**Table 5. Ordered mean scores for indicators used to measure success of project or policy interventions linking smallholders to higher­value supply chains:**

|**Indicator**|**Mean**|**Standard**<br>**Deviation**|
|---|---|---|
|Number of targeted farmers supplying the higher‐value crop/livestock product|1.841<sup>a</sup>|0.314|
|Quantities of technical assistance provided (for example number of people/groups<br>trained, etc.)|1.844<sup>a</sup><br>|0.341|
|Gross value of sales of smallholders from focal commodities|1.968<sup>b</sup><br>|0.527|
|Number of farmer groups formed|1.973<sup>b,c</sup>|0.331|
|Volume/value of exports or domestic sales|2.101<sup>c</sup>|0.327|
|Measures of technical farm productivity (for example crop yields, animal<br>productivity, etc.)|2.103<sup>c</sup>|0.503|
|Number of farmers/groups certified for a particular standard|2.323<sup>d</sup><br>|0.335|
|Trends in producer prices, share of value addition, etc.|2.354<sup>d</sup><br>|0.310|
|Distribution of participation based on gender|2.467<sup>d,e</sup><br>|0.315|
|Share of targeted commodity sold at higher grades or in targeted segment|2.497<sup>d,e,f</sup>|0.364|
|Evidence of improved access to technical or business advisory services|2.583<sup>f,g</sup><br>|0.299|
|Changes in measured rate of poverty among target farmers|2.606<sup>f.g</sup><br>|0.310|
|Crop/livestock budgets showing change in income compared to `traditional'<br>crop/activity|2.670<sup>g,h</sup>|0.328|
|Measures of agribusiness profitability|2.673<sup>g,h</sup>|0.330|
|Evidence of increased viability and capacity of farmer organizations|2.697<sup>i</sup><br>|0.463|
|Measures of technical performance related to compliance with standards (for|2.780<sup>i,j</sup>|0.312|
|example rejection rates, incidence of price discounts, etc.)|||
|Returns to land and labour invested in focal commodities|2.987<sup>j,k</sup><br>|0.466|
|Indicators of reduced transaction costs faced by agribusiness firms|3.029<sup>k,l</sup>|0.463|
|Indicators of reduced transaction costs faced by farmers|3.051<sup>l</sup>|0.495|
|Indicators of ability of farmers to continue supplying target markets in the medium<br>and long term|3.111<sup>l,m</sup>|0.517|
|Evidence of increased capacity/sustainability of local providers of technical/business<br>advisory services|3.161<sup>l,m</sup>|0.589|
|Indicators of intra‐annual cash flow for farmers|3.190<sup>m</sup>|0.415|
|Evidence of increased ability to respond to new market opportunities|3.213<sup>m,n</sup>|0.404|
|Measures of improved natural resource management by farmers|3.219<sup>m,n</sup>|0.459|
|Impacts on wider community (for example access to input, flows of knowledge, etc.)|3.278<sup>n</sup>|0.331|
|Data on inter‐annual variability of farmer incomes|3.320<sup>o</sup>|0.355|
|Measures of improved farm worker health|3.603<sup>o</sup>|0.410|
|Measure ofpublic sector administrative/technical capacities|3.674<sup>o</sup>|0.532|

_Note: Mean scores denoted by the same letter are not significantly different from each other at the 5% level on the basis of a Wilcoxon signed rank test_ Respondents were then asked what indicators of success ‘should’ be tracked and measured in order to truly gauge the impact of project and policy interventions in this 15