International Centre for World Vision development oriented Armenia Research in Agriculture
Accion Contra el Hambre (ACH) UMCOR Armenia
Small and Medium Armenian Entrepeneurship Academy of development National Agriculture Center (SMEDNC)
COOPERATING TO RECONSTRUCT RURALITY:
A study of institutional support needs for agricultural livelihoods in Sisian and Goris regions of Syunik marz, Armenia.
------Working Document Series 116 Armenia – 2004 ------
Cooperating to reconstruct rurality:
A study of institutional support needs for agricultural livelihoods in Sisian and Goris Regions of Syunik Marz, Armenia.
Narine Babayan Zvidzai Chidhakwa Artur Hayrapetyan Oluremi Noah Iluyomade Helen C. Ramos Bounhom Thepphavong
This report is the product of team work with the authors listed in alphabetical order
International Centre for development Accion Contra el Hambre Small and Medium oriented Research in Agriculture (ACH) Entrepeneurship development (ICRA).P.O.BOX 88, 6700 AB Hovana Vorotnetsi 3, Sisisan, National Center (SMEDNC) WageningenThe Netherlands Tel.(31) Armenia 375010, Yerevan, 317 422938Fax (31) 317 427046. e- Tel (374 1) 544505 Armenia mail: [email protected] Tel/Fax (374 1 581878 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] World Vision Armenia1 Romanos UMCOR Armenia Armenian Academy of .Melikyan st., Malatia-Sebastia 14, Karapet Ulnetsu Street, Agriculture Yerevan 375065, Armenia Yerevan, Armenia Terian street 74, Tel (374 1) 74 91 46, 74 91 47, Tel +374 1) 248141, 282977 Yerevan 375009, Armenia Tel. Fax: (374 1) 74 91 48 Fax: +(374 1) 249215 52-45-41, 52-96-64 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a number of fundamental changes took place in the Armenian agricultural sector. The old agricultural system based on state and collective farms collapsed, together with markets modelled along requirements of the command economy and input supply systems. Land (and later livestock) was privatized and parcelled out to individual households. Former state and collective farms were replaced by small family units averaging 1.5 hectares. A new type of farmer has emerged in Armenia. People previously employed in industry and some former refugees from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict suddenly became farmers, given the limited options in other sectors of the economy. A new system of support to agricultural livelihoods therefore needs to be developed by both the government and other support agencies. This study was conducted in Sisian and Goris Regions of Syunik marz in order to analyse current constraints and future support needs of various types of farmers and to suggest possible future roles of different institutions. The study was conducted as a collaborative effort between ICRA and five institutions providing support to farmers in Armenia.
A number of constraints currently affecting agricultural development in Sisian and Goris Regions were identified. These include inadequate markets, inaccessibility to local and international markets, price instability, poor product quality, inadequate inputs and machinery, absence of long-term credit, inadequate research and extension support and poor farmer organization. The need to organize farmers into formal groups was identified as one of the key elements of success and there are successful examples in other marzes in the country. In order to suggest support needs and targeting relevant improvements, three categories of farmers were identified. These were; vulnerable households, subsistence farmers and entrepreneurial farmers. Strategies for each category were suggested. These include large scale grain production, specialization, livestock development, agro-processing and contracting of machinery (for entrepreneurial farmers), small-scale farming with value addition, non- agricultural enterprises and migration (for subsistence and vulnerable households).
The study noted that for these strategies to be implemented, support is required from both government and non-governmental organizations. This support is identified at various levels of the household, community, region, national and international. A conducive policy environment should also be in place, for example with regards to land titling and taxation of agricultural products. It was observed that currently there is little collaboration and coordination among different agencies. For effective support to reach the farmer, agencies should coordinate their input and learn from each others’ experiences. Coordination and collaboration will be determined by the mandates of organizations, availability of finance and capacity building.
i ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The members of the ICRA Armenia Team 2004 wish to express their appreciation and gratitude to the following agencies and people who in one way or another helped in the realization of this work:
To their respective agencies/institutions in their home country for allowing them to participate in the ICRA training;
To the ICRA donors for the scholarship, the ICRA management for imparting the knowledge on ARD and for giving the opportunity to put it in practice, the ICRA Secretariat for their untiring support in working through the travel documents;
To the other participants of ICRA 2004, for sharing their knowledge, experiences and ideas during the knowledge acquisition phase in Wageningen, the Netherlands;
To the government of the Republic of Armenia for their consideration in allowing entry of the foreign members of the ICRA team;
To Mr. Samvel Avetisyan, first deputy minister of the Ministry of Agriculture, for sharing his precious time, for the warm welcome and informative discussion in his office;
To the management of ACH, for serving as host to this study, their generosity in providing accommodation and the working space for the team;
To the ICRA alumni, who comprise the monitoring group, for their advice and guidance and critical comments for the improvement of the study;
To Richard Hawkins, the team’s external reviewer, for the motivation, invaluable suggestions and encouragement;
To the key informants from the following institutions/agencies/projects: AAA, FAA, USDA- MAP, Agro Leasing, Marzpetaran Agriculture Regional Sub-Office in Sisian, Marzpetaran Agriculture Regional Office-Kapan, Agrogitaspyur, Agricultural Reform Support Project, AREGAK, UMCOR, SEF, SMEDNC, Business Center, ACBA Bank for their cooperation in sharing information;
To the farmers of Sisian and Goris and Yeghegnadzor for their cooperation and enthusiasm in sharing their experiences;
To our local staff, the cook and his crew and the cleaning lady, for their assistance in unloading us from domestic burdens; the chauffer for driving safely throughout the period of the field study and the interpreters who facilitated understanding between the team and the interviewees;
To the friendly residents of Sisian who have provided good company during our stay and made the place a second home away from home;
To the authors’ families for their understanding, love and prayers;
iii
Above all, to the Almighty Father for the constant provision of energy, wisdom and determination to carry on.
iv THE ICRA TEAM 2004, ARMENIA
Name/Discipline Nationality Employer Address
Yerevayan highway 1, Yeghegnadzor, Republic of Armenia. Arid Goat Breeding Email: [email protected]; Cemtre, Yeghegnadzor, Armenia [email protected]. Republic of Armenia Tel: 09 20 1277 Mobile); 081 2 3161 (office); Narine Babayan 081 2 4081 (home) Veterinary Science
Box BE 398, Belvedere, Harare, Southern Alliance for Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Indigenous Resources Email: [email protected]; (SAFIRE), Harare, [email protected] Zvidzai Chidhakwa Zimbabwe Tel: 263 4 795462; 794333 Fax: 263 4 790470 Rural Development / Community Forestry
Hovnan Vorotnetsi 3, Sisian. Acción Contra el Republic of Armenia. Hambre (ACH), Sisian, Armenia Email: 374 830 3485; 6885 Republic of Armenia Fax: 374 830 6897 Artur Hayrapetyan Economics
National Horticultural P. M. B. 5432, Ibadan. Nigeria. Research Institute Email: [email protected] Nigeria (NIHORT), Ibadan. Tel: +234 803 406 9925 Nigeria Oluremi Noah Iluyomade Agricultural Economics and Community Development
Isabela State University Email: [email protected]; Philippines Echangue, Isabela [email protected] Philippines Tel: (63) (0919) 6331478
Helen C. Ramos Plant Physiology and Ecology
National Agriculture P.O.Box 811, Ventiane. Laos. and Forestry Research Email: [email protected] Laos Institute (NAFRI), Tel/fax: 856 21 770093 Ventiane. Laos Bounhom Thepphavong Agroforestry and Farming Systems
v
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii THE ICRA TEAM 2004, ARMENIA...... v TABLE OF CONTENTS...... vii LIST OF FIGURES...... ix LIST OF TABLES ...... ix LIST OF APPENDICES ...... x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xi LOCAL TERMS ...... xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... xv 1.1 Institutional Context of the Study ...... 1 1.1.1 The International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA) 1 1.1.2 The Armenian Academy of Agriculture (AAA) ...... 1 1.1.3 Acción Contra el Hambre (ACH)...... 1 1.1.4 World Vision International (WVI)...... 2 1.1.5 United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR)...... 2 1.1.6 Small and Medium Enterprises Development National Centre (SMEDNC)..... 2 1.1.7 Collaborative agreement ...... 3 1.2 Objectives of the Study ...... 3 1.2.1 Purpose...... 3 1.2.2 Outputs ...... 3 1.3 Background Information ...... 4 1.3.1 The rural and agricultural situation in Armenia...... 4 1.3.2 Basic Features and Agriculture in Sisian and Goris Regions...... 6 1.3.3 Agricultural production...... 7 1.3.4 Main development constraints and future prospects...... 7 1.4 The Problem ...... 7 1.4.1 Initial understanding of the problem ...... 7 1.5 Research Questions ...... 9 2.1 Study Approach...... 11 2.2 Preparatory Phase...... 12 2.3 The Field Study Phase...... 12 2.3.1 Meeting with ICRA alumni and other stakeholders in Yerevan ...... 12 2.3.2 Reconnaissance survey of the villages...... 13 2.3.3 Hiring and training of interpreters...... 13 2.3.4 Introductory workshop ...... 13 2.3.5 Selection of respondents and methods of data collection ...... 13 2.3.6 Meetings with monitoring group...... 16 2.3.7 Stakeholder workshop...... 17 2.3.7 Method of Data Analysis...... 17 2.4 Limitations of the Study...... 17 2.4.1 Selection of villages and groups...... 17 2.4.2 Biases in interpretation...... 17 2.4.3 Limited time available...... 17 2.4.4 Expectations of farmers...... 18 3.1 Grains ...... 19
vii 3.1.1 Overview ...... 19 3.1.2 Production ...... 20 3.1.3 Production of wheat seeds...... 21 3.1.4 Processing and marketing...... 21 3.1.5 Conclusion...... 21 3.2 Potato...... 22 3.2.1 Overview ...... 22 3.2.2 Production ...... 23 3.2.3 Processing and marketing...... 23 3.2.4 Conclusion...... 24 3.3 Dairy Cattle and Goats ...... 24 3.3.1 Production ...... 24 3.3.2 Processing and marketing...... 25 3.3.3 Conclusion...... 26 3.4 Sheep Breeding ...... 26 3.4.1 Production ...... 26 3.4.2 Marketing ...... 27 3.4.3 Conclusion...... 27 3.5 Beekeeping...... 27 3.5.1 Production ...... 27 3.5.2 Processing and marketing...... 28 3.5.3 Conclusion...... 29 3.6 Fruit Production...... 29 3.7 Vegetable Production ...... 30 3.8 Gathering Mushrooms and Herbs ...... 30 4.1 Introduction ...... 31 4.2 Individual Farmers and Private companies ...... 31 4.3 ACH Groups...... 31 4.4 SEF...... 32 4.5 AREGAK ...... 33 4.6 USDA-MAP...... 34 4.7 UMCOR ...... 35 4.8 ACBA...... 36 4.9 ASC ...... 36 4.10 Syunik Marzpetaran ...... 37 4.11 SMEDNC ...... 37 4.12 Inter-institutional Cooperation ...... 37 5.1 Household Typology...... 41 5.2.1 Entrepreneurial farmers...... 41 5.2.2 Subsistence farmers...... 41 5.2.3 Vulnerable farmers...... 42 5.3 Driving Forces...... 42 5.3.1 Migration...... 43 5.3.2 Social differentiation...... 43 5.3.3 Markets and terms of trade...... 43 5.3.4 Inflation ...... 44 5.3.5 Irrigation System...... 44 5.3.6 Tax policy...... 44 5.3.7 Rural Infrastructure ...... 44 5.3.8 Climatic risks and crop loss ...... 44
viii 5.4 Future Scenario ...... 44 5.5 Development Options...... 46 5.5.1 Large scale grain production...... 46 5.5.2 Specialization ...... 46 5.5.3 Livestock ...... 46 5.5.4 Small scale farming with higher/added value products ...... 47 5.5.5 Rural non-agricultural enterprise ...... 47 5.5.6 Migration...... 48 6.1 Background ...... 49 6.2 Marketing ...... 51 6.2.1 Market linkages...... 52 6.2.2 Processing and Product quality ...... 53 6.2.3 Price stability...... 53 6.2.4 Support roles in marketing ...... 53 6.3 Credit...... 54 6.3.1 Current situation...... 54 6.3.2 Support needs ...... 55 6.3.3 Farmer organization ...... 55 6.3.4 Institutional roles...... 55 6.4 Machinery...... 56 6.5 Production Inputs ...... 56 6.6 Insurance ...... 57 6.7 Land Registration ...... 57 6.8 Regularization of farmer groups ...... 58 6.9 Research and Extension ...... 58 6.10 Inter-agency Collaboration and Coordination...... 58 REFERENCES...... 61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Armenia and the study area in Sisian and Goris Regions ...... 6 Figure 1.2 The initial “rich picture” of the problem...... 8 Figure 2.1 The ARD procedure ...... 11 Figure 6.1 Future support needs of agriculture in Sisian and Goris Regions...... 50 Figure 6.2 The hierarchical framework for analysing support needs ...... 51
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 List of groups and associations interviewed………………………………….14 Table 2.2 Individual Farmers and Enterpreneurs interviewed…………………………..15 Table 2.3 List of key informants………………………………………………………. .15 Table 4.1 Current organizational support roles………………………………………….39 Table 5.1 Typology of farmers in the study area ...... 42 Table 5.2 Future scenario for agriculture in Sisian ...... 45
ix LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 INITIAL OBJECTIVES DEFINED BY THE PARTNERS………………..63 APPENDIX 2 STATISTICAL TABLES FOR GORIS AND SISIAN REGIONS…………65 APPENDIX 3 RESEARCH PLAN……………………………………………………….....69 APPENDIX 4 TIME TABLE………………………………………………………………..73
x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAA Armenian Academy of Agriculture ACBA Agricultural Cooperative Bank of Armenia ACH Acción Contra el Hambre (Action Against Hunger) ADP Area Development Programmes AMD Armenian Dram (AMD 550 is approx. equivalent to USD 1) ARD Agricultural Research for Development AREGAK Guaranteed Financial Assistance to Women ARID Armenian Improved Dairy Centre ASC Agricultural Support Centre CAP Community Association Programme FAA Federation of Agricultural Associations FOSPA Farmers’ Organizations Support Program GDP Gross Domestic Product GIDP Goat Industry Development Project ICRA International Centre for development oriented research in Agriculture IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development (United Nations Agency) LLC Limited Liability Company MAP Marketing Assistance Programme NGO Non-governmental organization PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal SEF Small Enterprise Fund International SME Small and Medium Enterprise SMEDNC Small and Medium Entrepreneurship Development National Centre TOR Terms of Reference (supplied to the team) UMCOR United Methodist Committee on Relief USDA United States Department of Agriculture USD United States Dollar WFP World Food Programme WVI World Vision International WTO World Trade Organization
xi xii LOCAL TERMS
Agrogitaspyur agricultural extension department Dram local currency (1USD equals about 550 Drams) Marz administrative unit equivalent to a province Marzpetaran regional government equivalent to provincial government Region sub-marz administrative unit above village level
xiii xiv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Sisian and Goris Regions are located in Syunik marz in the South of Armenia. During the Soviet era, the regions were mainly agricultural, producing wheat and other grains. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, land was privatized and divided into small family units. Not all households have the assets or motivation to cultivate and much of the land is either rented out or left uncultivated. The old agricultural system based on collective and state farms virtually collapsed, together with markets based on the command economy and input supply systems. A new system of support for agriculture, therefore, needs to be developed. This study was conducted in order to analyze the elements of such a support system, explore the future support needs of farmers and suggest roles for the various institutions that are supporting agricultural livelihoods. The study was carried out with the objective of analyzing the following aspects.
• Social, economic and institutional constraints to future agricultural development in Sisian and Goris Regions • Future marketing opportunities and development options for different types of farmers • Farmers perceptions concerning group (collective and cooperative) activities • Information needs of farmers for future agricultural development • Potential for institutional linkages and collaboration in support of agricultural activities in Sisian and Goris Regions • Information, research and support needs of farmers for future agricultural development.
Methodology
The study followed the Agriculture Research for Development (ARD) procedure developed by ICRA in the early 1990s. The procedure utilises participatory techniques and is aimed at conducting research that responds to the needs of clients, particularly poor farmers. The ARD procedure is problem-oriented and seeks to analyse problems from different perspectives in an iterative way. The approach places emphasis on multidisciplinary analysis of the problem situation in order to come up with recommendations and proposals for future development.
The research process comprised of an initial reconnaissance visit to eight villages and subsequently group discussions and individual interviews. Based on information supplied by the five clients and analysis of secondary sources, individual farmers, villages and groups were selected. Due to the uniformity in altitude and farming activities, it was difficult to come up with distinct zones or farming typologies. Farmers were later divided into 3 categories according to how they utilized assets and the scale of their operations. The three categories were vulnerable, subsistence, and entrepreneurial farmers. A total of sixteen villages were visited in both regions for interviews with groups, individual farmers and village mayors. Primary data collection comprised mainly group and key informant interviews with representatives of institutions and different categories of farmers.
Key findings
The study concluded that support is needed for the different activities currently undertaken by all three types of farmer identified, i.e. entrepreneurial, subsistence and vulnerable. Current activities include livestock breeding (sheep and goat breeding for meat, milk and wool; cattle
xv for beef and milk and pigs), crop production (wheat, barley, spelt wheat, potato); bee-keeping, small-scale processing of cheese, preserves and vodka. These activities provide the basic requirements for the support needed. The following are the key findings from the study.
Marketing
The main problem cited by farmers is difficulty in selling produce. The only reliable national market is in Yerevan, the capital city. It is however difficult to access the market due to expensive transport and poor roads in Goris and Sisian. The two regions, however, have the potential to export temperate products to the lower parts of Armenia e.g. Yerevan and Ararat. The agro-processing factories that existed during the Soviet time are no longer functioning. The purchasing power of the national and regional population is also very low due to lack of employment opportunities. Exports face difficulties due to closed borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan and difficulties of transporting goods through Georgia.
Production inputs
In Syunik marz, and also the whole of Armenia, there is limited availability of quality inputs such as seeds, fertilisers (especially phosphorous, potassium and trace elements) and pesticides. This results in low production levels for most crops including wheat, barley and potatoes. Control mechanisms for the quality and safety of products (e.g. seed certification, regulation of agro-chemicals) are also yet to be developed. Entrepreneurial farmers could play an important role as seed producers if they have access to foundation seed to multiply and provided adequate support is given.
Price stability
Farmers in Sisian and Goris are also affected by the wide fluctuation of prices especially for perishables like potatoes, vegetables and fruits. This is because the limited regional and national markets cannot absorb any excess products. Individual farmers in the two regions usually lack market information and are not organized to negotiate for prices.
Product Quality
Local produce face reduced competitiveness due to poor quality of homemade products like cheese and vodka. Product labelling and brand recognition has not yet been developed, so local products cannot compete in national and international markets. Cooperatives that have received support from USDA-MAP are in a better position to market their products due to improved quality, good labelling and access to both local and international markets.
Credit
Some NGOs like UMCOR-AREGAK, SEF and the ACBA bank are providing credit to farmers through organized groups. In spite of this, credit availability and use is still not widespread. Main problems related to credit include high interest rates, lack of collateral by vulnerable households and subsistence farmers, complicated procedures for application and approval, lack of longer-term credit for investment in agriculture and limited business skills. Support needs for credit include more favourable credit terms, capacity building among credit groups for them to make more realistic business plans, micro-credit for non-agricultural activities and longer-term loans.
xvi
Farm machinery
Most of the farm machinery date from the Soviet time, is very old and costly to maintain. Machinery like combine harvesters designed for large scale state and collective farms during that era is not suitable any more for small family holdings. Entrepreneurial farmers can play a pivotal role as contractors of farm machinery, providing tillage and harvesting services to vulnerable households and subsistence farmers. NGOs can also play a role by seeking to increase access of subsistence and vulnerable farmers to machinery and spare parts.
Land registration
The majority of agricultural land in Armenia has been privatised and is now operated by individual households. From the interviews, the team noted that not all households have the assets or motivation to cultivate. An accelerated process of land registration (titling) and the development of necessary regulations and legislation will enable those households that have little interest in farming to sell up and also to qualify for loans by using land as collateral.
Farmer organization
There are mixed feelings among farmers regarding collective action and farmer organization into groups, cooperatives or associations. Some farmers have a negative view of cooperatives and relate collective action to Soviet time farming. Some groups e.g. those established by ACH prefer to remain informal and do not want to register legally. This is done to avoid paying taxes that are expected when groups are registered. Farmer groups established by ACH and SEF that are still informal have the potential to consolidate their success by becoming more formal cooperatives of the type supported by USDA-MAP and UMCOR. The success of these cooperatives has culminated in the establishment of FAA whose objective is supporting cooperatives and farmers associations.
Research and extension
Issues regarding markets, agro-processing, inputs and farmer organization are more important than production technology per se. The impression of the team is that current research activities e.g. by the AAA is directed mainly towards production technology, with less emphasis on economic aspects such as competitiveness, markets and social aspects like farmer organization. Given the needs of the new agricultural and rural system in Armenia, an increasing emphasis on non-production technology aspects is warranted in future.
