Cassava_Value Chain Analysis-METHODOLOGY

III.

Field Survey: Mapping the Stakeholders

A set of Questionnaire (Annex 1) was used to map-out the informant to determine what the value chain stakeholders were doing, why they did it and how they come up with their decisions. One-to-one conversations, interviews and group discussions were done based on the guided items in the questionnaire.

However, prior to the above activities, Gov. Antonio H. Cerilles  executed  a letter of urgency (Annex 2) to the municipal mayors for the purpose just stated. The Provincial Agriculturist, Mrs. Marilyn I.S.  Bersales, had then deployed her support staff and extension workers to different municipalities (Annex 3) and to carry out the task.

With the task at hand during the consolidation phase of the data gathered from the survey, Gov. Cerilles commissioned another memo to selective employees from different offices (Annex 4) to do the VCA of the prioritized commodity.

 Mapping the Market 

 3.2.1 Quantitative Mapping of the Value Chain

3.2.1 Qualitative Mapping of the Value Chain

3.2.3  Waterfall Chart

The waterfall chart bridges the quantitative and qualitative output based on the input from questionnaires and FGD, i.e. how the value changes from one segments to another through a series of intermediate chains. For the calculations using Microsoft Office Excel 2007 see Annex 6  

3.3 Commodity Prioritization and Ranking

A Commodity Prioritization Tool was used as a guide in the prioritization of commodity projects here (I-Plan Operation Manual). Initially four commodities based from the survey (cassava, rice, duck, organic vegetables) were subjected to this tool and ranked accordingly. 

Table 6 The major criteria and the weights.

Criteria	Weight
I.     Suitability	20%
II.    Market Potential	30%
III. Impact on the Poor	20%
IV. Number of Beneficiaries / Growers	30%
Total	100%

Scoring for each indicator was on a scale  from 1 to 10, the highest being near 10. However, a perfect score of 10 is not feasible. Hence, the highest score that can be garnered for each indicator was 9. The score measures the perceived value of each indicator vis-à-vis the commodity being evaluated. Therefore, a score of near 10 indicates that the commodity was the best for the given criterion and a score going south or near 0 would indicate the opposite.