– Tabinda Jaffery, Asasah

“There is a general lack of understanding about how important the private sector is to development – the role (of the private sector) is not appreciated.” – Salmaan Farooq, Entrepreneurs Director Dairy VC, and HEF (Sindh)

“To ensure sustainability - balance economics with social objectives.” – Naguib Saigal, CFO Shakarganj Foods

After the groundwork has been laid with donor assistance, the company can maintain operations

at a level of risk with which they are comfortable, and without threatening profitability.

Private sector support must be linked at levels appropriate to the level of production available

within the VC.

In HEF, while private sector interest was high and

connections with big name fashion houses were

forthcoming, a lack of understanding on the part of

the KFPs and program staff made successful linkages

at this high level very difficult. KFPs could not

accurately assess production capacity of the

beneficiaries. While a first round of top-level linkages

were successfully completed, subsequent Center-

buyer relationships were not sustained at this level. Issues of product quality and consistency,

and timeliness of delivery were cited. Where those Centers are still functional, they are operating

at lower levels within the market – serving local or regional buyers. Honey and MAPs Centers

closed down due to a mismatch in levels of production.

Promoting understanding of private sector needs, approach, and relevance within the

development sector will increase the likelihood of positive, sustainable market linkages.

In discussions of the HEF value chain in general, there

was consensus among the former VC staff that work

in the HEF VC was too supply driven. The marketing

staff perspective was that the project needed to break

away from the ‘livelihoods’ concept that you train people and then they link up the VC. Rather,

the argument was that the motivation and direction has to come from the commercial channels

and work down, to drive product and training decisions so that linkages can function to the

benefit of both business and beneficiary. This was a point that was raised across VCs.

Additionally, many development activities that target

the private sector for partnership follow a corporate

social responsibility (CSR) model. Entrepreneurs

experience in this regard is telling. In approaching

potential private sector partners, Entrepreneurs

Marketing team found that many companies had been

overwhelmed by approaches for CSR ‘opportunities’.

While the companies attended to Entrepreneurs proposals, there was not a lot of follow-through.

Their CSR quota was already being filled. Sustainable market linkage activities cannot be linked

to CSR alone, they must be linked to concrete business strategy.

Management coordination within the VC program is

essential.

Relationships with potential private sector buyers are


based on accurate production information to determine the most appropriate market linkages, as

discussed above. Where management coordination is lacking and inaccurate information results,

these relationships are damaged, negatively reflecting on the project and undercutting attempts to

create successful linkages.

PREREQUISITES FOR REPLICATION

Incorporation into Project Design: Incorporating a “Sustainability Center” concept into initial

project design may increase odds of maintaining Center operations post-project. Under

Entrepreneurs, the sustainability ‘Center’ activities were designed in the last year of the project,

and implemented in the last six to nine months. This timeframe did not allow enough time to

resolve challenges that were identified – mismatch between product quality and market demands,

for example – before the project ended. It is difficult to determine at this point what the exact

impact would have been had there been a sustainability component integrated from day one, but

evidence from the field indicates that a greater degree of success at the Center level may have

been possible if the concept has been a part of the project objectives from earlier on.

HR Requirements: Private sector experience is essential within the program staff, not just

within a marketing component. Sustainable VC development activity targeting the livelihoods

levels of production requires an understanding of the private sector – how it works, why it works,

when and where it works. Project staff at all levels – management and field – must be able to

comprehend limitations to, and potential for, production capacity to appropriately link to the

private sector actors within a given VC. Entrepreneurs experience specifically within the HEF

value chain is an example of what happens when this understanding is lacking at program level.


ANNEX D - Pakistan Entrepreneurs Livelihoods Model Case Study: Lessons Learned Integrating Homebound Women

Trust is essential to integrating homebound women. Adequate time must be allowed to identify and train appropriate partners to undertake effective community mobilization.

Livelihoods Recovery Program (LRP)

Clarity of objective, agreed selection criteria, transparency in implementation, and close coordination across partners were keys to success.

A smaller number of sectors allows for more sustainable progress.

Engage private sector partners earlier and in a more substantial way.

Providing physical assets as emergency relief, to stabilize a damaged production base, provides a good transition to more development-focused VC activities.