Development strategies and future scenarios
The team identified the main ‘driving forces’ that have a positive or negative influence on agricultural development in Syunik. These included continued emigration, increase in social differentiation, markets and terms of trade, inflation, irrigation development, tax policy, improvement of rural infrastructure and climatic risks. The most likely scenarios were identified in order to come up with development strategies. Strategies were suggested for each type of farmer, i.e. vulnerable, subsistence and entrepreneurial. The following are the development options suggested.
xvii Large scale grain production
Sisian and Goris Regions were the main producers of grain during the Soviet era. Given the needs for investment in machinery and inputs, low prices for grains and open competition on world markets, it is unlikely that grain production can provide a sustainable livelihood especially for vulnerable households. This option is applicable to entrepreneurial farmers who can take up credit to invest in agriculture.
Specialization
By virtue of their capital or ability to obtain credit, entrepreneurial farmers can be supported to specialize e.g. in production of high quality seeds (wheat, barley and potatoes) or in machinery contracting (tractors, drills, cultivation equipment, sprayers, combine harvesters). Other households will benefit from greater availability of farming equipment, improved seed and employment opportunities.
Livestock
The Sisian and Goris Regions have potential for livestock development (dairy, beef, goats and sheep), given the favourable climatic conditions and considerable grazing areas. Dairy development is more applicable to entrepreneurial farmers who have access to land for quality fodder needed for improved dairy breeds and who can invest in milking and processing equipment. Subsistence and vulnerable farmers can form associations to supply milk to processing industries or to invest in shared milking and processing equipment. If livestock numbers increase, measures will be required to control communal grazing, protect biodiversity and ensure pasture sustainability.
Small scale farming with higher/added value products
If small scale farming is to provide a decent livelihood for vulnerable and subsistence farmers, activities need to be based on higher value products (than grain). The possibilities identified by the team include dairy production (for cheese, yoghurts etc), fruits (dried and preserves), vegetables, honey (with improved quality and packaging), herbs (cultivation of species currently collected from the wild and these can be dried or pickled) and traditional vodka (improve quality of currently produced varieties). It is suggested that these improvements should be complemented by organization of farmers into associations or cooperatives, given the substantial investment, training, inputs and market information required. The production and marketing of organic products could be a longer term strategy. However, this would require a certification process currently not available in Armenia.
Rural non-agricultural enterprise
The team noted that the farming future of vulnerable households is bleak. Some of them depend on handouts; some do not have any skills in farming (particularly former refugees) and most live from hand to mouth on a daily basis. A significant number of these households only became farmers after the collapse of the Soviet Union and, given other options they would rather be working in other sectors of the economy. Employment possibilities for these ‘farmers’ include other farms, processing of agricultural products, light industry in Sisian and Goris towns, rural infrastructure and rural-based ecotourism. In the farming sector, there is less likelihood of considerable employment, unless there is a shift towards more labour
xviii intensive fruit and vegetable production. If employment opportunities are to be created in the regions, the most realistic option is rural investment in either private industries or public works, such as rural roads and irrigation infrastructure. The Marzpetaran should come up with policies to attract investment to the region e.g. subsidies, land policies and tax breaks.
Migration
Current levels of emigration are high as people try to seek means of livelihood elsewhere, either in Yerevan or abroad. Government policy is however to minimize migration from Syunik, for security reasons. If this is to be reversed, measures are required to attract investment to the marz. Such measures include tax breaks and subsidies (e.g. for investors reviving former industries), favourable investment credit and land allocation for industries. If this does not happen, emigration will be the only available strategy for mostly vulnerable and subsistence farmers.
Institutional support needs
For some of the suggested strategies to be implemented, the team noted that there is need for support to be provided to all types of farmers. Services required by farmers are particularly acute in the area of value addition (processing), input provision (e.g. for quality seeds and fertilisers), machinery (for cultivation and harvesting) and marketing. The support needed by farmers was identified at different levels, the household, community, region, national and international. At the national level, a suitable policy environment is required to provide enabling conditions for agricultural development. This relates to policies on taxation, subsidies, export and import support, land ownership and titling, appropriate research and extension (e.g. socio-economic and market research, research on livestock breeding, soil and crop varieties).
Entrepreneurial farmers have the potential to become service providers (e.g. by hiring out farming machinery) as well as service users. Support for vulnerable and subsistence farmers should perhaps be directed at the non-agricultural sector, so that they can secure employment. Current efforts by various agencies, both government and non-governmental is directed towards improvement of the farming sector. The critical question is however whether this direction is the right one or whether attention should be focused to other options, like reviving industries that used to function during the Soviet era.
Another aspect of support needed is farmer organization. Non-governmental organizations in Armenia have recognized the need for collective action and have funded and established groups, associations and cooperatives to improve input supply, machinery, production, product quality and marketing of products. It is not easy to convince people to form cooperatives, since this invokes some memories about Soviet time collective action. Despite this mentality however, in the villages where farmers have been organized (e.g. by UMCOR and USDA-MAP), the livelihood of farmers is more sustainable and interest of non-members is evident.
Inter-agency collaboration and coordination
It was observed that there is little coordination and collaboration among the different agencies providing support to farmers. This results in poor planning and at times duplication of effort. It is suggested that coordination should take place at various levels, the villages, region, marz
xix and national. Farmers could form representative bodies like cooperatives and associations at the village level, with mayors playing a role as facilitators. At the regional and marz levels, the Marzpetaran should organize regular meetings to discuss development issues. At the national level, the Ministry of Agriculture hosts coordination meetings through the Agricultural and Rural Development Coordination Unit. The functions of this unit could further be strengthened through provision of more resources and the inclusion of representatives from farmer organizations like the FAA. Non-governmental organizations could also create some platforms to discuss development and advocacy issues. Coordination and collaboration could take the form regular meetings, joint training, exchange visits and sharing of information. For proper coordination to be successful there is need for capacity building and provision of adequate financial resources.
This report
The report comprises six chapters. The first chapter outlines the interests of institutions involved in the study, namely ICRA, UMCOR, SMEDNC, USDA (MAP), ACH, AAA and SEF. The main objectives of the study and the key research questions are also outlined. Within this chapter, the context of the problem is explored, focusing on the initial understanding of the team (rich picture) and the focus of the study or system of interest. Background information on Armenia and the two regions of Sisian and Goris is also summarised. The second chapter describes the methodology of the study, focusing on the two main phases, i.e. the preparatory phase in Wageningen and the field study phase in Armenia. The methods of data collection and analysis are highlighted, together with some limitations of the study.
Chapter three describes the current livelihood activities in the two regions of Sisian and Goris. These include production of grains, potato, livestock breeding, fruit and vegetable production, gathering of wild mushrooms and herbs and beekeeping. In chapter four, issues regarding institutional support and farmer organization are highlighted. In chapter five, possible development strategies for the three categories of farmers are discussed. Possible future scenarios for agriculture and ‘driving forces’ affecting agricultural are also identified. Chapter six discusses institutional support needs regarding marketing, credit, machinery, production inputs former organization and also inter-agency collaboration and coordination.
xx xxi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Institutional Context of the Study
This study was carried out as a joint effort between the International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA) and five institutions in Armenia. These partner institutions are World Vision International (WVI), the Armenian Academy of Agriculture (AAA), Acción Contra el Hambre (ACH), the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) and the Small and Medium Entrepreneurship Development National Centre of Armenia (SMEDNC). The United States Department of Agriculture-Marketing Assistance Project (USDA-MAP) and the Syunik Government (Marzpetaran) Agriculture Office and the Syunik regional Agricultural Support Centre (ASC) in Goris were other stakeholders which also took a direct interest in the study.
1.1.1 The International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA)
The main objective of ICRA is to assist in strengthening the capacity of researchers and development professionals working in Latin America, Africa and Asia to contribute effectively to agricultural development. ICRA is an international organization founded on the initiative of European members of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). ICRA’s interest in the study was twofold: to provide a learning experience for an interdisciplinary and intercultural team participating in its international course based in Wageningen, the Netherlands, and to provide a professional service to partner institutions that shows the value of ICRA’s programmes.
1.1.2 The Armenian Academy of Agriculture (AAA)
The AAA is the main institute for higher education in agriculture in Armenia, with faculties of agronomy, veterinary science, agricultural engineering, extension, food technology and processing located in Yerevan. The extension department of AAA provides technical support to 120 village extension agents located in each marz, under the 6 regional ASCs that are administratively under the Ministry of Agriculture. The extension department has also established 5 local farmer research groups in Ararat marz and provides them with technical support.
In partnership with USDA-MAP, AAA has also established an Agribusiness Training Centre in Yerevan. MAP has also funded a number of cooperatives and private farmers to improve the production, product quality and the marketing of commodities such as wine, cheese, fruits and meat products. A good example is the Armenian Improved Dairy Centre (ARID) and the associated Goat Industry Development Project (GIDP) in Vayots Dzor marz, which is now exporting cheese to international markets. AAA’s interest in the study was to see what type of research and extension support is needed by farmers in Sisian and Goris Regions. The interest of USAID-MAP is to see how its model of production and marketing associations can be improved and extended to other regions and commodities.
1.1.3 Acción Contra el Hambre (ACH)
ACH is an international organization established in 1979 with the major aim of attacking hunger in the world. The organization now has activities in 40 countries covering nutrition, agriculture, public health, water and sanitation. In Armenia, ACH began humanitarian
1 operations in Syunik marz, focusing mainly on Sisian, in 1994. In recent years, ACH activities in Sisian have evolved into a longer-term development programme, which has resulted in the establishment of 33 income generation groups in 11 villages in Sisian region. These groups are involved in a number of activities including beekeeping, sheep breeding, cattle breeding and potato production. A new phase of funding for this programme will be initiated in May 2004, and ACH’s interest in the study is to see how its activities can be strengthened, adapted and extended in this second phase. ACH is still building experience and capacity in development oriented activities, and is interested to learn new approaches and how to operate more effectively in a multi-stakeholder environment.
1.1.4 World Vision International (WVI)
WVI is a Christian relief and development organization that raises development funds through child sponsorship. In Armenia, the organization is implementing a number of Area Development Programmes (ADPs), as well as other programmes in HIV/AIDS protection, maternal and child health nutrition, and child protection. In Syunik marz, WVI currently operates a Civic Initiatives Programme and the Small Enterprise Fund (SEF). Both programmes involve income generating activities and the provision of short term loans, mainly for agricultural activities. WVI is considering the establishment of an ADP in Syunik marz, and hence had an interest in the study to see what is already being done, how effective this is, and what can be done in future. SEF also had an interest to gain more information on the social impact its loan programme, and the barriers to success of such rural finance schemes for smallholder farmers.
1.1.5 United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR)
UMCOR is an international humanitarian organization that started operating in Armenia in 1994. The organization has also shifted gradually from humanitarian work e.g. medical assistance and drug distribution towards more development oriented programmes like agricultural development and micro-finance. UMCOR has established cooperatives oriented towards input supply and provision of services to members, especially in Vayots Dzor and Ararat marzes. These cooperatives formed the Federation of Agricultural Associations (FAA) which is a membership organization offering services like market research, input procurement, bookkeeping, accounting and policy advocacy work.
UMCOR, in conjunction with FAA is also implementing a ‘Farmers’ Organizations Support Programme (FOSPA) with the aim of assisting farmers to establish new farmers’ organizations and expand the services currently provided by FAA. Furthermore, UMCOR also provides support to AREGAK (the Centre for Sustainable Guaranteed Financial Assistance), a micro-credit programme that provides support to economically active low- income households, including women, refugees and family businesses, and which will in future be converted into a commercial bank. UMCOR’s interest in the study is to assess future opportunities and options for farmer development, particularly the organization of farmers into cooperatives and the options for financing such initiatives.
1.1.6 Small and Medium Enterprises Development National Centre (SMEDNC)
SMEDNC is a quasi-government organization that provides government support for the establishment of small and medium enterprises in Armenia. It is funded equally by the Armenian government and outside donors. The organization provides information, training, consulting services and financial assistance in the form of loan guarantees. SMEDNC is also a
2 member of the working group established under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The organization is currently making a development plan for Syunik marz, with the aim of attracting donor funding to the area. The OSCE is also interested in the legal and policy constraints to development and investment by foreign donors and investors. In the longer term, the OSCE predicts closer ties between Armenia and the European Union (EU) and is interested in creating organization forms (e.g. cooperatives) amenable and acceptable to EU structures.
1.1.7 Collaborative agreement
ACH initiated this study with an invitation to ICRA to conduct a field study in Syunik marz. During an initial preparation mission in November 2003, the additional partner institutions also expressed their interests as described above. Resulting from this initial mission, a joint agreement was signed with the objectives originally defined as given in Appendix 1. During the initial phase of the study, these objectives were slightly modified to the form given in the following section.
The study was conducted during a 10 week period from April to June 2004 by an ICRA team of six agricultural research scientists, university staff and development professionals from five countries (Armenia, Laos, Nigeria, The Philippines and Zimbabwe), including two economists, one rural development specialist, one crop physiologist, one livestock specialist/veterinarian and one agroforester/farming systems expert. Fieldwork was carried out mainly in villages and the regional towns of Sisian and Goris in Syunik marz, but visits were included to other relevant institutions in Yegheghnadzor in Vayots Dzor marz and institutions based in Yerevan.
In the study’s terms of references (TOR), the partners defined the general objective of the study as the need ‘to identify the institutional support needed to develop sustainable livelihoods from agriculture in Sisian and Goris Regions of Syunik marz, Armenia’ (see Appendix 1 for the TOR).
1.2 Objectives of the Study
The main goal of this study was the sustainable development of livelihoods from agriculture in Sisian and Goris Regions of Syunik marz. The study had the following purpose and outputs.
1.2.1 Purpose
The main purpose of the study is ‘to contribute to planning of future institutional support for agricultural development in Sisian and Goris Regions of Syunik marz.’
1.2.2 Outputs
The main outputs of the study were analyses of the following aspects; • Social, economic and institutional constraints to future agricultural development in Sisian and Goris Regions • Future marketing opportunities and development options for different types of farmers. • Farmers perceptions concerning group (collective and cooperative) activities • Information needs of farmers for future agricultural development
3 • Potential for institutional linkages and collaboration in support of agricultural activities in Sisian and Goris Regions • Information, research and support needs of farmers for future agricultural development.
1.3 Background Information
1.3.1 The rural and agricultural situation in Armenia
Armenia is the smallest of the former Soviet Republics. It is a mountainous country located in the Trans-Caucasus range, sharing borders with Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Iran. The population of the country in 2002 was officially estimated at 3.7 million, based on extrapolation from a census in 1989, but many other estimates put the figure at nearer 3,1 million (UNDP, 2003), or even 2.5 million (FAO, 2000). It is also estimated by the UNDP that population is decreasing (though emigration), and the projected population in 2015 is 3.0 million. Currently, it is thought that about 5 million Armenians live outside the country; remittances from the Diaspora are very important to the economy.
Before the transition, Armenia was a relatively industrialized country, with agriculture playing a minor role in the economy; in 1990, it accounted for only about 13% of the national output (UNDP, 2002). By 1993 however, this share skyrocketed to over 46% - not due to growth in this sector but because the industrial sector collapsed during the early years of the transition. By 1993, total GDP was only 43% of the level in 1989, and by 2000 had still only recovered to 58% of the 1989 figure (UNDP, 2002). Inflation exceeded 5,000% in 1994, although this has now been brought under control, with even mild deflation in 2000 (data cited in UNDP, 2002).
Even though its relative share of the economy rose, agriculture has not developed. Arable land is limited due to high altitude, with only 20% of the land considered suitable for cropping and only 28% of the land being below 1500m altitude. Yield potential is also reduced by limited use of fertiliser (in Soviet times, 24 types of fertilizer were used, now only ammonium nitrate is commonly available; according to UNESCE, n.d., imports of fertilizers fell by 99% between 1985 and 1994), poor drainage in the valleys, soil erosion (some resulting from cutting of trees during the 1993-94 energy crisis), degradation of pastures and pollution. Droughts are also regular, especially during the crucial period of May to August. Only 220,000 hectare of 284,000 hectare potentially irrigable lands is irrigated now and maintenance of the systems is inadequate.
From 1990 to 2002, the area of garden vegetables decreased from 250,000 hectares to about 50,000, as the new farmers switched from unmarketable vegetables to grain production (which increased from about 140,000 to 190,000 hectares), for basic food security, or left the land uncultivated. Cattle numbers decreased slightly from about 600,000 to about 500,000, and sheep numbers halved from about 1.2 million to 600,000, as fodder imports from the former Soviet Union ceased (Ministry of Agriculture, 2004).
Following independence in 1991, policy reforms included the privatization of many productive resources and organizations, a large degree of liberalization of trade and prices and decentralization of decision-making. The agricultural sector was also privatised. Large state farms that had dominated the agricultural sector during the Soviet time were disbanded and most of the arable land was parcelled out to individual families. In the case of livestock, the
4 distribution was on the basis of those who worked on the state farm, and in the case of machinery, mostly to those that were the former drivers of this machinery.
The result of land privatization was the thus the creation of a small peasant farming system comprising about 320,000 family owned farms with tiny fragmented plots of land (World Food Programme, 2000). The median size of a family farm was between one and two hectares, constituted by an average of three parcels of which one was irrigated and two non- irrigated. Fifty-eight percent of all farms ranged between 0,5 hectare and 2.5 hectare. Ten percent exceeded five hectares, with a maximum size of 12-13 hectares (UNDP, 2002). By 2004 however, some farmers are farming considerably larger plots, given the high levels of emigration and the possibility of leasing land from the state and other farmers. Although land may be legally sold, mortgaged, leased and sub-leased, registered land transactions are still limited (World Food Programme, 2000), due mainly to the high cadastral value of land fixed by the government and the need to pay substantial tax in cash, based on the cadastral value when registering transactions.
After privatization, there was also a shift in farm output and labour use from high value crops (fruits and vegetables) to low value food crops and cereals and from high labour to labour intensity. These shifts helped to intensify rural poverty. Average yields for grain and most other crops (except for potatoes and vegetables) are lower than in 1991, even for good years, as a result of financial, physical, institutional and marketing constraints, which all combine to keep crop earnings and working capital on the farm low (World Food Programme, 2000). The domestic market is small and contracting and the consumers have limited purchasing power. Road, rail and market infrastructure is inadequate, reducing the competitiveness of exports.
Violence and natural disaster also contributed to a sharp decrease in welfare. In December 1988, there was a massive earthquake which affected 40% of the country, destroying the town of Spitak and neighbouring villages, inflicting major damage on the cities of Gyumri and Vanadzor and disrupting productive activities throughout the economy (and also destroying the only fertilizer factory in Armenia). A severe drought followed in 1997. Between 1990 and 1994, Armenia was involved in a territorial war with the neighbouring country of Azerbaijan over the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. The war resulted in closing of borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan and an influx of refugees. Imports of agricultural inputs and exports are thus limited, with the only land routes to external markets via the poor road and rail links to Iran and Georgia (which has also suffered conflicts in recent years). Until Armenia is able to break through its physical barriers and resume trade with Turkey and Azerbaijan, the growth of trade may be hampered.
The collapse of the industrial sector and difficulties in trade and agriculture has led to a high incidence of poverty, and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. Figures from 1998/99 show the national incidence of poverty (as defined by families with a consumption less than a minimum basket which includes food equivalent to 2,100 calories per person plus essential non-food items), was estimated at 45% in the rural areas and 60% in urban areas. The incidence of “extreme poverty” (families that cannot meet even the minimum food basket alone) was calculated at 18% in the rural areas, and 32% in the urban areas. The overall national average of poverty and extreme poverty was calculated at 54% and 25%, respectively. The poverty level in Syunik marz was not substantially different from the national level, with relative figures of 50% and 26% (World Bank Poverty Update, June 2002, cited in UNDP, 2002). Another way of expressing the same misery is in terms of income,
5 with 49% of the population living on less than USD 2/day, and 13% on less than USD 1/day (UNDP, 2004).
In response to these levels of poverty, the government of Armenia has produced a “Strategic Program of Poverty Reduction” whose main goal is to stimulate economic activity and create jobs. The programme allocates additional funds for supporting vulnerable people and has already received some support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (Khachatrian, 2001). In addition, the government is also preparing an “Agricultural Sustainable Development Strategy” which seeks to strengthen agrarian reforms, agricultural services and access to markets in other to provide for food security and food safety (Ministry of Agriculture, 2004).
1.3.2 Basic Features and Agriculture in Sisian and Goris Regions
Location
Syunik marz is situated in the South of Armenia and shares borders with Iran, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh and Vayots Dzor marz (See map Figure 1.1). The marz is divided into four administrative regions, namely Sisian, Goris, Kapan and Meghri. The study areas were Sisian and Goris Regions. With its land area of 4,506 square kilometres, Syunik is the biggest marz in Armenia, making 15% of the country and is the biggest agricultural region (Syunik Marzpetaran, 2004). According to statistics supplied by the Marzpetaran, Goris region has a total population of 51,081 in 25 settlements and Sisian region has a total population of 37,759 in 36 settlements. This population includes a large number of refugees from the Azerbaijan conflict, and people who were once employed in the collapsed industrial and mining sector. Most of these people lack skills and the necessary equipment to sustain their livelihoods from agriculture.
Figure 1.1 Armenia and the study area in Sisian and Goris Regions
6 1.3.3 Agricultural production
Agricultural activities in Sisian and Goris Regions are affected by physical features, mainly the high altitude. Syunik marz is generally very mountainous, with 105 out of 133 settlements bordering on steep mountain slopes (Marzpetaran, personal communication). Settlements in Sisian and Goris are located on slopes with altitude ranging from about 1250 metres (Halidzor in Goris Region), to 2,140 meters above sea level (Goraik village in Sisian), with mountains rising to 3,550 m.
A very approximate zonation of Syunik Marz divides the area into 4 main agro-ecological zones (Marzpetaran, personal communication) as follows:
• The low zone of Meghri and Kapan Regions, from 400-1200 m altitude, with fruit trees, relatively little livestock (1,000 – 1,500 goats; 1,000 – 1,500 sheep, 600 cows); • The lower parts of Sisian and Goris Regions, from 1200 - 1500 m altitude (mainly barley/wheat, some fruit trees); • The intermediate parts of Sisian region, from 1500 - 2,000 m altitude, with crop (mainly wheat) and animal (cattle, sheep) production; • The higher mountain areas of Sisian, at more than 2000m altitude, with mainly sheep and common property pasture resources.
Both arable and grazing land are therefore very limited. Most of the land (30,424 ha or 65%) has been privatized out of about 46,757 ha of total arable land in the marz. A large proportion of the small family farms produce both crops and livestock, with the primary objective being food security (see Appendix iv for agricultural statistics for the two regions).
1.3.4 Main development constraints and future prospects
Due to the region’s agricultural potential, there is considerable opportunity for promoting small agro-processing industries. The problems that affect this development, however, include poor infrastructure and access to finance and markets. Syunik marz has underutilized resources (e.g. water for irrigation) and natural sites for eco-tourism. A key problem of Syunik marz is the periodic occurrence of droughts. Over the last 5 years only 2003 is considered to be a “normal” agricultural year (Marzpetaran, personal communication). The development of irrigation is seen as a key component of development efforts. There are four lakes in Sisian, Tolors, Shamb, Shaghat and Goraik, that could be utilized for irrigation. There is a major irrigation programme going on in the marz and it is sponsored by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
1.4 The Problem
1.4.1 Initial understanding of the problem
In order to develop a common understanding of the problem, the team attempted to develop an initial “contextual analysis” based on the initial preparation report, secondary information and experiences from the two Armenian members of the team. The contextual analysis was further developed after input from other key informants from Yerevan and Sisian. This contextual analysis later resulted in a contextual diagram or rich picture (See Figure 1.2) that helped the team understand the problem in its broader context. The contextual diagram helped to identify different aspects of the problem, including the micro and macro constraints affecting agricultural livelihoods, institutions providing various forms of support and
7 interrelationships between different stakeholders. The team also intended to use the contextual analysis to demarcate the main focus of the study or ‘system of interest’, which the team could explore further within the available time and resources.
Figure 1.2 The initial “rich picture” of the problem
As shown in Figure 1.2, agriculture in Sisian and Goris (and the whole of Armenia) operates in an environment constrained by a number of factors or ‘driving forces’ such as:
Marketing - the market for agricultural products is limited. The local market is very small and access to bigger markets like Yerevan, the capital city, is limited due to inadequate infrastructure like transport and communication. Most products are therefore sold within the villages through barter trade.
Trade blockade - there is a trade blockade with Turkey and Azerbaijan. The route through Georgia is affected by poor transport and also recent civil strife in that country. The only other international land route is a narrow corridor through Iran. The trade blockade thus affects the whole of the Armenian economy, including agriculture, since there is limited access to international markets.
Migration - emigration to other countries is a major feature affecting the Armenian economy. Most migrants are the economically active members of families. They leave behind women who can not effectively till the land or herd the livestock, thereby negatively affecting agricultural activities.
Land policy - most of the agricultural land was sub-divided and parcelled out to individual families after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Individuals are supposed to pay a land tax for cultivating the land. An emerging potential problem is that families that can not afford to pay
8 the tax end up sub-letting their plots to rich individuals who can afford to pay. This exacerbates poverty and inequality among households.
Irrigation and farming equipment - most of the irrigation infrastructure from the Soviet era has collapsed and no longer in use. There are no resources to rehabilitate the irrigation systems and no money to replace agricultural equipment or buy spare parts. Most of the agricultural equipment e.g. combine harvesters are from the Soviet era and have already outlived their useful lifespan.
Weather - regular droughts and frost damage are a feature of agriculture in Syunik marz.
Policy environment – Due to the relatively recent collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic difficulties of the “transition period” tax systems, regulatory frameworks and land markets are still being developed and adjusted.
The contextual analysis resulted in the initial demarcation of the focus of the study, which was aimed at exploring the forms of support that reach farmers. It also aimed at determining supports were adequate, and how institutions can better collaborate to improve support services to farmers.
1.5 Research Questions
From the initial TOR and contextual analysis, the team’s central question was focused on assessing the sustainability and replicability of recently established farmers’ groups in Sisian and Goris Regions. The main focus was initially on organizational forms and assessing whether these groups, especially the ones established by ACH were sustainable in the long run. This initial focus was later changed considering inputs from stakeholders, following introductory workshops in Yerevan and Sisian and discussions with partners. In order to address the redefined problem, the study was focused on answering the following key questions (See Appendix iii for secondary and tertiary questions)
• What are the perceptions of farmers regarding group activities/cooperatives?
• What are the information needs for farmers regarding future agricultural development?
• What are the factors influencing agricultural productivity in the study area?
• What are the current livelihood activities?
• What are the limitations to accessibility of financial opportunities by various type of farmers identified in • the study area?
• What are the marketing constraints and development options for different types of farmers in the study area?
• What is the potential for institutional linkages and collaboration in support of agricultural activities in the study area?
• What is the relevance of government policies in agricultural activities?
9 10 CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS
2.1 Study Approach
The Agricultural Research for Development (ARD) procedure developed by ICRA was the main approach used to achieve the purpose of this study (ICRA 2003a). As shown on the diagram (Figure 2.1), the procedure followed through four main phases and includes the organization of a multi-disciplinary team, the clarification of the problem to be solved as defined in terms of reference (TOR) and the identification of development strategies with all relevant stakeholders and beneficiaries or their representatives. As shown on the diagram, the first phase of the procedure dealt with the organization of a multidisciplinary team, based on the terms of reference provided by a client and the development of a team contract and understanding the task at hand. For this study, the terms of reference were provided by various agencies that include ACH, the SMEDNC, WVI, AAA, and UMCOR (see Chapter 1).
Figure 2.1 The ARD procedure
Phase II of the procedure involved clarification of the problem in its broader development context with the client organizations and relevant stakeholders. This was done in two meetings with stakeholders in Yerevan, the capital city and in Sisian, one of the study areas. The team, together with clients and stakeholders then demarcated part of the development context, the system of interest which is hoped to bring about a change in the development problem. In phase III, possible solutions and development strategies were developed based on future scenarios before prioritization by various stakeholders, and later screened according to ecological, economic and social criteria. The final phase, IV, involved the formulation of proposals for the partner institutes and interested stakeholders, which could address the given problem. The main characteristics of the ARD procedure that makes it invaluable for complex problems include the following:
11 • It is a flexible and iterative process that involves going back and forth in problem definition and identification of possible solutions; • It applies participatory and systems approaches whereby the different perceptions of stakeholders are integrated into a holistic process to deal with a particular problem; • It responds to the needs of clients and beneficiaries; • It contributes to wider development objectives like poverty alleviation, food security and sustainable natural resources management.
2.2 Preparatory Phase
The preparatory phase for the field study was the last part of the thirteen-week International Course on ARD conducted at Wageningen, the Netherlands. The first ten weeks of the course focused on knowledge acquisition dealing mainly with the key steps, concepts and tools used in ARD procedure. To complement this phase, three field exercises were held in the Netherlands in other for the participants to have practical experience with field works and working in teams. The last three weeks of the course were spent planning for the field study in Armenia. The team managed to develop a broader development context and form an initial “rich picture” (see Chapter 1), based on the objectives as defined by the institutional partners (see Appendix 1), and secondary literature available, and information provided by the two Armenian members of the team. Relevant stakeholders were also identified and an initial research plan, including a timetable drafted (see Appendix 3).
During the preparatory phase in the Netherlands, the team also developed a team contract that would guide the conduct of team members throughout the research period. The contract covered issues regarding team members’ personal conduct, roles and responsibilities, decision-making within the team and ways to resolve conflicts, should they arise during fieldwork. At the end of the preparatory phase, a detailed research plan and timetable were produced, covering important research questions, information needs and methods and tools to be applied. These were the basis for planning field activities and discussing the study process with the host institutions and other relevant stakeholders.
2.3 The Field Study Phase
This phase was carried out in the Goris and Sisian Regions of Syunik marz in Armenia. The phase was delayed for about two weeks when the team experienced some problems securing visas. Before embarking on data collection, the team improved their understanding of the development context and subsequently the system of interest. The main activities of this phase included the analysis of agricultural livelihood systems, opportunities and constraints to agricultural activities and identification of development options. These were achieved through the following steps:
2.3.1 Meeting with ICRA alumni and other stakeholders in Yerevan
The research team organized a meeting with six ICRA alumni from Armenia in Yerevan, the capital city. The ICRA alumni were instrumental in brining the study to Armenia and also constituted the research monitoring group, representing the main partner institutions. The aim of the meeting was to get an initial input from the alumni regarding the research approach, and to arrange a programme monitoring activities with them. As well as the main partner
12 organizations (AAA, ACH, SMEDNC, UMCOR, WVI) other relevant stakeholders based in Yerevan invited to the meeting included USDA-MAP and representatives of youth groups. At this meeting, the team presented their initial understanding of the terms of reference, the development context of the problem, system of interest and the research plan. On the basis of the comments obtained from these partners and stakeholders, the team adjusted its focus (the “system of interest”) and research questions before the second introductory workshop in Sisian. The system of interest was widened from a focus on the sustainability and replicability of established farmers’ groups to a system for the provision of support to farmers in Goris and Sisian Regions. Suggestions were also made for the team to assess farmer organization in other marzes, particularly Vayots Dzor, since the experience of other agencies such as USDA-MAP and UMCOR would also be useful to understand the nature of support provided to farmers through organizational forms such as cooperatives.
2.3.2 Reconnaissance survey of the villages
After settling down in Sisian, the research team conducted a reconnaissance visit to some villages, with the help of staff from one of the counterpart organizations, ACH. The reconnaissance survey was conducted in order for the team to familiarize themselves with the study area, assess characteristics and factors that could form the basis of either agro- ecological or socio-economic zonation of the villages. Such information would be useful during the selection of study sites and villages. Due to limited time, only eight of the eleven initially selected villages were visited. These were villages where ACH had projects.
2.3.3 Hiring and training of interpreters
Two Armenian interpreters were hired in order to help the team with their research and also translation of relevant documents. Prior to their engagement, the interpreters were exposed to the ARD procedure and also the research methodology. All the research questions and tools were discussed with them in detail. This was to ensure that they had an understanding of the key questions and the tools so that they could help the team with facilitation of the research. The interpreters also helped the team in translating relevant secondary information written in the Armenian language.
2.3.4 Introductory workshop
The team conducted an introductory workshop with relevant stakeholders from Goris and Sisian Regions. The workshop was attended by representatives from farmers’ groups and associations, WVI, ACH, Syunik Marzpetaran, village mayors, SMEDNC, the Business Centre and Sisian Development Centre. The team again presented their understanding of the development context, the system of interest, objectives and the research plan. This was followed by a discussion with the participants. The participants helped the team to select respondents for the study and also the study areas. Key research questions were also prioritized after discussions with the participants. Suggestions were also provided on the need for the team to assess the problem from a broader livelihood context, to interview different kinds of farmers including large scale farmers and not only farmers organized into groups and also to include other stakeholders on the list of key informants.
2.3.5 Selection of respondents and methods of data collection
Villages, groups and individual key informants were selected on the basis of iterative discussions with stakeholders and the host institutions. The criteria for selection included the
13 nature of activities that groups and associations were involved in, village location (mainly altitude) and forms of farmer organization (e.g. production, marketing and credit groups). The first set of agricultural groups were selected from the 33 groups formed by ACH and USDA-MAP in Sisian, UMCOR and USDA-MAP in Yeghegnadzor and SEF in Sisian and Goris. Farmer’s associations in Yeghegnadzor were chosen in order to compare their experiences with groups in Goris and Sisian and also for the team to have a broader understanding of the situation in other areas of Armenia. Table 2.1 presents a summary of the groups selected and the nature of their activities.
Table 2.1 List of groups and associations interviewed
Village Institution Type of group or association activity SB BK SB+P DG+C Credit DC CM Total Sisian Region Balak ACH 1 1 2 MAP 1 1 Getatagh ACH 1 1 2 Torunik ACH 1 1 Dastarkert ACH 1 1 1 3 Noravan ACH 1 1 Vorotan ACH 1 1 2 Darabas ACH 1 1 Ishkhanasar ACH 1 1 Tasik ACH 1 1 Aghitu ACH 1 1 1 3 Tolors ACH/USDA 3 3 Akhlatian MAP 1 Goraik SEF 1 1 Angeghakot SEF 1 1 Goris Region Halidzor SEF 1 Khot SEF 1 Verishen SEF 1 Hartashen SEF 1 Yeghegnadzor region Hermon USDA 1 1 Salli USDA 1 1 Arpi UMCOR/FAA 1 1 Total Groups and Associations 26
SB= sheep breeding; BK=Beekeeping; SB+P= sheep breeding plus potato production; DC= dairy cows; DG+C= dairy goats plus cheese production; CM= cattle breeding for meat production
14
Table 2.2 Individual Farmers and Entrepreneurs interviewed
Location Vulnerable Subsistence Entrepreneur Total Shaki 2 2 Angeghakot 3 1 4 Brnakot 1 1 Uits 1 1 2 Hartashen 5 3 2 10 Sisian 3 3 Goraik 3 3 Verishen 3 2 5 Kchot 2 3 1 6 Aghitu 1 1 Total 13 14 10 38
A list of key informants was also drafted by the team. The list was reviewed after inputs from introductory meetings in Yerevan and Sisian. These are summarised in Table 2.3 below.
Collection and analysis of information was progressive and started with the analysis of secondary sources in the Netherlands. Sources of secondary information included both published and unpublished books and documents. These documents were from various sources including the government, non-governmental organizations and the internet. The process of analysing secondary data started during the preparatory phase in Wageningen and continued in Armenia. More secondary sources were provided by various agencies.
With regards to the collection of primary data, the team applied mainly qualitative, informal methods (See Appendix iii). Informal surveys were carried out through application of mainly Rapid Rural Appraisal and to a limited extend, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). ICRA (2003b) notes that PRA is an evolution of rapid rural appraisal methods towards greater participation (instead of just consultation) and more use of visual techniques in order to enable (rural) people to analyse their own situation and perform their own planning. A few PRA tools were applied mainly transects walks, observation, calendars, ranking and scoring techniques. The selection of methods was based on various considerations, including the need for the participation of various stakeholders, the qualitative nature of the questions and also the limited time available for the study. Most of the information was collected through individual and group interviews.
Individual interviews were held with different types of farmers (see Chapter 5) and key informants drawn from various institutions (see Table 2.3). At times however, particularly in the villages, small groups of farmers were also interviewed instead of individuals. Group interviews were applied mainly for discussions with production, marketing and credit groups formed by NGOs like ACH, WVI and USDA-MAP. On average 10-15 people attended these discussions and in some cases representatives of other groups not selected were also invited to provide their input. The teams would split into sub-groups, depending on the number of groups and farmers to be interviewed. Three or four sub-teams would be collecting information from different groups and in some cases different villages. After the first three weeks, two members of the team would remain behind compiling information and drafting the report.
15
Table 2.3 List of key informants
Name of Contact Persons Location Contact details Organization Daniel Petrosyan Armenia Yerevan [email protected]
Agricultural Rafayel Academic (AAA) Yerevan [email protected] Sarukhanyan Ministry of Samvel Avetisyan Yerevan [email protected] Agriculture (First Deputy Minister) Agroleasing LCC Samvel Yerevan [email protected] “LLC” Makhitaryan Federation of Vardan Agriculture Yerevan [email protected] Hambardzumyan Association (FAA) United Methodist Committee on Armen Khalatyan Yerevan [email protected] Relief (UMCOR) Agricultural Perform Support Armen Vanyan Yerevan Tel: 54-25-21 Project Agricultural Armik Bakunts Goris Support Centre USDA MAP Felix Vardanyan Yerevan Tel: 56-00-14 David C. Slusser Tel: 28-26-97 ARID GBC Justin Olivier Smith Yeghegnarzdor [email protected] Agriculture Department of Qajik Khachatiyan Kapan Market Souren SMEDNC Sisian Tel: 63-69 Khudaverdyan ACH Lnigo Lasa Sisian Tel: 68-85 Vagharshak SEF Sisian Tel: 66-01 Mkrtumyan Syunik Marz ( Sub Office Sisian Valter Avetisyan Sisian (Chief Specialist) Region Agric)
2.3.6 Meetings with monitoring group
The monitoring group was constituted from the partner institutions, mainly SMEDNC, WVI, USDA, UMCOR and ACH. The ICRA alumni from Armenia formed the core of this monitoring group. The purpose of the monitoring group was to help in guiding the research, monitor progress and help in focusing the study. At least four separate meetings were held in both Sisian and Yerevan during the study period. Initial meetings focused on reviewing the
16 system of interest and the research plan. Subsequent meetings were held to discuss progress and also the team’s findings and recommendations.
2.3.7 Stakeholder workshop
Introductory workshops were held in Yerevan and Sisian at the beginning of the study. The participants were drawn from various institutions, including the partners, village mayors and farmers’ representatives. At the two workshops, participants helped the team to focus the study and also refocus the research questions. Two workshops were also organized in Sisian and Yerevan to present research findings and get the input of stakeholders before the finalization of the report.
2.3.8 Method of Data Analysis
Secondary information was analysed progressively, staring with the preparatory phase in Wageningen. The team initially classified the secondary data into different categories related to the information needs. This information was later compiled and helped the team develop an initial understanding of agriculture and livelihoods in Armenia and also the socio-economic and ecological background of the study areas.
Primary data was analysed using descriptive matrices. Results were summarized on organizational aspects of groups and associations, marketing, production and income issues and livelihood options.
2.4 Limitations of the Study
2.4.1 Selection of villages and groups
The selection of villages and individual farmers was institutionally based, rather than at random. Only villages where organizations had formed groups or where they provided some forms of support were selected. In Sisian region, for example only 16 of the 34 villages in the regions were selected and in 14 of them project groups had been formed. Although the team realised this potential bias, there was limited time to arrange interviews in other villages where no groups or projects existed.
2.4.2 Biases in interpretation
The multi-disciplinary team was made up of members from different cultures and backgrounds, with only two members being Armenians. To facilitate the research, the team hired local interpreters, mainly for the information gathering process. These two aspects may have created some bias in the interpretation of certain information.
2.4.3 Limited time available
The research was delayed for three weeks due to delays in processing visas for team members. This had implications on the research process and methodology. Some stages of the ARD procedure, particularly screening of development options with stakeholders had to be shortened due to lack of adequate time. The research team also split up into smaller sub- groups (at times up to four) and this affected the consistency of information gathering and also limited the use of more visualization tools.
17
2.4.4 Expectations of farmers
Despite the team’s explanations, the farmers still expected that at the end of the research, some material benefits would be provided or that the research would directly have an impact on the continuation or termination of certain activities. This resulted in the farmers at times providing contradictory information or trying not to divulge certain weaknesses in the projects. A typical example was farmers claiming to have accrued a lot of financial benefit from certain projects but this could not be proved through analysis of their financial figures. A number of contradictions were also noted by the team and in some cases there was conflict among respondents on the types of information provided.
18 CHAPTER 3 LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES
In this chapter, an overview of the main agricultural activities will be given. In general, the management of the different crops and livestock does not substantially differ for various types of household, or the different ways in which farmers are or are not organised, so the discussion here is organised by commodity.
3.1 Grains
3.1.1 Overview
Armenia largely depended on the importation of cereals during the Soviet time; however the Sisian and Goris Regions of Syunik marz used to be the site of collective farms specializing in the cultivation of wheat, spelt wheat (“dinkle”) and barley. In Sisian region there were about 10,000 hectares cultivated for grains (Avetisyan, pers. comm.). At that time 90% of the land was irrigated in these regions, the agro-chemicals required were available and technical practices were employed to maximize production. There were also research stations in Noravan and Uits Villages that produced quality seeds for the farmers (Mkrtchyan, pers. comm.). In 1980-90, the average yield for wheat was 2000 kg/ha while for barley and spelt wheat it was 1600-1800 kg/ha. One farmer from the Hartasyen Village of Goris region estimated harvests at 5-6 tons of wheat per hectare in Soviet times and, in Sisian region, seven tons per hectare was the highest yield noted for wheat (Avetisyan, pers. comm.).