Sustainability

Private sector partners in general, and sustainability partners specifically, should be integrated into the sustainability design and implementation process at the earliest possible point.

Private sector support must be linked at levels appropriate to the level of production available within the VC.

Promoting understanding of private sector needs, approach and relevance within the development sector will increase the likelihood of positive, sustainable market linkages.

Management coordination within the VC program is essential. Value Chain (VC) Selection

A demand-driven focus in sector selection will maximize potential for sustainable income generation.

Adequate time, a degree of physical access, and appropriate technical expertise is required for accurate VC assessments.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Capacity to meet USG reporting requirements is an important selection criteria when identifying project partners.

Identification of specific indicators (per VC, per objective, or per geographical area) at project outset, as well as assignment of roles and responsibilities and creation an information management structure, allow for project impact reporting with a higher degree of responsiveness and utility.

Geography and security must be considered in creation of monitoring and evaluation plans, identification of indicators, and in the reporting format.


ANNEX E – References

Brunell, David. (2014). Pakistan Entrepreneurs Project Sustainability Consultancy Part 2:

Operationalizing Producer/Market Centers and Fostering Market/Private Sector Sustainability.

Provided by Adam Bramm, Senior Project Manager/Consultant, MEDA.

Entrepreneurs. (2013). CFC Presentation (2013). Provided by Dr. Shabbir, Entrepreneurs HEF

VC Director.

Innovative Development Strategies (IDS). (2014). Performance Evaluation/Impact Assessment:

USAID Entrepreneurs Project, May 2014. Retrieved from www.meda.org

(www.meda.org/impact-assessment-report/file)

Krantz, Lasse. (2001). The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach to Poverty Reduction: An

Introduction. Retrieved from www.sida.se

(http://www.sida.se/contentassets/bd474c210163447c9a7963d77c64148a/the-sustainable-

livelihood-approach-to-poverty-reduction_2656.pdf)

Kroeker, Wally. (2015). MEDA: Modelling Mission and Stewardship for the 21st Century.

Retrieved from www.meda.org (http://www.meda.org/intern-blogs-yc/entry/meda-modelling-

mission-and-stewardship-for-the-21st-century)

Mennonite Economic Development Associates (MEDA). (2014). USAID Pakistan:

Entrepreneurs End of Project Report. Provided by Adam Bramm, Senior Project

Manager/Consultant, MEDA.

Mennonite Economic Development Associates (MEDA). (n.d.) Pathways to Pursestrings.

Retrieved from www.meda.org (http://www.meda.org/about-pathways-pursestrings)

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) (2012). Audit of the USAID/Pakistan’s Entrepreneurs

Project. Retrieved from oig.usaid.gov (oig.usaid.gov/node/281)

USAID. (2013). USAID in Pakistan: Strengthening Our Partnership, Continuing Our Progress.

Retrieved from www.usaid.gov (https://www.usaid.gov/pakistan/usaid-in-pakistan-report)

USAID. (Last updated: July 08, 2015) USAID/OTI’s Role in Pakistan. Retrieved from www.

(https://www.usaid.gov/political-transition-initiatives/pakistan)

Warman, Art. (2014). USAID/Pakistan Entrepreneurs Project Sustainability Consultancy Part 1:

Setting the Framework. Provided by Adam Bramm, Senior Project Manager/Consultant, MEDA.

World Bank. (2015). World Development Indicators: 2015. World Bank Group. Retrieved from

data.worldbank.org (http://data.worldbank.org/products/wdi)

World Economic Forum. (2014). The Global Gender Gap Report 2014. Retrieved from

reports.weforum.org (http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2014/)

http://www.meda.org/

http://www.meda.org/impact-assessment-report/file

http://www.sida.se/

http://www.sida.se/contentassets/bd474c210163447c9a7963d77c64148a/the-sustainable-livelihood-approach-to-poverty-reduction_2656.pdf

http://www.sida.se/contentassets/bd474c210163447c9a7963d77c64148a/the-sustainable-livelihood-approach-to-poverty-reduction_2656.pdf


http://www.meda.org/intern-blogs-yc/entry/meda-modelling-mission-and-stewardship-for-the-21st-century

http://www.meda.org/intern-blogs-yc/entry/meda-modelling-mission-and-stewardship-for-the-21st-century