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the privatization of land there was a massive shift in the cultivation of cereals in the entire country, primarily to ensure household food security. Apart from this, grains are relatively easier to produce and can be stored for long time so it is the most practical replacement for the highly perishable cash crops that require processing. This resulted to a steady increase in the aggregate area sown to grains, particularly wheat, until 1997 (FAO, 2000a). However, the conditions that prevailed during the transition period such as inadequate irrigation, lack of quality seeds, unavailability or high price of fertilizers and pesticides, compounded by the unpredictable, harsh weather caused a sharp decrease in the yield of the grains. The average yield was reduced to 1200-1400 kg/ha for wheat and 800- 1000 kg/ha for barley and spelt wheat (Mkrtchyan, pers. com.). The prices of grain products were also very low and due to the liberalization of the grain market, bulk of imports have been mobilized commercially, and only a small percentage of the domestic wheat crop was marketed to the larger mills (FAO, 2000a). In spite of this, Syunik marz continued to produce the traditionally cultivated grain crops with wheat having the greatest share (80%). Due to location and climatic conditions, the farmers have limited crop choices. Aside from this, even if the yield is low and uncertain, it guarantees income and provides food security in a remote, mountainous area.
Since 2002, an increasing trend in the yield of grain products had been observed. This is largely due to the fact that high quality seeds are now being imported from different countries through the assistance of international organizations. Farmers have also accumulated adequate knowledge and skills in grain production from trainings and previous experiences (Mkrtchyan, pers. com). In addition, climatic conditions had been favourable (Avetisyan, pers. com.).
19 3.1.2 Production
Grain production has been privatized and at present there are about 5,000-6,000 ha in the Sisian region planted to grains; 500-600 ha of spelt wheat, 500-600 ha of barley and the rest is wheat (Bakunts, pers. com.). The farmers engaged in it consist largely of the subsistence type and a few entrepreneurial farmers (see Chapter 5 for a more complete discussion of farm types).
The research stations that used to produce quality seeds no longer exist, resulting in the shortage of good seeds for planting. Sometimes coloured wheat seeds are passed on as “certified” seeds by rogue traders, so the farmers prefer to set aside some of the year’s harvest as seed material (250-300 kg/ha) for the succeeding year. This results in the deterioration of quality and further reduction in wheat yield.
There is also a lack of phosphorus and Hartashen village has about 170 households, and about potassium which are vital to the crops’ 900 hectares of arable land, 97 of which are irrigated. performance. Although a majority of During the land reform, households with 3 members were wheat growing areas apply ammonium given 2 hectares, those with 4-6 members 4 hectares, and nitrate, high yield is not ensured those with more than 6 members, 6 hectares. This year, because the nutrients are inadequate to the village mayor helped transport nitrate fertilizer to the village, having purchased for villagers at AMD 4,200 per meet the crops requirement. The 50kg bag, and so 70% of the villagers could use nitrate physical size (majority of the fertilizer. Previously, the village specialized in wheat seed landholdings are small) of the farms production, with elite seed from Russia, and obtained tilled by the subsistence farmers yields of about 5 ton/hectare. Average yields are now compound the situation since they about 1.7 ton/hectare. From 2.5 hectare, one farmer obtained 6 tons: keeping 1 ton for seed next year, one ton cannot practice crop rotation. for flour, and one ton for storage in case of scarcity next year; 3 tons were sold at AMD 120 per kg. Wheat production entails the use of farm machineries, like tractors and combines. Subsistence farmers hire this equipment individually and find the rate expensive. This is because of shortage of machineries, expensive fuel and the high cost of maintenance of the large equipment from the Soviet times. In short, the existing farm machinery is no longer suitable for the present size or structure of the majority of farms. For the entrepreneurial farmers, this problem may be less felt as majority of them own machinery.
Wheat growers in Sisian and Goris consider the crop to be more economically viable than others, and the capable, more enterprising farmers expanded their wheat fields by renting the land of their vulnerable neighbours or the communal lands. However, a farmer from Brnakot village in Sisian region expressed reservations on renting and clearing of more lands because there is no policy protecting those who rent communal lands; that is, it might be taken by the authorities anytime it is needed by the government and they may not give him chance to recover his investment. The rental of land appeared to vary depending on the agreement of the owner and the lessee (various figures such as 20% of harvest, 4-5 kg flour or 300-400 kg wheat were mentioned by farmers). On the other hand, land taxes differ depending on the quality of land and availability of irrigation, and are usually paid by the owner. The production cost of wheat is estimated at AMD100,000 to AMD120,000 per hectare (from data supplied by farmers in Hartashen village).
Barley is less productive than wheat; only 800 kg were harvested from one hectare (NSO, Armenia, 1999, farmer interviewed, 2004) but the expenses incurred are the same as in the
20 cultivation of wheat. The farmers till less land for barley, which is primarily used as source of feed for the livestock.
3.1.3 Production of wheat seeds
In 2001, an association of seed producers was established with financial support from GTZ. Eighty (80) tons of spring wheat were procured from Saratov, Russia in 2001 and 200 tons of winter wheat were procured from Krasnodar, Russia in 2002. These were distributed to more than 30 farmers in an effort to start seed An entrepreneurial farmer interviewed, with 2 production within the region but when GTZ business partners in Sisian produces wheat seeds as moved to another region of Armenia and a component of an integrated agribusiness. He employs an agronomist to oversee seed production. stopped its support to the association, the He is in close collaboration with the Seed activities of the latter were not sustained. Producers of Syunik Marz which is cooperating Seed production is a scientific undertaking with the American Technical Group (ATG) that and requires high skill. Although trainings imports seeds from the USA. He has no marketing were provided to farmers prior to the contract but does not have problem marketing the wheat seeds as there is a high demand for quality distribution of seeds, these were not enough seeds and his company (Ltd.) has a good reputation to effectively transfer the technical as a seed grower. The produce is sold to villagers at knowledge for seed production. For such AMD 150 to 180 per kg. He bases his production undertaking, there should be support from the on estimated market demands so he does not have government and researchers should have excessive surplus in production. The problem that he encounters in this business is the difficulty of been involved. The money should have been getting “elite” seeds. invested in a research institution (Avetisyan, pers. com.).
At the moment, there are few entrepreneurial farmers who are into wheat seed production in the Sisian region and their business seems to be going on quite well. The only problem encountered is the difficulty of importing “elite” seeds.
3.1.4 Processing and marketing
Aside from threshing and sacking in, no further processing of wheat takes place in the field. Many farmers take the produce to millers in nearby villages to obtain flour for household use.
The wheat producers in Khot village of Goris set aside two tons of their harvest for home consumption and sell the rest to a milling factory in Goris. The farmers in Sisian (Aghitu, Brnakot) sell some of their harvest to a middleman from Ararat who takes it to a milling plant in Echmiadzin.
The price of wheat exhibits seasonal variability. In 2002, the price was AMD 90 per kg immediately after harvest, then increased to AMD 120 per kg after three months and increased again to AMD 170 after six months (Brnakot farmer, 2004). On the other hand the price of Barley ranged from AMD80-150 per kg.
3.1.5 Conclusion
Cereal production particularly wheat growing seems to be a good option for crop production in a remote, insecure area like the Syunik marz as it provides food security, guarantees income and could be stored for longer periods as compared to other crops.
21 However, the potential for it to become an economically rewarding venture are still questionable. For the majority of farmers, wheat cultivation may remain a source of subsistence and may never become a means of income generation. The constraints of production, nevertheless, have to be addressed.
The lack of adequate irrigation may be solved in the near future as the IFAD funded construction of channels and rehabilitation of pipes is underway. At the moment, the government may not be able to rehabilitate the research stations which used to provide quality seeds to the farmers of Syunik marz. However, this problem may be mitigated by encouraging more entrepreneurial farmers to venture into the business, with the government providing technical support to seed producing companies (by deploying the specialists of the government research institution to supervise the farming activities of the seed growing farm). At the national level, the government should facilitate the importation of “elite” seeds e.g. by producers associations. Seed centres are also to be maintained to reproduce seed for distribution to the seed producing companies for further multiplication. In this way, the country could be less dependent on quality seed importation in the future.
The government should also find a way of encouraging private investments for the local production of quality (complete) fertilizers and in the meantime devise a scheme for the purchase and distribution of imported fertilizers which are vital for improving the yield of crops.
The farmers, on the other hand must strategically group together for more efficient management of their farming activities and also increase their negotiating power. When they are organized, they may have access to services e.g. hire farm machineries and procure inputs at lower prices and may demand for better price for their merchandise.
Likewise, an insurance system should be in place to alleviate the effects of adverse climatic conditions (see also discussion in chapter six).
3.2 Potato
3.2.1 Overview
Potato production was not very common in Armenia during the Soviet times as potatoes for consumption were imported from other republics of the Soviet Union. In the Sisian region, potato growing both for seed and ware (consumption) purposes was started in a relatively commercial scale (four hectares) in 1998 by an agronomist with two business partners (Mkrtchyan, 2004; pers. com.). Subsistence farmers also grow potatoes in smaller plots in their privatized land and – more commonly – in the homestead gardens which are a feature of nearly all houses, even in urban areas. They produce potatoes mainly for home consumption and sell the surplus to local markets or traders. However, since no adequate fertilizers is applied to the farms, the yield continually decreased and the quality of the tubers deteriorated (animal manures are often used in homestead gardens). The situation has also been aggravated by the erratic rain and harsh weather. In 2003, the sale price crashed to AMD 40/kg when a local businessman imported good quality planting materials from Holland and, in addition to selling his produce through a contract with big markets in Yerevan, also flooded the local markets. Subsistence farmers were unable to sell their produce and ended up feeding their potatoes to livestock. Due to the unstable price of ware potatoes, the majority of the subsistence farmers have since confined potato cultivation to meet household needs. This implies underutilization of the potential growing areas for potatoes.
22
3.2.2 Production
Planting starts in March or April when the weather becomes mild and favourable. Due to the small cropped area, cultivation of land, weeding, watering and other activities are usually done manually with the aid of small farm implements or hand tools. The tubers are harvested from September to October, before the onset of winter. The average yield of potatoes is 20- 30 tons per hectare but for farmers who hardly apply fertilizers and not keen on the technology of growing potatoes, the yield is much less. Although the farmers are already aware of the importance of phosphorus and potassium fertilizers, these are not locally available, hence the failure to apply them in addition to nitrogen Farmer Y and his two business partners started growing fertilizers. The produce is mainly for potato for seeds on commercial scale in 1998 guided by his household consumption, but expertise as an agronomist. To maintain the quality of the subsistence farmers always manage first generation planting materials being produced on the farm, “elite” seeds were imported from Holland every two to sell a portion (about 20-25%) of years, through AgriCo at AMD540 per kg, including their harvest. transport expenses. In total, the farmers cultivate 15 hectares of land so they are able to practice crop rotation, which Growing of potatoes for seeds could breaks the life cycles of pathogens that may infect their be a lucrative venture because of the crops. high price of potato seeds (AMD150- The potato seeds produced are sold in Yerevan and Nagorno- 200 per kg). Large scale production Karabakh. As the farmers have already established good requires intensive mechanization, reputation in the business, they have regular market for their with cultivation and application of product and are able to sell without contract. They spend fertilizers being done by farm about AMD 600,000 to 700,000 per hectare excluding seed costs. The financial needs for the importation of seeds are equipment. In order to maximize partly provided by loans from SEF and Artshin Invest Bank. production, good seed must be used, The income generated per hectare is about AMD 1 600 000 appropriate fertilizers applied and to AMD 2 150 000. They find seed potato growing a crop protection measures observed lucrative business, however they worry about the uncertain (Mkrtchyan, 2004; pers. com.). source or supply of fertilizer in the coming years.
There are several sources of good planting materials (“elite” 1st class seeds) and they are available in different prices depending on the supplier and country of origin. One entrepreneurial farmer in Sisian bought potato seeds from the Agrarian Farmers Union of Armenia for AMD 420 per kg. Importation of seeds from Holland is also possible through AgriCo, a private company based in Yerevan at $1/kg inclusive of transport cost. Aside from these, there are other local organizations that import potato seeds from Germany and France.
3.2.3 Processing and marketing
At the moment, there is no processing of potatoes done locally. The potatoes are consumed by buyers as a vegetable or staple food.
Ware potatoes are sold at an average of AMD 80 - AMD 100 per kg, depending on supply. Last year the price dropped to AMD 40 per kg. In the villages, the potatoes are usually sold locally, since the volume of produce is too low to justify transport to Yerevan or other big markets. In many instances, the products are bartered for other household needs.
On the other hand, seed potato fetches a higher price of AMD150-200 per kg so it is a potentially lucrative venture. The potato seed producers have not encountered any problems in
23 marketing their products. The smaller tubers are selected and marketed as seeds and the bigger tubers are sold for home consumption.
3.2.4 Conclusion
Potato growing is a promising business for those who can afford to sustain the requirements in order to get high yields. It is therefore a venture for those who have adequate financial resources to buy the fertilizers required and pesticides for crop protection. Since crop rotation is a necessary measure for crop protection and prevention of the depletion of nutrients and trace elements from the soil, growing of potatoes is most suitable for those who have more land wherein the practice can be applied. Subsistence farmers operating individually are therefore unlikely to be successful in commercial potato growing, unless they cooperate with others. Collectively, the farms will be bigger, and thus would enable crop rotation and the efficient use of farm machineries. Farmers in associations and cooperatives will likewise be capable of getting services and inputs at lower prices, therefore reducing the production costs, as well as have better access to loans. A more efficient marketing scheme must be in place prior to production. Ideally, a contract must be executed between the producers and the buyers.
Establishment of processing factories for potatoes may also boost its production but prior to that, market demands for processed products should be explored and analyzed. Export potentials should also be properly considered. Above all, other aspects of the economy must be improved in order to increase the purchasing capacity of the local populace.
Potato seed production seems to be lucrative at the moment, as there are few farmers involved. However, if other farmers follow suit the market could become saturated. To avoid this, certification from growers associations might usefully limit or accredit growers.
3.3 Dairy Cattle and Goats
3.3.1 Production
Cattle breeding has a long history in Armenia, with its vast pasture lands and suitable climate. Cattle are raised for meat, milk and cheese. Recently, goat breeding has also been started to respond to the high demand for goat cheese.
Raising cattle is engaged in by a wide range of farmers, with herd sizes that range from 1 to 100. Recently, vulnerable households were also given a chance to keep cattle with an in-kind grant from ACH as part of its development-oriented projects (see Chapter 4).
In Sisian and Goris Regions, entrepreneurial farmers usually have more than 30 cattle. They employ permanent herdsmen and milk maids, typically paid AMD 35,000 month when the animals are in the barn and AMD 40,000 to 50,000 per month when the animals are taken to the pasture.
A few of the more enterprising cattle raisers have tried improving the breed through artificial insemination, but with limited success; the practice is also quite costly. Some farmers therefore keep a bull, which may also be used by other farmers.
24 Vulnerable and subsistence farmers possess few dairy cows (1-5) which provide milk for home consumption. In the peak milking season any surplus is sold to neighbours or processed into cheese. Some farmers (e.g. Verishen village, Goris) complain about the shortage of good pasture areas; some are very stony and most areas, particularly the distant grasslands, have no drinking water for the cattle. This results in low milk production; about 5- 7 litres are collected per cow per day. Some farmers pay rental for communal grazing areas at AMD 650 ha/season. Some take the herds to distant grazing areas during the day and bring them back at night (e.g. Angeghakot Village). One dairy cattle farmer in Uits Village transfers his cattle to Nagorno Karabakh for grazing.
Dairy goat breeding has also been started and organized in Sisian region with the establishment of the Lake of Balak Dairy Association in 2002 (see details in Chapter 5).
3.3.2 Processing and marketing
Most farmers interviewed find the price of milk low at AMD 80-90 per litre, so they prefer to process the milk into cheese by themselves, or sell to cheese processors in the village. Aside from adding value to milk, it is also the best way to keep or preserve it. To maximize production and profit they may also buy milk from neighbouring farmers (e.g. Hartashen and Verishen villages, Goris; Uits and Tasik villages, Sisian). The skills of cheese making have been acquired through formal training or informally from one generation to the next.
One group of cattle farmers in Tasik village has a contract with a cheese factory (Boty LLC) in Sisian which buys the milk at AMD 95 per litre, with payment on a monthly basis. The ACH sponsored group in Tolors village sells their milk to the USDA-MAP assisted dairy association for AMD 80 per litre, which then processes it into cheese. A similar association (Akhlatian Milk Producers Association), also established by USDA-MAP, buys the milk from its members in Torunik, Bnunis and Akhlatian villages at AMD 88 per kg, and then sells it on to Boty LLC. However, one larger farmer in Shaki village, with 100 cattle, is contemplating reducing the size of his herd due to lack of adequate market for milk and meat.
The majority of the small scale cheese makers have no sure market for their product; they just sell or barter it whenever and wherever there is demand for it. The village price ranges from AMD 800 to 1,200 per kg. A few farmers in e.g. Verishen, Goris have contracts with markets in Yerevan and sell at around AMD 1,500 per kg. One richer farmer from Shaki makes arrangements through the telephone prior to transport and delivery of the cheese, and sells at AMD 1,000 per kg. To take their products to the capital city, farmers either use their own vehicles or hire transport. The Boty LLC produces cheese that is exported to Russia and Europe. The Lake of Balak Association produces goat cheese, which is sold in Yerevan. Cheese making appears to be profitable and many cheese makers intend to expand their factories
Although farmers claim that there is no problem in marketing meat, there seems to be no good market for calves as the prices are dictated by either the middlemen from Yerevan who come to buy the calves, or the neighbourhood butcher. In Goris, farmers of Hartashen Village have sold their cattle for as low as AMD 500 per kg (live weight). Meat prices in Yerevan are around AMD 1,100 – 1,200 per kg.
25 3.3.3 Conclusion
Dairy production in the Sisian and Goris Regions could be a promising livelihood activity in a mountainous area where pasture lands abound. However, for its full potential to be realized, the following should be looked into:
• Standardization of market price of products • Centralized collection and processing of dairy products • More strict quality control measures should be imposed • Labeling of products should be done prior to marketing • Diversification of dairy products (more kinds of cheese, yoghurts, etc) • Rehabilitation of drinking water supply for cattle in the pastures • Mobile milking facilities for pasture areas • Intensified support for the improvement of existing stock
3.4 Sheep Breeding
3.4.1 Production
Sheep herding, for meat, milk, and wool production, can utilize grasslands on steep slopes that are inaccessible to cattle. However, the numbers of small ruminants in Armenia declined markedly after the collapse of the Soviet Union with the total population of sheep falling from approximately 2 million to 560,000. Milk production decreased to 8.5 -9 litres per lactation period from the former average of 25 to 30 litres, and the lambing rate declined to 70-75% per lambing season. The wool yield per sheep is about 2.0-2.2 kg and the quality is very low.
All these factors had negative influence on the development of sheep breeding as an industry, and according to Marmarian(1997), there were (at that time, at least) no practical plans by the state or other organizations to develop the industry.
The Sisian region is suitable for sheep breeding. The soil is relatively fertile and favours the cultivation of sainfoin, the main source of fodder in addition to barley. Sheep breeding is primarily for lamb production. Although wool has potential, this has not been explored. Sheep breeders consider the wool to be just a by-product. Wool is processed in Goris, although many farmers do not yet exploit this opportunity.
The majority of households in Sisian and Goris possess one to five head of sheep which are generally raised for home consumption. Recently, ACH has established 19 farmers’ groups in Sisian to engage in sheep breeding, in an attempt to make the venture an income generating activity to secure the future of vulnerable farmers.
Most breeders do not milk their sheep. They prefer the lambs to nurse from the sheep to ensure faster growth. Balak sheep breeders on the other hand, milk their sheep and sell it to the USDA-MAP assisted Lake of Balak Goat Association (see details in Chapter 5).
Some of the farmers tend to herd their sheep by themselves with the help of family members while some breeders e.g. in Vorotan employ herdsman with a daily salary of AMD 1500. The sheep breeders generally use communal land for grazing their herd. In the villages of Aghitu, Dastakert, Getatagh and Torunik, they have free access to the grazing areas. The newly
26 established sheep breeding groups in Vorotan and Ishkhanasar villages likewise use the grassland for free during the initial stage of their project but are expected to pay taxes (AMD 100 per sheep per year in Vorotan; and AMD 300 in Ishkhanasar) to the community in future when they have realized an income from the project. The sheep breeders in Balak mentioned the limited grazing areas in the village as a constraint to the attainment of maximum benefit from the venture.
3.4.2 Marketing
Sheep breeders have varied experiences and perceptions regarding the lamb market. Some farmers in Torunik and Balak villages think that marketing lamb meat is difficult and market demand is unstable. On the other hand, farmers in Getatagh and Dastakert believe that there is a great market potential for their lambs because the demand is big and it has not been satisfied. Traders coming from Sisian, Ararat Valley and Yerevan go to the villages to buy lamb. In this case the price is set by the traders and they also take care of the transport expenses. Butchers also frequent the villages to look for lamb. The live weight price per kg of lamb is AMD 600/kg and since a lamb weighs 18 to 20 kg, the average selling price is AMD 10,000 per lamb. Many farmers complain that poor road networks and high transportation cost constrain them from taking their products to the market. Wool can be marketed at AMD 300-400 per kg.
3.4.3 Conclusion
Sheep breeding may be improved on the following aspects:
• Improve the existing breeding stock for the production of more milk and more desirable wool. • Milking of the sheep will stimulate the production of more milk by the ewes so sheep breeders should be encouraged to milk their sheep to exploit the full potential of the business. Food supplements must be given to the animals for them to produce more milk. • Train the sheep breeders for them to be able to maximize lambing capacities of their herd. • The sheep breeders must form cooperatives to have bargaining power in both procurement of needs for their projects and marketing of their lamb. • Analysis of zones within the region should be done to identify areas that could be utilized for sheep breeding. From the ecological point of view, the maximum number of sheep within a village must be determined in order not to overstock and stress the environment. • The external market for wool products should be explored.
3.5 Beekeeping
3.5.1 Production
Honey is a desirable product, although the price is prohibitive in Armenia given the low purchasing power of the majority of the population. Estimates of marketed quantities in recent years show the total volume of honey sold was 260, 218 and 77 tons in 1999, 2000 and 2001, respectively. The decrease in sales in 2001 was due to low production as a result of the
27 adverse climatic conditions during that time. In 2002, there was a marked increase in production and consumption of honey (ACH, 2002).
The alpine zones of Armenia have rich flora of flowering plants which are the source of food for bees. In the Sisian region, 100 tons of honey was produced in 2002 (ACH, 2003). There are around 5,000 beehives, 85% of which is owned by individuals who have more than 20 beehives each. Eight beekeeping groups were also established by ACH in Sisian (details in Chapter 5).
Honey production in the Sisian region generally commences when the snow melts, usually from March 15 until the first week of April. Honey is harvested once a year, usually during the first or second week of August. After taking out the beehives from the winter house, they are usually fed with sugar when the honey remaining in combs before winter had been consumed. This is to facilitate their recovery and also to supplement the limited food (nectar) that they gather in early spring. They are also given some medicine for prevention and treatment of bee diseases.
Man-made honey combs are commercially available. These are set up in the beehives as primers for the bees to add on new wax (to extend the cells of the comb). Usually, the combs are replaced every three years when they are decolorized. Wax, a by-product of honey could be processed and marketed. Although the beekeepers interviewed are aware of this, they do not have enough bees wax produced on their farm.
The quantity of honey produced is greatly influenced by climate and the quality of honey is dependent on the abundance and variety of flowering plants. In most of the villages visited, the yield of honey per beehive is less than 10 kg, somewhat lower than the expected yield of 12 kg/beehive. Ideally, the beehives should be relocated three times during the honey production time to expand the foraging area in order to maximize honey production. However, most of the beekeepers are constrained by the lack of transport facilities to move their beehives from one place to another.
Some villagers expand their beehives by splitting the colonies that they have. Other beekeepers are reluctant to do this because it reduces honey production. Apart from this, the bad weather conditions and the weak colonies have constrained division of the colonies.
3.5.2 Processing and marketing
Aside from extraction of honey from the comb, no further processing is done before marketing. Likewise, there is no standard packaging material for the honey sold. The consumers bring their own containers when they go to the villages to buy honey. The product is also not labelled.
Honey is an expensive product so the consumers are the middle or high income segment of the populace. In the Yerevan markets honey is usually packaged in 1-3 litre containers and priced at AMD 2,000-2,500 per litre. However, people prefer to buy honey in smaller containers due to its prohibitive price. In some instances when only small quantities are needed, consumers end up buying the artificial (adulterated) honey in 0.5 litre jars being sold in shops and markets.
28 One beekeeper interviewed in Hartashen Village of Goris region sells his honey in Yerevan at AMD 2,500 per kg (AMD 3,300 per kg if the honey is in honeycomb). However, the honey being produced in the villages of Sisian region hardly reaches the markets of Yerevan due to expensive transport cost. Most of the honey produced is sold to relatives and acquaintances that go to the villages and buy directly from the producers. Some beekeepers in Dastakert and Aghitu villages find marketing of honey difficult, so they end up disposing off their produce through barter trade.
3.5.3 Conclusion
Honey production seems to be a lucrative business considering its high price. However, under the present economic conditions in Armenia wherein majority of the populace are considered to have low purchasing power, the local market is unreliable to sustain honey production as an enterprise. It is therefore important to explore the international market as a potential absorber of the product. Prior to this the following should be done to improve the competitiveness of the product:
• Organization into (federated) cooperatives. Organized farmers would have better access to loans which will enable them to procure the necessary inputs and facilities needed in beekeeping at lower cost, such as transport (for relocating hives and delivering products to market). Organization could also increase their bargaining power in the market. • Quality control of honey needs improvement. Laboratory testing facilities are needed to confirm the purity and nutrient content claimed by producers. • Packaging and labeling of products is needed, to extend “brand” recognition beyond friends and relatives. Sealed and labeled containers are necessary for export.
3.6 Fruit Production
During the Soviet time, there was a fruit processing plant and canning factory in Sisian region, and extensive areas were planted to apple, pear, apricot, cherry, peach, fig, etc. Around 3,000 tons of fruits were produced annually, 50% of which were sold and 50% consumed locally (Avetisyan, 2004; pers. comm..). At that time the region produced quality apples that fetched a price of AMD 750-1,500 per kg (equivalent price of today). However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, storage and processing facilities for fruits have been neglected and destroyed. The reduced purchasing power of the populace also resulted in difficulties of selling the fruits. The farmers were eventually discouraged to produce more fruits because there was no good market for their products. Most of the area previously planted to fruit trees was replaced with wheat and vegetables, leaving just a few fruit trees in the homestead in order to meet household needs. Almost every household in the Goris and Sisian Regions has a variety of homemade preserved fruits (dried, jelly, jam, juice).
The situation is compounded by the fact that the agro-chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) are now lacking or very expensive. In spite of minimal care given to the fruit trees, some villages (e.g. Getatagh & Darabas) still produce a surplus of fruits but these end up being wasted because there is no market and no processing factories. There is no clear vision on fruit production as there is limited practical support from the government. At the moment, a fruit processing factory is being rehabilitated in the Sisian region and it is raising hope for the revival and improvement of the fruit industry (Avetisyan, 2004; pers. comm.).
29
3.7 Vegetable Production
The Syunik marz, particularly Sisian region, was specialized in grain and fodder production and livestock during the Soviet time. Vegetable production was not a major activity then. Now, most villagers cultivate vegetables like beet, carrot, cucumber, pepper, tomatoes and green vegetables in their homesteads. Currently, there are around 250 hectares planted to vegetables (Avetisyan, 2004; pers. com.). About 80% of the vegetables harvested are sold in the market. However, the farmers have difficulties in marketing their harvest and experience spoilage of products. For instance in 2002, about 1000 tons of cabbage were not sold and spoiled, so farmers reduced the area planted to cabbage in the succeeding years.
Farmer Z of Sisian is engaged in vegetable Currently, there is no stable production production, cultivating tomatoes, cabbage, lettuce, of vegetables in the Sisian region cucumber and potatoes in a 12-hectare farm. He has especially during winter. The majority no problem marketing his produce because he has of the vegetables in the local market market outlets; he owns two stores in Sisian and comes from Yerevan, supplied from transports them to Yerevan. Since the volume of his produce is large, transport to Yerevan market is other regions of Armenia (Avetisyan, justifiable. Apart from this he has marketing contract 2004; pers. com.). with the Army. He also grows fruits and processes them. He is planning to establish a canning factory It was noted that village households for fruits and tomatoes in the near future. preserve vegetables in what is locally call “marinade”; essentially a method of pickling wherein whole or big chunks of the vegetables are soaked in vinegar. This local practice can be exploited to become an industry for the villages. In vegetable preservation, hygiene and sanitation must be observed during handling and preparation, and packaging would need to be improved for commercial sale.
3.8 Gathering Mushrooms and Herbs
In spring, people in the villages take advantage of the prolific growth of wild herbs and mushrooms. A great variety of herbs are being picked for home consumption or for sale to relatives and acquaintances as fresh vegetable or in pickled form (“marinade”). During this time, mushrooms and asparagus abound in the local markets and along the roads being sold at an average of AMD 500 and AMD1,500 per kilogram, respectively. The more enterprising individuals gather them in bulk and transport them to the capital city where there is higher demand. One entrepreneurial farmer also exports wild herbs, particularly thyme and dodder to Moscow, and even plans to process them in order to add value and reduce the volume (bulk) of shipment.
Wild species of herbs and mushrooms have the potential of being exploited as a component of organic agriculture in Armenia. It is an opportunity to unite multiple stakeholders in the common goal of enhancing soil conditions, improving water quality and promoting habitat restoration. In this light, it may be worthy to consider human intervention for the enhancement of growth of the desirable species in the Syunik marz. The fact that they grow in the wild is an indication that the condition in the area is suitable for their growth and all the necessary factors are in place. These could be processed and exported as organically-grown vegetables.
30 CHAPTER 4 INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND FARMER ORGANIZATION
4.1 Introduction
In an effort to enhance livelihoods from agriculture, a number of agencies are providing support to farming activities. These agencies include government, quasi-government and non- governmental organizations. Various forms of support are provided and this includes for productive activities, marketing and agricultural credit. Some agencies provide support to individual farmers, while others have organized farmers into groups for production and credit (See Table 4.1). Some groups are formally registered as cooperatives or associations (e.g. those supported by USDA-MAP and UMCOR) while other agencies work with groups that are not yet legally registered as cooperatives or associations (e.g. ACH and SEF). The forms of support and farmer organization promoted by the various agencies are described below. The main lessons drawn from each agency’s activities are also summarized.
4.2 Individual Farmers and Private companies
Some farmers operate their farming activities individually, while others have registered as limited companies. Various types of farmers exist and these can be generally classified into three categories, according to how they use assets. There are vulnerable, subsistence and entrepreneurial farmers (see Chapter 6 discussion on farmer typology). Enterprising farmers usually rent out land from those who cannot cultivate their plots or pay land taxes. Limited companies are registered for both production and processing of agricultural products.
4.3 ACH Groups
ACH is providing support through its ‘Rural Communities Self-Reliance Development Project’. The project has 4 components: strengthening of community structures, support to community projects, developing community capacities and support to income generation activities. In Syunik, ACH provides support mainly for agricultural production and income generation in 11 villages of Sisian region. The main criterion for the selection of the villages was vulnerability. Within the villages, group members were also selected according to ownership of assets and access to land. Each group consists of 10-15 members.
A total of 33 groups were formed between February and March 2003. At the moment, all the ACH groups are not legally registered e.g. as cooperatives or associations. Activities that are covered include sheep breeding, cattle breeding (mainly dairy), bee keeping, potato production. In terms of management structure, the groups have a manager, manager’s assistant and accountant. The group manager coordinates all group activities and work is shared equally by rotation among all group members.
ACH provides support to the groups in the form of in-kind grants for all the initial livestock and project materials e.g. beehives. Training is also provided in relevant areas like development of group internal regulations, team organization, field cultivation, livestock breeding, beekeeping and business plan development. ACH also provides technical and administrative support.
31 The following are the main characteristics of ACH supported groups:
• Target Groups - the target group for ACH is mainly vulnerable farmers. A significant number are former refugees from Azerbaijan who had no prior experience in agriculture. Most of these people can barely survive without some form of external support. The chances of them generating enough income for basic needs, or being able to run viable enterprises are limited.
• Benefits - the (financial) benefits for most of the groups are still limited. This is mainly because it is too early to assess, and also in some cases due to problems with marketing of products. All the groups are just one year old. Enterprises like sheep breeding take time to yield benefits and markets for honey are also limited or difficult to access due to high transportation costs and low purchasing power for a relatively high priced product such as honey. Yerevan is the main market for most products. Some groups also expressed reservations on the scale of the activities and the small number of livestock units distributed to each group.
• Group registration - all ACH groups are currently not registered. The main argument from most of the groups is that once they register e.g. as cooperatives, their activities will attract taxation according to Armenian law. Groups feel that at the moment, their activities are not yet generating enough income to enable them to pay such taxes.
• Working in groups - some members of groups expressed reservations about working in groups as they preferred to work individually. They joined groups as a means to access some help. This attitude affects group cohesion and cooperation. Group membership is also by household and not individuals. Different members of the household perform group activities or attend meetings, implying lack of continuity. Although groups have internal regulations, it appeared that they were not binding and known by all members. Group leaders in most cases articulated them well, but the other members seemed not to be well versed in these regulations. It may be better for groups to be formed around mutual trust rather than just considering whether one is vulnerable or not.
4.4 SEF
SEF is an organization that received initial support through WVI. Currently, the organization is implementing 3 different projects in Syunik marz. These are the agricultural credit projects (ACP), social lending projects and small loans project. The ACP provides support for agricultural activities through group lending. Activities supported include livestock breeding, renovation of buildings, repairing of machinery and operational costs like fuel and hiring of machinery.
Before accessing credit, farmers are expected to be members of a group and they apply for loans through the group. The group pools together their collateral and borrow against it. Collateral can be in the form of livestock or other assets. For an amount of up to AMD 300,000 the collateral is 4 cows. Although individual members borrow separately, the liability lies with the whole group and in the event that an individual fails to pay, the whole group is liable. Groups are usually formed according to mutual trust, financial position and ownership
32 of assets and livestock. Group members operate their enterprises separately and do not pool their assets together.
The amount of loans an individual can take up depends on the business plan and the collateral provided by the group. The general limit for most members is AMD 500,000 per loan cycle, which is a year. The interest rate for loans is 2% per month but decreases when the group borrows for the second and subsequent cycles.
SEF provides support to loan groups in the form of training in business plan formulation, financial management, marketing and agricultural skills. The main focus of the training is on cash flow projections, so that group members can plan their financial and repayment plans. SEF also tries to link farmers with markets if they can identify them. For future expansion of activities, SEF is exploring possibilities for leasing of equipment, transport contracting, expansion of the credit portfolio and collaboration with other agencies involved in agriculture.
The following were the main observations on SEF groups:
• Loan Repayment - The repayment rate for SEF loans is high due to group pressure and also the fear to pay compound interest if delays in payment are experienced. If a member fails to pay back, the others have to cover up for him. This however is a source of discontent by some groups because at times it is difficult to reclaim their money and they get it without interest. Some group members felt that it would be better to borrow individually. There is also no grace period before loan repayment. Borrowers are expected to start paying back in the first month. Most of the agricultural activities would not have provided any income, so some people have to borrow money or sell some other assets to repay the loan. There is a potential danger of creating perpetual indebtedness.
• Loan period - SEF offers short term loans for up to a year. This does not allow the farmers to invest in long term agricultural developments or to buy machinery. Farmers prefer longer-term loans so that they can invest.
• Collateral - vulnerable farmers cannot access SEF loans since they have no collateral. Only subsistence and entrepreneurial farmers can take up the loans (see chapter 6 for typology of farmers).
• Business plans - business plans are usually just produced as an instrument to access loans. In some cases, members divert the money from activities they would have applied the loan for. Some even use it to pay for their land taxes. Due to this aspect, some group members then fail to repay the loans since the money was not used for productive activities.
4.5 AREGAK
AREGAK, or the ‘Guaranteed Sustainable Assistance to Women’, is an organization that was formed with financial support provided by UMCOR. In Syunik marz, the project office is located in Goris, but they also have agents in Kapan and Sisian. These agents are responsible for assessing borrowers’ credit worthiness and approving loan applications. They also oversee repayment of loans and monitoring of enterprises. The main focus of the organization is to
33 provide support mainly to women. Credit is provided for agricultural and other small scale enterprises in the form of short-term loans. The bulk of the loans (70%) are taken up for agricultural activities. In Syunik, the organization has in excess of 1,500 clients in both urban and rural centres.
Borrowers are expected to be members of a credit group but they are responsible individually for loan repayment. After repayment of the loan, a borrower qualifies for the second and subsequent cycles of borrowing. The limit for the first cycle ranges from AMD 50,000 - 150,000, with 2% interest rate per month. In the second cycle, the amount can increase by up to 40% of the amount borrowed during the first cycle.
In future, AREGAK plans to set up a credit bank and expand their loan portfolio to cover medium and large scale enterprises, and expand individual and family loans. A major constraint noted by the organization is the continuous decrease in rural population, their major clients. This is attributed to emigration in search of employment opportunities.
4.6 USDA-MAP
MAP is an agribusiness development project established by USDA in 1996 in Armenia. Its focus is to assist farmers and agribusinesses in producing, marketing and exporting food and related products in order to increase incomes, create jobs and raise the standard of living of the rural people. Currently, MAP provides technical, financial and marketing assistance to over 50 small and medium scale agribusinesses and cooperatives. In Syunik marz, MAP provides support to wineries and food processing firms in Meghri and Goris, and dairy industry development projects in Sisian. A range of activities are supported e.g. wineries, fruit and vegetable processing, cheese making, water bottling, livestock breeding, seed and feed production.
To provide technical support, short and long-term consultants are hired from American agricultural universities, the AAA, American volunteers and other local specialists. Financial assistance is provided through strategic loans to agri-businesses, direct credit to farmer groups and equipment leasing through AgroLeasing LLC. Small grants are also provided for specific improvements in sanitation, packaging, new product development and test marketing. Marketing assistance by MAP include applied on-farm research, variety trials, new product development, packaging, labelling improvements, improvement of product quality, promotion and advertising, formation of farmer marketing cooperatives, market research and development of local and international markets.
MAP’s credit scheme is focused on providing small grants, strategic loans, in-kind loans and equipment leasing for processors. Direct grants to agribusiness are usually limited to AMD 1.5m. These are targeted on critical functions like development of new products, improvement of hygiene and sanitation or test marketing of new products. Strategic loans are used for providing resources needed to buy modern equipment, renovate production facilities, buy raw product (e.g. milk) from farmers and to pay for packaging and shipping costs. These range from AMD 2.5m to AMD 50m. They are placed through banks, with repayment periods of 1 to 3 years. In-kind loans are made available for the purchase of materials like glass jars, wine bottles, plastic bags and have repayments periods of less than a year.
34 Farmers also receive direct assistance from MAP through Production Credit Clubs, made up of, on average 7 to 12 farmers. These are usually farmers who are supplying raw products like milk to MAP-supported agro-processors. Each club receives an initial capital of on average AMD 6 – 7.5m. No collateral is required, but the members provide a group guarantee for individual loans. At the moment there are more than 28 credit clubs in 7 marzes, involving more than 460 farmers.
The AgroLeasing LLC, a private leasing company specializing in agricultural clients, was created by MAP in 1999. The aim was to overcome the high collateral requirements and interest rates of Armenian banks. The company provides finance leases with 2-3 years terms at interest rates less than that required by banks. The company’s clients are legally registered private limited companies or associations and also provide technical support and advice on equipment design.
The following are the key observations on USDA-MAP groups:
• Farmer organization - MAP has managed to create viable farmer groups in the form of producer and marketing cooperatives. These are registered as legal entities. This allows them to enter into contracts with the market and also to pool their resources together for supporting their membership. The experience of MAP regarding farmer organization can be adapted by other institutions like ACH and SEF. An assessment should be conducted by these agencies on the merits and demerits or registering farmer groups.
• Farmer support - MAP provides adequate technical, marketing and financial support to small enterprises and cooperatives and this has led to the creation of viable and sustainable agricultural activities. Through MAP support, enterprises have managed to secure both local and international markets for their products e.g. cheese and wines. Other groups, for example beekeeping groups of ACH can learn a lot from the MAP experience e.g. in terms of product quality, labelling and accessing markets.
4.7 UMCOR
UMCOR is a non-governmental international organization that started operating in Armenia in 1994. Initially, UMCOR implemented relief projects. Later it shifted to supporting agricultural activities, starting with livestock distribution to vulnerable farmers. Between 2000 and 2002, the organization implemented projects in support of farmers’ organization; for example the Community Association Programme (CAP) in Vayots Dzor and Ararat marzes. Through CAP, UMCOR assisted farmers to establish and register cooperatives. These cooperatives provide support to their members in the form of hiring out of farm machinery and input supply. The organization provides grants and loans to members of cooperatives at concessionary interest rates. UMCOR also implemented a lease programme for agricultural machineries and equipment to cooperatives.
UMCOR provides support to the Federation of Agricultural Associations (FAA), an organization established in 2001 as an initiative by eight local farmers’ organizations. The FAA is legally registered and provides services to its membership, such as market research, input procurement, bookkeeping, accounting and advocacy related to policy and tax issues. In conjunction with UMCOR, the FAA is implementing a three-year Farmers’ Organizations
35 Support Program (FOSPA) aimed at assisting farmers to establish new farmer organizations and expand the services that the FAA currently provides its members. FOSPA will also focus on building the technical and managerial capacities of the FAA and its members, with the long-term view of achieving financial and managerial independence.
Groups that are currently informal and unregistered, e.g. those formed by ACH and SEF, can draw important lessons from both UMCOR and FAA. Through registered cooperatives, farmers are supporting each other through joint market research, procurement of inputs in bulk and financial skills.
4.8 ACBA
ACBA was established 7 years ago, and in 2002 disbursed approximately AMD 4,000m in loans to small and medium agricultural enterprises. For small farmers, loans are provided through Agricultural Cooperative Village Associations. There are more than 560 associations financed by the bank nationally.