http://www.meda.org/about-pathways-pursestrings

https://www.usaid.gov/pakistan/usaid-in-pakistan-report

http://www.usaid.gov/

https://www.usaid.gov/pakistan/usaid-in-pakistan-report

https://www.usaid.gov/political-transition-initiatives/pakistan

http://data.worldbank.org/products/wdi

http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2014/


ANNEX F - INTERVIEWEES

Meetings/Calls

Name Position Contact Details

1 Adam Bramm Entrepreneurs Project Manager at close and MEDA Senior Project Manager/Consultant

[email protected] 202-302-5492

2 Travis Guymon USAID/PK, Agriculture Development Officer and AOR for Entrepreneurs

[email protected]

3 Kevin McGlothlin Team Leader, Economic Growth and Environment, USAID

[email protected]

4 Sayyed Ahmad Masud

Managing Director Channel 7 Communications (Pvt) Ltd – Board Member, Indus Entrepreneurs, Sustainability partner, HEF

[email protected] M: 0334 513 7777

5 Helen Loftin Entrepreneurs opening CoP and MEDA - Vice President of Economic Opportunities for Youth and Women

[email protected]

6 Derald Smart Entrepreneurs Marketing Advisor 03008560765 [email protected]

7 Abid Marwat Entrepreneurs Marketing Team

8 Salmaan Farooq Entrepreneurs VC Director, Dairy and HEF (Sindh)

[email protected]

9 Shamim Akhtar Entrepreneurs LRP, and VC Director, MAPs

[email protected] +92 300 5923500 skype shamimah03 0300 592 3500

10 Zishan Shahid Indus Entrepreneurs – Sustainability partner, HEF

03215570447

11 Dr. Shabbir Entrepreneurs VC Director, HEF 0300 5391379 0518491300 [email protected]

12 Mr. Naguib CFO Shakarganj Foods – Private sector partner, Dairy

0301 8444418 [email protected]

13 Mr. Saleem Abbas KFP – THAAP, Indus Heritage Trust – Sustainability partner, HEF

03008681275

14 Elli Takagaki CEO Paper Miracles – Private sector partner, HEF

03035900909 [email protected]

15 Ms. Tabinda Alkans Jaffery

CEO Asasah – Sustainability partner, HEF

03008444968

16 Naveed Ahmed Qureshi

Mr. Bee Honey – Private sector partner, Honey

03009563374 [email protected] 1-j Murree Road, Liaquat Bagh, Rawalpindi

17 Dr. Ikram KFP – NRSP, MAPs and LRP 03468552213 ikramurrahman skype

18 Syed Tariq Khan KFP – HDOD, MAPs and LRP 03009002827 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]








tel:%2B92%20300%205923500



ANNEX G - KFPs AND BENEFICIARIES BY VALUE CHAIN

Value Chain Location (District/Province) KFPs Beneficiaries

Hand Embellished

Fabrics

KPK (Swat, Lower Dir, Malakand) LASOONA 10,000

Sindh (Karachi, Thatta,

Hyderabad, Badin, Mirpur Khas,

Larkana and Sukkur)

ECDI 6, 000

South Punjab (Bhawalpur, Multan,

Lodhran & DG Khan)

THAAP 5, 000

Baluchistan (Pishin & Quetta) WESS 5, 000

Total (34%) 26,000

Dairy

Northern Sindh (Ghotki, Larkana,

Sukkur, Shikarpur, Dadu,

Khairpur, Naoshero Feroz, Punjab

(Layyah & Muzzafargarh)

ENGRO 19, 000

South Punjab (Bhawalpur) HASHOO 8, 000

Total (35%) 27,000

Medicinal and

Aromatic Plants

KPK (Upper Dir & Swat) HDOD 12, 000

KPK (Swat, Shangla) NRSP 9, 000

Total (27%) 21,000

Honey KPK (Swat) HUJRA (4%) 3,000

GRAND TOTAL OF BENEFICIARIES (Actual Deliverables 75,000) 77, 000


ANNEX H - ENTREPRENEURS ONE-PAGERS


ANNEX I - ORGANIZATIONAL CHART


U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20523 Tel: 202.712.0000 Fax: 202.216.3524 www.usaid.gov

case study: pakistan entrepreneurs grant …pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00n1nx.pdf · unemployment...

Documents