The Bank has a branch in Kapan and an agent occasionally visit Goris and Sisian Regions. Due to the long distance to Kapan, most villagers do not have adequate information on the types of loans available and the terms. Although the bank claimed to have agents in all villages, these were not known by farmers in the villages visited by the research team.
ACBA requires collateral in the form of mortgages, domestic appliances and livestock. The loans can therefore not be accessed by most vulnerable farmers who do not own significant assets. The interest rates charged by the bank are also too high for farmers. The credit offered is short-term, whereas some farmers, especially entrepreneurial ones, require long-term credit to invest in equipment.
4.9 ASC
The ASC of Syunik region consists of a manager, an extension coordinator, 19 extension agents (6 in Sisian, 5 in Goris, 5 in Kapan and 3 in Meghri), 1 research/liaison specialist and 1 press specialist/journalist. Each extension officer covers 5-6 villages in Sisian and Goris , 7 villages in Kapan and 4 in Meghri. The ASC works closely with the AAA extension department and calls upon the services or expertise of staff from the institute when required. They also plan activities jointly e.g. schedules for seminars and annual plans. The main functions of the ASC include the following: • Providing advice on crops, livestock, marketing and processing of agricultural products • Conducting on-farm experiments and verification trials • Organizing field days and seminars in villages • Publishing monthly agricultural journal and provide relevant information and booklets • Conducting social surveys to establish priorities in the marz • Conducting market surveys and linking up farmers in different regions.
The ASC identifies some of the major constraints to agricultural development in Syunik as; lack of high quality seed and high costs of seed, lack of good quality agrochemicals, old machinery, and expensive fuel.
36
The ASC is grossly under-funded and can not perform its functions adequately, for example providing advice to farmers. Funding that was available through the World Bank is going to be reduced and eventually terminated. Extension agents have no vehicles and they experience difficulties accessing villages. Although the ASC now charges for some services like artificial insemination, extension and the monthly bulletin, they do not raise any significant income.
4.10 Syunik Marzpetaran
The Marzpetaran has an agricultural department responsible for the planning, monitoring and coordinating of all activities pertaining to agriculture, such as land cultivation, livestock production and protection, crop production and protection and maintenance of the irrigation system. The department is based in Kapan but also has regional offices in Sisian, Goris and Meghri. The department provides farmers with certified seed, issues permits to seed producers in the region and conducts soil analysis. They work with individual farmers, farmers groups and other institutions under government control and international organizations (IFAD, UNDP, WFP and ACH). Government institutions that they collaborate with include the veterinary agency, crop protection stations, seed quality control agency, office in-charge of machineries and the agricultural support centre.
However, the team concluded that the lack of proper coordination at the level of the marz and regions with regards to institutions supporting agricultural activities is hampering the ability of the agricultural department to fulfil its role. Each institution appears to be working separately according to its mandate.
4.11 SMEDNC
SMEDNC is a quasi-government institution whose mission is supporting the development of small and medium enterprise (SME) sector, representing and advocating for the interests of SMEs by serving as a link between the government and the business community. The institution provides a number of services including business information, business consulting, business education and training and financial assistance in the form of loan guarantees to expand financial opportunities for SMEs units.
In Syunik, SMEDNC has already provided support to a number of entrepreneurs. Some of these entrepreneurs are involved in agricultural production and processing.
By creating SMEDNC, the government of Armenia is trying to support small and medium entrepreneurs. The main limitation however still appears to be lack of access by entrepreneurs to long-term credit, complicated procedures for accessing loans and lack of viable markets for products.
4.12 Inter-institutional Cooperation
As described above, different agencies are providing support both to individual farmers, groups and cooperatives. Table 4.1 presents a summary of the forms of support provided. It was observed that there is little coordination among the different agencies, with each one of them operating separately. The only exceptions are agencies that have been formed by some
37 organizations e.g. UMCOR has helped establish FAA and AREGAK and also SMEDNC and the Business Centres support each other.
38 Table 4.1 Current organizational support roles
Support Function Clientele Supporting Type of Input organizations Production Credit Guarantor Marketing Administration Individual Groups LLCs Farmer supply ACH xx xx - - - - - xx - Vulnerable SEF - - xx - - - - xx - Subsistence Vulnerable AREGAK - - xx - - - - xx - Women ACBA bank - - xx - - - xx xx xx USDA MAP x - xx - xx - xx xx xx All types UMCOR x xx xx - xx xx - xx - FAA x xx xx - xx xx - xx - SMEDNC - - - x - xx xx - xx Entrepreneur Business Centre - - - - - xx xx - xx ASC x - x - x - xx - xx Syunik All types x - x - x - xx - xx marzpetaran AAA/Extension xx - - - - xx xx xx -
Agroleasing - - xx - - - xx xx - Entrepreneur
xx-strong support; x- weak support; - absence of support
39
40
CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
In this chapter, the team first looks at the different types of farming and rural household that currently exist in the study area. The team then considers the external factors which influence agricultural development and the future scenario for development in the study area. Based on this scenario, the team then identifies a number of development options or strategies, and relates these to the possibilities for each type of households.
5.1 Household Typology
For the purpose of analysis of findings and ease of formulation of strategies for the development of livelihood from agriculture, this study classified farming communities in the study area into three main farm types, with each type representing a specific homogeneous group of farmers. The basis for the classification was derived from the information obtained from field survey, coupled with the analysis of secondary information available to the team. These groups are entrepreneurial farmers, subsistence farmers and vulnerable farmers. The main criteria used for the classification was the use of land assets in farming, as well as use of output. Other criteria include access to credit and market (Table 5.1). The ideal of differentiating farm communities into homogeneous group is to help the analyst to better target development strategies at the group in need of such strategic development. This is due to the fact that farmers in the same problem environment are affected differently by the same problem situation, as such; different interventions are needed to bring about the envisioned development at different level.
5.2.1 Entrepreneurial farmers
These farmers are primarily businessmen - their primary objective is profit. They have sufficient capital – or enough assets to be able to borrow capital - for longer term investment. This group either has managed to accumulate a greater land area than was typical at the time of privatization, or rent land from the vulnerable farmers. Some of these farmers are registered as limited companies. This group of farmers belongs to the richest echelon of the community, and probably constitute less than 20% of households in most villages visited.
5.2.2 Subsistence farmers
These are farmers that manage to keep their heads above water. They have access to sufficient financial assets to be to be able to cultivate the land allocated at privatization and hence grow enough food to provide for the household. They often hold 2-4 cattle, which provide enough collateral to obtain the credit necessary to cultivate wheat (estimated costs about AMD 150,000 hectare). However they do not have access to sufficient capital to invest in farming as a business. They produce primarily for consumption and sell or barter less than 50% of their total output.
41 5.2.3 Vulnerable farmers
Households in this group are termed ‘vulnerable’ as they run the risk of not being able to feed themselves at the barest minimum. They lack the capital to hire machinery to cultivate their allocated land (or pay land tax), or assets to be able to take credit to do so. Hence they often rent out their land to the more entrepreneurial farmers, in a variety of arrangements (in Hartashen village the rent was quoted at AMD 30,000/hectare plus land tax; in Angeghakot 20% of the harvest plus land tax, and in Halidzor village, just 4.5 kg wheat flour per hectare). The team does not have precise figures for the percentage of households in this group, although it was cited at between 10% (Hartashen) and 70% (Halidzor). Farmers in this group are considered to be extremely poor (i.e. not food self- sufficient), and in Syunik marz the percentage of total population in this category is estimated to constitute at least 25% (UNDP, 2002).
Table 5.1 Typology of farmers in the study area
Entrepreneurial farmers Subsistence farmers Vulnerable farmers • Sell greater than 50% of • Sell between 20 and 50 • Sell or barter less than their produce. % of their farm produce. 20% of their farm • Rent in land, cultivate Sometimes selling by produce. 15-500ha bartering. • Rent out land, leave • Own farm machinery • Cultivate own land (1.5- land to fallow, or and equipment, which is 5 ha) landless. also rented out • Don’t rent in land but • Few or no assets (e.g. • Have many livestock rent out or fallow part of livestock) sufficient for such as cattle (5-50), their own land or collateral for small sheep, pigs etc. • Have livestock barely amount of loan. • Employ workers. sufficient for collateral • Can’t afford inputs for for small amount of loan farming activities.
• Often have processing (e.g. 1-5 cattle) equipment (e.g. cheese • Limited access to dairy) • Have little or no credits without machinery - usually collateral.
• Have better access to rent. credit facilities and • Have no access to market outlets. • Have limited access to market. credit and market outlets.
5.3 Driving Forces
In the course of the field survey, the team identified factors, or “driving forces”, that have a significant influence (positive/negative) on the problem situation. Changes in these factors serve as basis for thinking about the future scenario(s), which will determine available development options.
42
5.3.1 Migration
The total population of Armenia is estimated at between 2.5 and 3.7 million (see Chapter 1). In addition, 5 million people of Armenian descent live outside the country (Bezemer and Davis, 2002). Seventy percent of the resident population lives in urban centres. According to official statistics, migration is about 2.3% per year (UNDP,2002). In some of the villages visited (e.g. Halidzor) the emigration to Russia or Yerevan was estimated at about 15% per year. The main reason for migration is the lack of means of livelihood. However, one benefit of this migration is the remittances which could be a potential source of finance for home areas in the future (in agriculture or industry).
5.3.2 Social differentiation
There has been a steady increase in social differentiation since the collapse of Soviet Armenia, expressed as income inequality (UNDP, 2002). About 45% of the total income accrues to the top 12% of the population while 55% goes to the remaining 88%. As observed in the UNDP report (2002), this inequality is likely to constrain future growth. The results of the field survey also suggest a rapid process of social differentiation underway since privatization (i.e. into the 3 types mentioned above). As social differentiation continues, a large proportion of the vulnerable farmers will be displaced as their land is taken (rented or, in future, purchased) by the entrepreneurial farmers. If the vulnerable households cannot find employment on the fewer larger farms that remain, in processing of agricultural products, or outside the agricultural economy, they will be left with few other options than migration.
5.3.3 Markets and terms of trade
According to Mckinley (2002), physical output in the agricultural sector of Armenia has been growing, but without a resultant increase in farmers’ incomes. International trade polices still have considerable restrictions that tend to reduce the competitiveness of agricultural produce from developing countries in the world market. In addition, the terms of trade have not been favourable to agricultural production in Armenia, as the costs of production have increased faster than output prices. The trade blockade is also an important factor limiting access to international markets.
Agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, fuel, machinery are imported, and unaffordable by medium and small scale farmers. On the other hand, there is low purchasing power in domestic markets, and poor market infrastructure. Sisian and its rural communities are relatively remote from the main market in Yerevan. It is notable that trade by barter is still prevalent in virtually all the rural areas in Armenia.
The implication of this situation is that the increases in marginal cost of production may outweigh increase in marginal revenue, without investment. This situation is likely to exacerbate the differentiation into entrepreneurial and vulnerable households.
43
5.3.4 Inflation
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, prices were liberalised, reflecting more the true costs of production and consumer preferences. Prices rose sharply and the nation experienced a dramatic increase in the rate of inflation (see Chapter 1). But by the end of 1998 fiscal year, inflation was less than 1%. If the macro-economy remains stable, it should provide the conditions for increased inward investment in the future.
5.3.5 Irrigation System
Irrigation systems in Sisian and Goris Regions have been rehabilitated and average land area under irrigation in these regions has increased by about one-third of its size since 1999. A government programme (with IFAD loan) is continuing to rehabilitate irrigation systems in Sisian, and the trend is one of increasing areas under irrigation in the future. This will generally help increase output and reduce the shocks of occasional drought, although the access to irrigated land by vulnerable farmers may be in doubt if usage charges are significant (thereby increasing the differentiation of households).
5.3.6 Tax policy
Presently, agricultural produce in Armenia is free from tax. However, to come into line with WTO membership, agricultural produce will be taxed as from 2009. In the continued absence of purchasing power (to pass on the cost through increased prices), this will likely make agriculture less profitable, putting further pressure on small enterprises.
5.3.7 Rural Infrastructure
Rural infrastructure is in very poor condition in most of the villages visited. Rural-urban roads are substandard. Although the telephone system, electricity and pipe borne water supply are functioning, these could still be improved upon. If rural infrastructure is adequately provided and well maintained, it will attract more people to the rural areas. This will also provide market opportunity to farmers.
5.3.8 Climatic risks and crop loss
In the past, droughts (e.g. 1998) have caused considerable crop loss. Farmers also complain of frost damage. The local agricultural office only considers 1 of the past 5 years to have been a “normal” year.
5.4 Future Scenario
The team tried to analyse the above trends to construct a future scenario for agriculture development in Sisian and Goris. This scenario is summarised in Table 5.2 below.
44
Table 5.2 Future scenario for agriculture in Sisian
Future Effect Implications for strategy Most vulnerable • Entrepreneurial farmers will be the only type households will to be able to cultivate grains on a commercial cease farming basis. They also have many opportunities for intensifying agricultural businesses (dairy, A few subsistence processing, specialised seed producers, Continued farmers will machinery contractors) migration become • Subsistence households need credit to be able entrepreneurs, to continue cropping wheat for subsistence Greater social many will differentiation needs or alternative crops, as well as gradually leave opportunities for higher value products farming Fewer farmers (processing). • Vulnerable households need employment Marginal increase options, either as labourers in labour- of entrepreneurial intensive farming activities by entrepreneurs farmers. (vegetables, fruits, processing), or in the non- farm sector. • For as long as the problem of the trade Difficulties in Continued trade blockade persists, access of entrepreneurial transportation of difficulties farmers to the world market will still be bulky agricultural (blockade) limited. Strategies should emphasize low produce. volume, high value and/or non-perishable products. Opportunities for • Strategies aimed at increasing agricultural Low inflation non-agricultural activities of vulnerable, and to some extent employment will subsistence groups, are unlikely to be able to Favourable increase, but compete against non-farm opportunities. investment mainly in Migration to Yerevan is likely to continue climate Yerevan unless policy measures are put into place to favour inward investment to Syunik for strategic reasons. Less favourable High cost of input • Improved technology needed to decrease unit terms of trade. without costs. Processing and marketing costs also Tax on compensation in need to be reduced. In open markets, grain agricultural output/ prices. produced in Syunik may be uncompetitive produce. compared to regions with higher investment, larger production units, and more favourable conditions. Drought risks. Possible increases Crops requiring high investment should be More irrigated in costs. Less risk concentrated on irrigated land where risks are land. from drought. lowest. Investment for crops on non-irrigated land needs to be accompanied by crop insurance.
45 5.5 Development Options
On the basis of the future scenario envisaged, the team identified a number of potential development options (strategies) for the different types of households in Sisian and Goris Regions.
5.5.1 Large scale grain production
Sisian and Goris have traditionally been grain producing areas, and the country produces less than half of its grain needs. However, it is unlikely that grain production can provide a sustainable livelihood for farmers with the current typical land area of a few hectares, given the need for investments in machinery and inputs, the relatively low price of the product, and open competition on world markets. Thus, this strategy is only realistic for the larger entrepreneurial farmers.
The brown soil regions of Sisian are considered to be among the most susceptible to erosion, with up to 90% of the land affected (UNESCE, n.d.). If and when production intensifies under this strategy, there will be need for soil conservation measures.
5.5.2 Specialization
Options include: • Production of high quality seeds (e.g. wheat, barley, potatoes) • Machinery contracting (tractors, drills, cultivation equipment, sprayers, combines)
By virtue of their capital, or ability to obtain credit, these options are also more likely to be taken up by the entrepreneurial group of farmers (and/or local businessmen). However, the other household types will also benefit through greater availability of cultivation equipment, improved seed, as well as increased employment possibilities.
5.5.3 Livestock
Subsistence farmers in Sisian and Goris Regions normally have some livestock, which are often grazed in herds with the animals of other similar farmers. Entrepreneurial farmers may have quite considerable herds. Given the climatic conditions and the considerable grazing resources, the region has potential for livestock development, especially: • Dairy • Beef • Sheep/goats
Given that considerable communal grazing areas are available at low cost, especially on the slopes of the surrounding mountains, the possibilities of livestock rearing (especially sheep) also exist for those with relatively little privately owned land area, e.g. those currently classified as subsistence farmers. While intensive dairy may be also an option for this farm type, it is probably more realistic for entrepreneurial farmers, who have access to land for quality fodder needed for improved dairy breeds, and who can invest in
46
quality cattle and milking/cooling equipment. For subsistence farmers adopting this strategy, it will be necessary to organize in associations or cooperatives to assure the needed inputs and technical support, share milking/cooling or processing equipment, and have assured access to marketing outlets.
Livestock numbers, especially of sheep, are much less now than in previous times (see Chapters 1 and 3). However, the Caucasus Mountains are noted for their biodiversity, including wild relatives of cultivated plants (UNESCE, n.d.). The collection and roadside sale of wild products such as asparagus and different species of mushrooms was much in evidence during the time of the study. In addition, improper use of mountain pastures is a serious problem in many countries. If livestock numbers recover, measures will be needed to control grazing and hence protect this biodiversity and pasture sustainability. In addition, the team notes the presence of livestock activities in villages such as Dasterkert where there was previously molybdenum mining: given that this metal is toxic to ruminants, the sustainability of livestock rearing in these areas needs to be monitored.
5.5.4 Small scale farming with higher/added value products
If small scale farming is to provide a decent livelihood, beyond subsistence, activities need to be based on higher value products than grain. Possibilities include: • Dairy production and dairy products (cheese, yoghurts, etc), • Fruits (dried, preserves), • Vegetables (mainly for the local region, as products may be less competitive in Yerevan compared to production in e.g. the Ararat valley) • Honey (with improved quality, packaging, etc) • Herbs (dried, or pickled; cultivation of species currently collected from the wild). • Traditional vodka (the team noted 9 different sorts of vodka being produced in some of the sampled villages).
Given the need for substantial investment, training, inputs, information on and links to markets, etc., organization into farmers’ associations or cooperatives will be an integral part of this strategy.
Organic products (with higher value) could form a variation on this strategy. However, this will need a certification process not currently available in Armenia (reference from USAID-MAP organic study).
5.5.5 Rural non-agricultural enterprise
For vulnerable households, there seems to be little future in farming. They live from hand to mouth on daily basis, and their objective is focused on immediate sources of livelihood. Even if and when micro-credit is available, this is often needed for current consumption, rather than investment. In addition, it seems from the experience of the village interviews, that many households in this group do not have the motivation to become “entrepreneurs”, rather looking or waiting to be employed. Many of these households were not involved in farming until the collapse of the Soviet Union (being
47 employed in now-defunct factories located in the villages), and have no real interest in being farmers now.
Employment possibilities include: • Other farms • Processing of agricultural products • Light industry (in the regional towns of Sisian and Goris) • Rural infrastructure and public works • Tourism
The grain and livestock farms (of increasing scale) are unlikely to provide enough employment for the needs of vulnerable and subsistence households. Thus there is not likely to be considerable employment in the farm sector, unless there is a switch to more labour intensive fruits and vegetables. Processing of agricultural products (mainly cheese) is also only likely to absorb a minority of those seeking alternative livelihoods from subsistence agriculture.
If substantial jobs are to be found in the region, the most realistic source of these will be rural investment, either private (industry), or public works. Apart from the income - providing a boost to purchasing power - investment in public works such as rural roads, irrigation infrastructure would also benefit the farming sector through improved access to services and markets.
5.5.6 Migration
The only other option for a vulnerable household is to seek means of livelihood elsewhere, either in Yerevan or outside the country, even if migration as an alternative option is not easy, needing investment in travel and resettlement expenses. Government policy is to minimise migration from Syunik region for strategic purposes (First Deputy Minister of Agriculture, pers. comm.). If current trends of depopulation are to be reversed, measures to promote the location of industry in Syunik will be needed, such as tax breaks, subsidies, favourable credit or land allocation, etc. Otherwise migration will probably continue to be the only development strategy available for vulnerable households.
48
CHAPTER 6 INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT NEEDS
6.1 Background
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and privatization in agriculture, the management system was radically changed. During the Soviet time state collective farms were directed by the government and the manager of the farm was only decision maker. After privatization and the land reform, each farmer has become a decision maker of the new smaller, units. Furthermore, the old “agricultural system” completely disintegrated. The markets of the command economy disappeared and sources of inputs dried up. In short, a totally new system of support for agriculture needs to be developed. Based on the agricultural strategies identified in the previous chapter, in this chapter, the elements of such a support system will be described, together with suggestions concerning institutional roles in this system.
To explore the future support needs for farmers, the team drew up a “concept map” (see Figure 6.1) as their understanding of the situation grew, and which provided a framework for discussion, analysis and the presentation of key findings in this Chapter.
This concept map illustrates that support is needed for the different activities currently undertaken by all types of farmer and described in Chapter 3: livestock (sheep and goat breeding for meat, milk and wool; cattle for beef and dairy, pigs); crop production (wheat, barley, spelt wheat, potato); bee-keeping, small scale processing of cheese, preserves and some vodka. These activities provide the basic requirements for the support system needed.
Secondly, the concept map illustrates the aspect of farmer organization. The non- government organizations (NGOs) in Armenia recognize the benefits of collective action, and have funded and established cooperatives, associations, farmers groups to improve the input supply, machinery, production, product quality and marketing of commodities in the region (see Chapter 4 for details). International institutions have been trying to implement experience from European and American agriculture. Successful cooperatives and associations have been established by USDA-MAP and UMCOR, but it is not easy to convince people to come together and to form cooperatives, since the “hard” mentality from the Soviet time still exists. It will take time for people to change their opinion in regard to the benefits of collective action. Despite this, in the villages where there are cooperatives and associations, the livelihood of farmers is more sustainable and the interest of other non-members is evident.
Thirdly, the concept map recognises the differentiation or household typology that was described in the previous chapter. The support needs of subsistence farmers are especially acute, as these have the potential to become entrepreneurs, but also face the possibility of failing and joining instead the group of vulnerable households. Support for vulnerable households is perhaps directed at the non-agricultural sector, as analysed in the previous chapter. Entrepreneurial farmers have the potential to be service providers, as well as service users.
49 50 Figure 6.1 Future support needs of agriculture in Sisian and Goris Regions
Services needed by farmers are especially acute in the area of processing and marketing, as well as input provision. A suitable policy environment (on taxation, subsidies, import/export assistance) is needed to provide the enabling conditions at national level for this support infrastructure, as well as regularising land ownership and titling, encouraging proper research and the development) extension services. (e.g. in soil, crop varieties, feeding of livestock, breeding).
In addition, the team found it useful to conceptualize this support at different levels (see Fig 6.2). Elements of a support system need to be in place at all levels. For example, a regional system of fertilizer distribution is of little use if there is no importation or no national production. Similarly, farmers will not be able to market their produce if there is no demand for this at regional, national or international levels, and exporting agricultural produce will require a commodity or marketing chain with links (actors or agencies) at all levels: regional, national and international.
Figure 6.2 The hierarchical framework for analysing support needs
In the following sections, the team considers support needs at the different levels in the different areas, considers the potential role of different actors, and looks at the implications for the different farm types.
6.2 Marketing
The main problem cited by farmers in most interviews was the difficulty in selling produce. The only national developed market is in Yerevan and it is difficult to transport produce and have access to the individual shops there for producers in Sisian and Goris. The agro- processing factories after privatization are not functioning in most of the marzes, so this market outlet is also limited.
The purchasing power of the national and especially regional population is low, so that products (fruits, vegetables, milk, meat, honey and others) are not sold at a “good” price, even
51 if they have a good quality. On the other hand, Sisian and Goris have potential as highlands to export temperate agriculture products to the lower parts of the Republic (e.g. Yerevan).
Exports also face difficulties. Closed borders preclude trade with the neighbouring countries of Turkey and Azerbaijan. The land route to the other countries of the former Soviet Union and the Black Sea port is difficult. Developed countries such as those in the European Union require a high product quality and “tracing”.
6.2.1 Market linkages
Few marketing channels have been established at the regional, national and international levels, and much produce is currently bartered locally. Purchasing organizations play an insignificant role; wholesale market services do not exist or are perceived to pay too little. Farmers (especially vulnerable and subsistence farmers), try to sell directly to consumers or just exchange through barter in the villages.
The current linkages between farmers and processors are very weak. There are very few processors in the region; mainly cheese production, which does act as a market outlet for milk at the regional level. There is no processing to act as market outlet for fruits and vegetables in Sisian or Goris. The few processors that exist are powerful in dictating the prices of products.
Linkages between producers and processors cooperatives from different marzes are still very weak. At a national level, there is a need to form producers/processors cooperatives or associations which can act as a lobby in policy making, facilitate entry into international markets, and perhaps also regulate in some way production (so as to avoid gluts in the national market and hence maintain prices at viable levels).
USDA and UMCOR have valuable and successful experience in establishing producer- processor-marketing cooperatives in different marzes of Armenia. These have established strong linkages between producers and local processors, and between processors and national/international markets. The livelihoods of people in villages where there are cooperative and associations are obviously more sustainable than others.
Due to initiative of the more successful associations, the FAA was formed to act on behalf of its membership at the national level. The FAA is getting support from UMCOR and other NGOs, but its limited resources are insufficient to expand activities in the short term. In the longer term, it needs both capacity building and a more assured government or external donor support.
Unfortunately there have been few USDA and UMCOR activities in Sisian and Goris Regions (with the exception of the Akhlatian, Boty and Lake Balak dairy associations), so there is need to expand and utilize their experience in these regions. This could be done by promoting exchange visits by NGO staff active in Sisian/Goris or groups of farmers to successful cooperatives in other regions, or by temporarily hiring in expertise from these. It could be assisted by encouraging participation of local cooperatives or groups in associations at the national level, where these exist.
52
6.2.2 Processing and Product quality
Local produce faces not only the lack of market as such, but also reduced competitiveness due the poor quality of homemade produce, which often does not conform to food quality standards. Product labelling and brand recognition has not been developed, and so products cannot compete in national and especially international markets.
In this case also USDA-MAP has supported individual entrepreneurs and producer-processor cooperatives in improving product quality, and packaging to international standards (cheeses and other milk-products, wines, juices, fruit and vegetable canning). Under these conditions, it has been demonstrated that there is a demand for Armenian products, and that these can compete internationally.
In particular, the value of mutually beneficial arrangements between entrepreneurs and associations of subsistence farmers has been demonstrated by the experience of USDA-MAP and UMCOR. This aspect could be of value to those NGOs that normally consider subsistence or vulnerable groups as their primary target group.
The experience of improving technology in processing and packaging is an aspect that could be utilized (e.g. through training) more effectively by other NGOs, as well as the ASC in Syunik, which currently stresses production (rather than processing or marketing), as well as support to local entrepreneurs. This could be taken care of by the above mentioned agencies as well, through closer relationship with the ASC.
6.2.3 Price stability
Another problem faced by farmers in Sisian and Goris Regions is that prices for produce have fluctuated wildly, especially in the case of perishables (potatoes, vegetables, and fruit). This is normally caused by the limited capacity of the local markets to absorb any over production, given the lack of outlets at national/international level. Individual farmers receive little information on expected market prices and are not organized to negotiate.
To solve the problem, there should be appropriate planning at regional and national level on how much to produce given the demand and projected national production, leading to voluntary control on production volume. Such regional producers associations can also play a role in identifying national outlets and negotiating prices with wholesale buyers. The alternatives of government quotas on production and/or floor prices are unlikely to be acceptable politically.
6.2.4 Support roles in marketing
USDA, in cooperation with the AAA, has established the Agribusiness Training Centre. This centre can provide training in agribusiness for future managers of cooperatives, and farmers’ organizations, with NGO funding or co-financing. The USDA sponsored training in agro- processing and the requirements of export markets (e.g. resource persons from Europe and US have been used to train local cheese makers at Kalinino) can also be capitalized upon by extending these trainings to other cooperatives and organizations in Syunik marz, or using persons so trained as trainers, contracted by local NGOs or the Marzpetaran, to assist others in cooperatives in Sisian and Goris Regions.
53 The ASC could be encouraged to play more of a role in providing processing technology and market information (e.g. prices, outlets), in addition to (or instead of) the emphasis on production technology information. The current channels of the “Agrolratu” journal and television programmes could be used for this role.
The FAA as a national institution can help establish new cooperatives, through training in establishment, registration, administration, regulation, as well as the promotion of coordination between local cooperatives in different regions which have similar interests (national level producers associations). For the FAA to fulfil this role, it will need additional resources.
SMEDNC in close cooperation with AgroLeasing LLC could assist entrepreneurs or cooperatives with guarantees for longer-term loans to buy or lease equipment and infrastructure such as packing/bottling plants, cold stores, trucks, etc., and to carry over stocks, as well as in providing training in business administration.
ACH needs to give additional support to establishing market linkages and outlets for their established groups. In this they can usefully seek collaboration with other agencies with more experience in this field.
6.3 Credit
6.3.1 Current situation
NGOs such as SEF and UMCOR-AREGAK have provided valuable assistance to subsistence farmers and vulnerable households by providing credit through organized groups. Entrepreneurial farmers in some cases have also obtained credit through banks such as ACBA. In spite of this assistance, credit availability and use is still not widespread, and the current situation is characterized by: • High interest rates (1.2-2.5% per month), compared to current inflation (which is close to zero) – at least in the opinion of farmers. • Lack of longer-term credit (e.g. for equipment which can be amortized over a longer period than one crop production cycle). • Short term credit for vulnerable groups is often used for consumption (school fees, clothes), rather than productive investment. • Problems on credit guarantees and mortgaging. • Complicated procedures on application and business-plan discussions in credit providing organizations. Unrealistic business plans which are used mainly to justify loans, but which are subsequently not followed. • Limited number of commercial banks and unfavourable conditions for credit returns (especially in rural villages). • Lack of required collateral by vulnerable and some subsistence farmers. • Lack of sufficient collateral-free loans for vulnerable farmers to be able to cultivate their crop fields. • Short term training (1-2 days) by NGOs (international, foreign and local commercial) in business and administration, with insufficient and systematic follow-up, with consequently decreased effectiveness. • Entrepreneurs in modern business lack knowledge on organization and management of enterprises, marketing, advanced technologies and other professional skills.
54
6.3.2 Support needs
Given the above situation, support needs to improve credit for productive agricultural development include:
• More opportunities for credit for vulnerable groups. Many of the groups established by ACH need credit at favourable terms to be able to increase their activities to a point whereby they can provide the basis for a sustainable livelihood (even at near subsistence levels). Even AREGAK credit tends not to reach the most vulnerable groups: although collateral is not needed, it is still considered risky. • Capacity building among credit groups to make more realistic business plans, and support in the implementation of these (technical training, business and management training). • Micro-credit for non-agricultural activities – or even migration - for vulnerable households, given the limited possibilities for this type of household to become commercial farmers. • Longer term loans needed with grace period and (relatively) low interest rates, for entrepreneurial farmers (especially for processing) and producer/processor cooperatives.
6.3.3 Farmer organization
Group lending, as provided by WVI and AREGAK has proved very successful. The pressure on group members ensures low default rates which keeps the price of credit low and offers the possibility of commercializing such lending operations. Group lending is therefore likely to remain a feature of credit for subsistence and vulnerable households.
However, there is scope for linking credit groups and producers/marketing groups, so that clients can use this credit more effectively (e.g. for production, processing, machinery purchasing, renovation etc), in conjunction with more realistic business plans. Experience with credit provision to cooperatives such as the Golden Goat and Arpi (meat processors) Cooperatives could be used to provide members with inputs (seed, agrochemical, fuel etc.) and widen possibilities of agro-leasing.
For entrepreneurial farmers, credit provision could be organized through producers associations at the national level, as well as from commercial banks. So later entrepreneurs with the same interest could get credit and look for investment opportunities. Lastly, the needed support for training of entrepreneurial farmers in organization and management of enterprises, marketing, advanced technologies and other professional skills, could be implemented through small enterprise ‘clusters’ and business support associations and collaboration of other institutions.
6.3.4 Institutional roles
WVI-SEF and UMCOR-AREGAK should continue to expand their current credit programmes to the extent possible. For vulnerable households, encouragement should be given for non-agricultural micro-enterprises, as well as credit (on favourable terms) to assure production which can meet household food needs. These organizations should also seek opportunities to link credit to productive investment being facilitated by other organizations
55 (e.g. the activities of ACH). These institutions could provide stronger support in development and adherence to business plans.
ACH should seek ways of creating linkages with credit providing agencies, to enable the established groups to expand their operations to a sustainable level.
ACBA bank should continue its programme to provide regional offices, to allow farmers easier access and lower transaction costs. The bank should also seek to promote longer term- lending for infrastructure and equipment.
National and regional government could accelerate the process of land titling, to enable land to be used as collateral.
SMEDNC should continue and expand business trainings for entrepreneurs, and also for NGO personnel and credit providing institutions. SMEDNC’s role to provide the needed guarantees should be enhanced.
The ASC could also gradually adopt a greater role in business and administration advice, in addition to their technical emphasis, if future financial support and staffing levels allow this.
All actors need to find ways of increasing the sharing of experience and lessons learned.
6.4 Machinery
Farm machinery dates from the Soviet time, is very old and is costly to maintain. Large machinery designed for state farms is less useful in the smaller plots of privatised farms. The recently imported machinery from Japan and China can only fill a small proportion of the national need.
Entrepreneurial farmers can play a vital role as contractors, providing services to subsistence and vulnerable farmers. Alternatively these services could also be organised on a cooperative basis, as in the case of the UMCOR CAP in Vayots Dzor and Ararat marzes (see Chapter 4). But support is also needed at the regional and national levels to ensure a supply of new machinery and spare parts. Foreign machinery companies should be encouraged (through tax incentives, grants of land for installations, favourable credit, subsidies, etc.) to establish national and regional dealerships or concessions in Armenia.
In the short term, NGOs can play a useful role in seeking to increase the access of subsistence and vulnerable farmers to machinery – and more importantly spare parts for the aging soviet machines (if available) - either in partnership with entrepreneurial farmers, or through establishing cooperatives similar to those of UMCO- CAP.
6.5 Production Inputs
In Syunik marz and in Armenia in general there is limited availability of good quality inputs such are seeds, fertilizers (especially phosphorus, potassium and trace elements), pesticides, etc. The result is production levels (e.g. for grain) that are still far below those obtained in the Soviet era.
56
In addition, because of their unavailability, whatever knowledge that existed on the use of such inputs is fading or becoming outdated. Extension agents lack knowledge about new agrochemicals and their use. Control mechanisms for the quality and safety control (seed certification, regulation of agrochemicals) have yet to be developed. Seed quality control mechanisms, agrochemicals sale control and certification are yet to be developed.
Similar to the case of machinery, entrepreneurial farmers can play an important role in provision of high quality seed (e.g. wheat, barley, potato), if they have access to foundation seed to multiply. For this they will need linkage at the national or international levels with national research centres and the producers of elite/foundation seed. A number of seed associations have emerged, and these need encouragement to strengthen their activities at regional and national level to arrange for importation, development or testing and subsequent multiplication and certification of promising material.
Producer associations at national level could also play a role in importation and regulation of appropriate agrochemicals. These could be distributed through regional input cooperatives or private dealerships, which can assure provision to local farmers at acceptable prices (through bulk buying, transportation and centralised storage facilities). National policy measures can encourage these processes in a way similar to that suggested for machinery above. SMEDNC could provide the needed loan guarantees to establish the necessary dealerships in Syunik.
The ASC needs to continue its role in giving technical advice to farmers on the availability of agricultural inputs and their appropriate use under different conditions and on different soils. In this, the team notes with some concern the apparent lack of financial sustainability of the ASC.
6.6 Insurance
The risk of crop loss through drought, frost or epidemic is a discouragement for credit uptake and productive investment. While the increased provision of irrigation will go some way to alleviating the risks associated with drought, the provision of crop insurance would also facilitate future investment in agricultural production and possibly reduce the need for future humanitarian assistance. The team is not sure of the feasibility of such insurance at the present time, but a regional or national scheme, organized along commercial lines, through national producers associations or even through regional or local village government, is a service that could be investigated by the ASC or Marzpetaran agricultural office. Depending on the organization, such a scheme could benefit all farm types.
6.7 Land Registration
The overwhelming majority of agricultural land and output is now in small family or peasant farms. Nevertheless, the village interviews indicated that not all households have the assets or motivation to cultivate, and that much land is either rented out or left uncultivated. Inevitably, there will be a process of land consolidation into more viable economic units and more commercial farms in the future. An accelerated process of land registration (titling) and development of the necessary regulations/legislation will enable those households that have little interest in farming to sell up and use the capital obtained for other purposes. Having land title will also allow land to be used as collateral and hence improve credit availability for
57 investment. An assessment of the potential of agricultural land should help in setting sales prices.
6.8 Regularization of farmer groups
Farmer groups such as those established by ACH, and even some of the credit groups established by SEF have the potential to consolidating their success by becoming more formal cooperatives of the type supported by USDA-MAP and UMCOR. The success of these cooperatives has led to the establishment FAA, which has the objective of supporting such cooperatives and farmers associations.
For continued support to the production groups established to date, ACH could usefully liaise or collaborate with the FAA to provide these groups with the information that can help them decide if more formal registration is the right course of action in their particular circumstances, as well as advise farmers of the relevant legislation, tax implications etc., and provide training on business planning, administration and management of cooperatives.
6.9 Research and Extension.
As can be seen from the discussion in the previous section, the team believes that questions of markets (and hence agro-processing), inputs and farmer organization are more important than production technology per se (appropriate use of inputs notwithstanding). The impression of the team is that much of the agricultural research and extension in Armenia, for example that organized and carried out by the AAA is largely directed at production technology, with less emphasis on economic aspects such as competitiveness, markets and social aspects such as farmer organisation (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the fact that the state largely organized production and directed the destiny of the produce obtained). Given the needs of the new agricultural and rural system, an increasing emphasis on these “non production technology” aspects is warranted in the future.
6.10 Inter-agency Collaboration and Coordination
It was observed that there is little coordination and collaboration among the different institutions that provide support to farmers (see chapter 4). This observation relates both to government agencies and non-governmental organizations. Lack of coordination results in poor planning and in duplication of effort by agencies. Organizations are setting their priorities separately and in some cases these do not relate to the needs of the farmers or the priorities set by the Marzpetaran. Coordination and collaboration among various agencies should take the form of regular meetings, joint training, farmer-to-farmer exchange visits and sharing of resources.
At the regional and marz levels, there is no forum where NGOs and government departments meet to discuss development issues. Only agencies that have some mutual relationship are currently coordinating, for example UMCOR, FAA and AREGAK or SMEDNC and the Business Centres. Both FAA and AREGAK were formed through support from UMCOR. The Business Centres are a service provider for SMEDNC-supported entrepreneurs. There are opportunities, however for organizations to learn from each others’ experiences and coordinate at various levels, the local, regional, marz and national. (See Figure 6.3) Agencies
58
like ACH and SEF can learn from experiences regarding formalization of groups from UMCOR and FAA. The marketing experience of USDA-MAP can also be useful to other organizations like ACH.
At the local level, vulnerable and subsistence farmers can organize themselves into groups and cooperatives for services like input procurement and tillage. These groups can in turn form federations of cooperatives and groups. Most farmers are not aware of the advantages of cooperating and relate this to the Soviet time collective farms. They can however operate individually but come together for services like input supply and machinery procurement. It is suggested that vulnerable farmers can organize themselves into groups and cooperatives. Entrepreneurial farmers can form commodity-based associations so that they can have more power regarding production and marketing issues. The experiences of the FAA in other marzes (e.g. in Ararat) could be worth adapting. Given enough resources and support, the FAA can expand its services to other like Syunik.
At the level of the region, there should be a coordinating body that meets regularly to discuss development issues. The formation of the ‘Sisian Union of Communities’ through support provided by GTZ was a step in the right direction. The union is a forum to discuss development issues in the region and consists of community representatives, mostly the mayors. The functions of the union are limited by inadequate funding and the fact that some villages are not members. It is suggested that the mandate of the current union be broadened to include coordination of regional development. This body should meet regularly, e.g. once a month to discuss planning and implementation of projects and support to farmers. All non- governmental organizations operating in the region should attend these meetings to present project reports and plans. Such an initiative could be extended to other regions. The main determining factor will however be finance.
At marz level, the Marzpetaran should play a proactive coordination role by holding regular meetings with both government departments and NGOs working in the marz. Coordination meetings can be held once in two months, given the travelling involved to get to Kapan, the capital of the marz and the resources required to conduct such a meeting. The Marzpetaran would need financial and other forms of support to be able to hold regular meetings.
Coordination of (agricultural) activities at the national level could also be improved so that better forms of support can be provided to the farmers. The Ministry of Agriculture already hosts coordination meetings through the Agricultural and Rural Development Coordination Unit; these could be intensified to include representation of the main farmers associations and cooperatives. At the moment, for example farmers have some reservations on the tax system and VAT. There is however no mechanism to exchange information with the ministry and other government bodies. NGOs can also form a national forum to discuss development issues and advocate on behalf of the farmers.
For coordination to be more effective there is need for training and capacity building at various levels. At the local level, farmers should be exposed to various forms of organization, e.g. cooperatives or associations and the advantages of cooperating with each other. Financial resources are also needed to strengthen the coordinating agencies e.g. the Marzpetaran or ASC. NGOs that are implementing projects in Syunik can set aside a fund for coordination meetings. SMEDNC is currently coordinating initiatives to develop a regional development plan in the context of OSCE support. Coordination mechanisms and activities should be emphasized as important elements of such a project.
59
In future, it is suggested that agencies should collaborate with each other and that coordination meetings should be held regularly at various levels (see Figure 6.3).All actors supporting rural livelihoods in Syunik should strive to find ways of collaborating and coordinating activities in order to learn from each other and share experience, with the ultimate aim of improving their effectiveness in improving rural livelihoods.
60
REFERENCES
Armenian Agricultural Academy Extension Department and United States Marketing assistance Program (2003) Annual Report 2003 on the activity of the USDA MAP Supported milk- marketing Consumer Cooperatives. Unpublished report. Yerevan.
Bezemer, D. and Davis, J. (2002) The rural non-agricultural economy in transition countries: findings from Armenia Natural resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Kent.
FAO 2000a. Special Report. FAO Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission to Armenia. 8 August 2000. Available online at www.fao.org/docrep/004/x8408e/x8408ee.htm Accessed 22 March 2004.
FAO 2000b. Special Report. FAO Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission to Armenia, 5 October 2000. Available online at www.fao.org/docrep/004/x8408e/x8408ee.htm Accessed 22 March 2004.
ICRA (2003a) Agricultural Research for Development. A general Procedure. Learning materials available on CD: Training Materials on Agricultural Research for Development. ICRA. Wageningen.
ICRA (2003b) Rural Appraisal Methods. Approaches. Learning materials. Available on CD. Training Materials on Agricultural Research for Development. ICRA. The Netherlands
Khachatrian, H. (2001) ‘Study shows over half Armenia’s population in need of government assistance’. EurasiaNet. Available online at: www.eurasianet.org
Marmarian, Y. (1997), The present state and problems of sheep-breeding in Armenia. Armenian Agricultural academy, Yerevan, Armenia.
Ministry of Agriculture , 2004. Agricultural Sustainable Development Strategy, Draft. Ministry of Agriculture, Yerevan.
National Statistical year Book, (1999), Yerevan, Armenia.
Syunik Martpetaran 2004. Syunik. Available at www.syunik.am/english. (accessed April 10, 2004).
UNDP 2004 Human Development Report. Available online at: http://hdr.undp.org/default.cfm (accessed 18 May, 2004)
UNDP 2002. Growth, Inequality and Poverty in Armenia. A Report of a UNDP mission on the Impact of Macro-economic Policy on Poverty Available online at www.undp.am/publications/poverty/gipa/main.htm (accessed 18 May 2004)
UNESCE , n.d. Environnemental Programme Review, Armenia. Available online at: http://www.unece.org/env/epr/studies/armenia/contents.html
World Bank (2000) Making Transition Work for Everyone: Poverty and Inequality in Europe and Central Asia. Washington. World Bank.
61
62
APPENDIX 1 INITIAL OBJECTIVES DEFINED BY THE PARTNERS
The original objectives of the study, as agreed by the institutional partners in the Terms of Reference, are given below:
General objective of the study
To identify the institutional support needed to develop sustainable livelihoods from agriculture in Sisian and Goris Regions of Syunik Marz, Armenia.
Specific objectives of the study
1. To provide a vision for future agricultural development in Sisian and Goris Regions.
2. To identify agro-ecological, economic, social, institutional and political constraints to the development of current and potential agricultural activities in Sisian and Goris Regions.
3. To identify constraints to the consolidation and sustainability of the farmer groups already established by ACH and similar organizations, and suggested improvements to the support offered by these organizations.
4. To identify the support needed to strengthen established cooperatives, and establish new ones, that could provide the basis for future activities by the Federation of Agricultural Associations.
5. To identify opportunities for productive investment, which can provide the basis of future activities by the SMEDNC, World Vision SEF, and other micro-finance initiatives.
6. To identify the potential of small and medium business development as a catalyst to the growth and support of community development in the Sisian and Goris Regions.
7. To identify technical, economic and administrative information needs of rural groups and farmers, which can form the basis of activities by the Agricultural Support Centre and similar extension efforts provided by NGOs in the area.
8. To identify research needs and activities which could support future agricultural development efforts in the region, and which could form the basis of local farmer research groups supported by the Agricultural Support Centre and the Armenian Agricultural Academy.
9. To identify areas and ways in which the above mentioned and other stakeholders interested in the development of Sisian and Goris Regions can improve coordination and improve the overall synergy of institutional support to village groups and farm enterprises in these regions.
63
64
APPENDIX 2 STATISTICAL TABLE FOR GORIS AND SISIAN REGIONS
Sisian Region s s s Y
s s d d d s he he T y e t t t eas e it
s i de ds n ied ians ion den ad a u r of of ha/ UNI m is able ar de lan de lan de lan o m N ed ar eas eholds M ed ar nar at gr e lands i a a a n ga ea/ ehold plot ber ber r d lands lands iv ar M o ar ney r us s e nd gr r i eget r gat able lands ar t gr i uit gr gr p O r t populat r r V P V aget 3- Com e h h 2- ho r S r s t t A Ag C I F V r Nom Nom Hou I 1- 4- 5- 1 Sarnaku 568 128 4 7 0 371, 4 527,3 430 187,1 4172 10 1042 10 22 1252 0 0 10 2604 2 Lor 380 83 1 0 0 1,8 40 72,9 50,5 1790 31 135 31 21 134 10 0 3 1572 3 Getat agh 210 79 0 3 0 0 122,7 57,5 0 2176 10 131 10 17 156 6 0 20 1616 4 Darbas 785 359 5 17 0 96,6 432,1 124, 1 10,7 2809 95 525 95 35 558 47,7 0 48 1720 5 A shota v 617 161 8 6 0 161 136 146, 5 104,7 1716 20 372 20 20 385 0 0 20 978 6 Gorajk 600 128 4 6 0 768, 8 440,5 883, 6 67,8 6757 0 1005 0 31 1518 0 0 0 4549 7 Salvard 460 86 0 3 0 291, 7 261,9 94 118,2 3144 22 608 22 22 555 0 0 22 2564 8 Tanaha t 67 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1152 0 50 0 5 78 0 0 2 378 9 Muc k 377 89 1 1 0 218, 1 521,5 346, 2 158,1 2452 28 465 28 23 921 0 0 28 2452 10 Bnun is 185 80 0 3 0 77 256,2 155, 1 14,9 1716 20 406 20 27 414 12 0 20 1300 11 Cghu k 451 107 0 4 0 7 616,3 550, 7 100,5 5092 7 1098 7 9 911 0 0 7 3984 12 A rev is 93 28 0 2 28 112, 4 58,6 140, 3 71,5 1830 8 119 4 5 123 0 0 8 897 13 Lc en 170 60 3 3 0 0 187,9 94,5 5,1 1596 11 249 4 11 272 0 0 11 925 14 Hacavan 266 90 2 2 15,5 52,6 189,3 131, 3 46,3 803 35 283 35 13 383 0 0 30 468 15 Toruniq 275 69 0 1 0 68,2 85,3 71,8 114,2 1860 7 196 0 10 192 0 0 7 1640 16 Balak 225 45 1 1 0 99,5 249,8 140, 5 122,3 1068 24 110 24 24 524 0 0 24 34 17 Shen ata 414 143 0 1 0 72,6 17 55,3 88,1 4384 12 150 12 15 152 0 0 12 4095 18 Noravan 525 131 13 4 0 418, 8 247 232 254,3 3416, 9 85 465 85 17 700 12 0 0 2762 19 Shag hat 1065 260 2 0 0 514, 6 466,7 267, 4 54,3 4829 35 842 0 35 1033 0 0 0 3351 20 Tolors 450 112 0 1 0 134, 8 269,4 53,2 125,4 2085 102 433 102 22 491 0 0 0 1178 21 A ngheg h 1920 557 7 5 69,5 578, 5 866,9 349 124,8 4759 75 1095 75 110 1639 0 0 75 3006 22 Span dar 502 102 0 3 0 250, 6 242 289, 2 100,2 2376 15 589 15 15 749 0 0 15 1574 23 V aghati n 757 255 4 3 0 329 350,6 167, 1 99,3 4082 60 685 60 28 880 22 0 26 3289 24 Dastake 350 122 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1026 6 17 0 4,5 6 0 0 6 6 25 Tasik 260 107 5 4 53,1 303, 9 148,5 36 42,3 1914 34 477 34 14 437 0 0 24 1420 26 A ghitu 387 136 1 0 0 83,4 194,6 538, 1 33,9 1944 0 308 0 23 679 0 0 2 57 27 Shaq e 1313 350 9 5 0 541, 7 897 543, 4 298,2 6067 20 1183 20 64 1776 21 0 26 4753 28 A khlatian 624 198 3 2 0 238, 1 297,6 235, 2 155,3 3391 15 631 15 21 1014 0 0 155 2738 29 Sof lu 206 42 0 1 0 67,7 243,3 118, 8 189 2881 13 205 13 14 432 0 0 50 2637 30 Ujc 599 198 5 4 0 789, 7 384,1 28,4 52,5 3300 26 631 26 38 968 7 0 15 1814 31 Brnakot 2352 779 19 8 0 553, 1 605,3 491, 2 484,2 5153, 1 13 1779 13 149 1904 0 0 13 3125 32 Ishkhana 217 56 2 1 0 90 244,3 190, 7 164,7 1918 0 101 0 10 660 0 0 26 737 33 V orotan 289 80 0 1 0 18,8 180 191, 4 87 1824 50 311 41 31 393 24 0 33 1341
65 34 Sis ian 19800 4800 42 36 0 269, 1 407 155, 4 380,5 3674 6 831 6 145 1025 18 0 150 1403 Total 37759 100 38 141 140 166,1 7580, 5 10187 7380, 8 3905,9 99157 895 17527 827 1050 23314 179, 7 0 888 66967 66 N Pigs Cattle sheep Trucks Poultry chicken Pastures Bee-hives Combines machinery Minitractors Wood lands Fallow lands Fallow Grub-tractors COMMUNITY Wheel-tractors Small ruminants Rented-off lands Other agricultural 1 Sarnakun 1312 1146 0 127 665 726 670 18 574 530 20 35 12 0 15 0 35 2Lor7787540552563573110310285312110500 3 Getatagh 841717035815414311742502200420002 4 Darbas 867 724 0 270 523 1070 931 50 1091 985 137 11 8 1 9 0 0 5 Ashotava 585298334530535521012900850199553700 6 Gorajk 3315 1174 0 0 1507 907 865 4 1102 920 60 55 18 0 12 0 0 7 Salvard 1889 511 0 7 580 360 340 30 640 611 1508621201 8 Tanahat 340 66 0 0 54 0 0 4 325 305 150000000 9 Muck 1130 626 62 62 400 1330 1250 22 607 590 110 16 6 2 11 0 0 10 Bnunis 726 471 0 0 241 215 207 2 1150 1047 42552002 11 Cghuk 2039 1642 0 144 1400 641 300 40 550 520 0 35 8 10 0 0 81 12Arevis3434640600127716321959546000000 13Lcen36652503791272702408260241155200400 14 Hacavan 14623503190140100103502500392500 15Toruniq9955750095250205060054520020000 16Balak18063600211226206438435181330500 17 Shenatag 1460 2355 0 0 420 1000 950 0 300 270 3125510012 18 Noravan 1429 832 0 0 308 980 700 58 840 680 180655000 19 Shaghat 2007 951,5 105 414 1003 1423 1068 35 1410 1271 306 14 3 3 12 0 0 20Tolors91018301003043683041024922325432401 21 Anghegh 1145 1942 320 164 1110 1632 1020 42 2130 1900 95 15 40 11 25 0 2 22 Spandary 644 654 0 145 850 935 870 10 790 715 112 10 8 1 12 0 0 23 Vaghatin 1948 1101 0 0 538 1035 970 12 1200 1050 330 10 2 3 20 0 2 24 Dastaker 3070001601101020150135110000200 25 Tasik 1098 167 0 4 273 493 461 7 750 697 204522800 26 Aghitu 847 328 0 67 90 215 205 15 531 505 40 27 Shaqe 2121 1655 0 50 869 1036 927 81 1066 910 372 23 0 0 53 0 0 28 Akhlatian 1453 812 0 6 743 832 794 7 896 855 194 11 6 1 12 0 0 29 Soflu 1172 2325 0 0 132 145 117 0 109 87 780002500 30 Ujc 688 856 0 0 220 332 228 25 468 329 27 10 8 1 2 0 9 31 Brnakot 1025 637 243 157 1247 996 960 33 2100 1920 324 36 12 9 73 0 11 32 Ishkhana 210368484019628427451008060410205 33Vorotan699478040157520160225021517100603 34 Sisian 268 767 0 666 950 955 829 122 5415 5150 225 20 25 5 19 1 50 Total 35283 26976 1247 3863 16405 20352 16954 674 28042 25337 4493 357 205 66 360 1 216
Goris Region
rz a
ot Y he y T n t s e ands t ands m ands ands ands ans ent o d i d pl r ands ha/ mists uni abl / at UNI t nm ed areas ya nari N ed ares a i m d by hol e l e r ed areas er of i ade l ul t no ade l ade l ade l ade l M e t r s gardens e g e b i t o e r e t ga abl are gr gr gr at r t Vin V e pop h h v Com gov rri i A Ag Frui V I r COM rrage Nom Hous I 1-s 4-t 5-t 3-rd gr P 2-nd gr N range 35 1 Qashuni 32 0 0 0 12,3 22 46,5 14,4 715 3 75 3 4 60 0 0 0 36 2 Shurnukh 110 0 0 50,2 111,6 49,6 88,4 9,5 883 4 4 4 40000 37 3 Tegh 2480 4 2 137,1 485,1 1283,7 398,4 214,4 3148 115 1960 115 86 2106 62 0 39 38 4 Hartashe 675 5 4 0 164,7 542,8 225,3 42,2 3099 45 640 45 30 610 0 0 8 39 5 Vaghatur 472 0 3 0 6,3 240,2 224,1 53,2 1650 15 393 15 14 425 16 0 4 40 6 Aravus 161 0 0 0 10,6 194,1 13,5 0 435 10 168 10 6 155 0 0 0 41 7 Verishen 2283 7 5 0 12,1 152,8 194,1 537,4 2486 54 431 54 54 79 0 0 9 42 8 N.Khndz 171 1 1 50,1 277,5 124,1 20,5 67 618 15 400 5 5 530 0 0 0 43 9 Qarahunj 1235 4 1 0 9,6 342,4 218,8 255,5 1916 90 613 90 54 475 54 4 30 44 10 Qarashe 580 5 6 0 168,8 166,9 147,2 165,7 1382 60 533 60 20 498 5 0 10 45 11 Shinuhaj 2678 8 4 0 0 683,4 806,1 124,9 3056 21 1252 21 70 1380 52 0 0 46 12 Harjis 919 2 2 0 200,7 356,4 336 273,9 3386 15 897 15 50 900 0 0 2 47 13 Svaranc 380 0 1 0 52,6 118,5 114,2 75,5 1628 7 229 7 19 196 5 0 3 48 14 Barcrava 188 0 1 0 85,6 153,6 36,3 68,6 1105 3 270 3 17 303 2 0 0 49 15 Tandzata 96 0 0 0 0 27,1 43,9 82,9 732 1 86 1 6 67 7 0 0 50 16 Kornidzo 1247 3 6 24 470,7 340,3 433,7 83,1 2418 55 1049 55 26 1166 61 0 71 51 17 Kcot 930 4 2 0 92,4 277,7 229,8 37,5 1797 0 555 0 41 470 49 0 10 52 18 Kcocnav 440 1 0 4,9 50,5 126,6 153,7 111,3 1622 18 378 18 23 344 5 0 2 53 19 Khnacac 1080 1 0 0 143,2 523,1 531,8 175,9 2941 0 968 0 22 1008 19 0 0 54 20 Tatev 1028 2 3 0 173,3 263,9 138,2 323,9 6573 27 473 27 60 565 23 0 4 55 21 Kcndzore 1960 11 13 0 29 929,5 669,4 429,9 7405 60 1629 60 60 1682 0 0 0 56 22 Halidzor 685 5 0 0 71,5 189,7 274,8 141,7 2430 0 535 0 10 521 26 0 12 57 23 Akner 1089 0 1 0 69,2 258,6 45,2 5,9 1818 83 319 83 36 158 0 0 0 5824Vorotan29210000003155550000 59 25 Goris 29870 320 125 0 74,7 597,5 151,5 605,3 5030 0 929 0 234 1050 0 0 0 Total 51081 384 180 266,3 2772 7964,5 5541,4 3899,6 58304 706 14791 696 956 14748 386 4 204
67 68 s s t s
d
s Y r n l t s y s s r s n r y o T a a s d o d d s I r t a r b t
n e en
n n y n e to e c i n r u e d N c r ves z n r a s c t a a n i i t e ff l m r e a l i ke l m U r u la g a l h r ttl b o h n g eep N u c h u - t ucks e l -t w a M tr st - n h c r c r Pi i m d er ma i Ot s C a b ee- a T v e Pou n ll r llo chi ood eel i t u Pa o B a Co a ma h n agr W g Sp M N r F COM Gr e m W R S 35 1 Qashuni 13 260 367 0 0 000000 36 2 Shurnuk 0 425 222 0 75 000000 37 3 Tegh 340 405 465 160 18 1850 3000 2450 28 4700 3300 245 28 16 14 67 0 24 38 4 Hartashe 0 856 2459 0 0 830 350 330 125 1300 1120 150 15 7 3 30 0 15 39 5 Vaghatu 62 542 653 34 0 1000 1250 670 45 300 250 70 5 2 1 19 0 9 40 6 Aravus 42 45 0 36 0 310 550 450 20 800 570 0 2 3 1 6 0 4 41 7 Verishen 42 934 1079 0 0 1550 1370 1100 185 2470 2150 290 13 0 1 25 0 12 42 8 N.Khndz 130 67 44 0 0 135 64 40 15 406 390 0 5 3 0 9 0 6 43 9 Qarahun 50 1053 160 40 0 421 1465 1225 65 1305 1210 72 9 6 2 22 2 6 44 10 Qarashe 70 382 397 23 0 647 1160 812 0 619 580 23 10 10 4 40 0 32 45 11 Shinuhaj 250 217 1337 180 0 738 1515 1100 103 3500 2900 127 10 5 7 36 0 12 46 12 Harjis 53 550 1598 0 160 730 1196 821 100 2500 2100 470 15 13 6 38 0 14 47 13 Svaranc 59 800 0 0 0 265 350 280 30 750 670 10 4 1 1 8 0 6 48 14 Barcrava 52 546 152 0 85 185 295 210 31 280 215 15 3 2 0 5 0 5 49 15 Tandzat 16 217 413 0 0 110 115 75 0 215 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 16 Kornidzo 204 115 1050 120 0 668 628 425 28 2286 2134 80 10 10 2 18 0 14 51 17 Kcot 50 75 1117 50 0 576 450 320 30 1800 1650 60 7 2 2 26 0 11 52 18 Kcocnav 57 680 507 0 0 415 879 667 25 518 480 239 7 7 3 10 0 7 53 19 Khnacac 321 620 1032 0 0 1091 2050 1980 104 1736 1022 454 14 10 4 37 0 21 54 20 Tatev 175 2112 3778 0 35 740 720 470 47 950 670 185 12 6 1 30 0 11 55 21 Kcndzor 241 2969 2566 241 0 1945 1520 1340 28 3500 3300 70 18 13 5 13 0 24 56 22 Halidzor 22 73 1730 22 70 450 300 250 30 720 550 51 10 5 3 6 0 7 57 23 Akner 21 770 708 21 0 1047 314 290 44 1278 1100 32 12 4 1 28 2 15 5824Vorotan2002000422551070650000000 59 25 Goris 2732 1500 0 0 270 1713 2058 2039 313 9870 8500 998 10 3 1 17 5 15 Total 5022 16213 21854 927 713 17458 21624 17349 1406 41873 35086 3641 219 128 62 490 9 270
APPENDIX 3 RESEARCH PLAN
Central Question: What institutional supports needs are required for sustainable livelihood from agriculture in Sisian and Goris Regions?
Secondary and tertiary questions Research Questions Potential Answer Information Needs Choice of Methods Expected Output What are the perceptions of farmers regarding Individual, informal Advantages/disadvantages SSI Typology of farmers in the group activities/cooperatives? groups, cooperatives of various form of groups study area • How do farmers organise their farming and associations observed in the study area activities (individually or in coop-s, or associations esc.) • What are the constraints and opportunities of the informal groups to become agric. Cooperatives? • Do these informal groups need formal registration? • What are the weaknesses/strengths of current farmer organization?
What are the information needs for farmers Information on markets, Identify sources of SSI Recommendation for the regarding future agricultural development? input, Technology, information and where improvement of information • What are the sources of information for farmers productions, research information is lacking. dissemination to farmers and • What are information needs of the farmers? findings, etc. also intensification of research • What are the current research programmes in focus on socioeconomics and the Region? agricultural marketing in the study area. What are the factors influencing agricultural Input availability, Sources of inputs and SSI Identification of main factors productivity in the study area? machinery and relative accessibility of the affecting agricultural • How could the availability of good seeds be equipment, irrigation inputs to all types of productivity in the study area. improved? facilities, storage farmers in the study area. • How can agricultural facilities and facilities, credit, etc. infrastructures be more available and accessible to farmers? • How could fertilizer availability be increased? • What technological limitations or potentials exist? • How could availability of farm machineries and equipment be improved? • Could irrigation system be improved or rehabilitated?
69 70 Research Questions Potential Answer Information Needs Choice of Methods Expected Output • How could current agro-processing activities be improved? • Do farmers have storage facilities? • How accessible is farm land to farmers and how could this accessibility be improved? • How are common property managed? What are the current livelihood activities? Grains, potato, Different types of SSI Short description of major • What is the relative importance of all vegetables and fruits, livelihood options and livelihood activities in the agricultural activities as means of livelihood in Cattle breeding, sheep alternative activities; and study area focusing on trends the study area? breeding, bee keeping, the relative ease to shift to and future possibilities. • Are the farmers (farmer typology) engaged in herbs gathering, etc. the alternative activity other livelihood activities? • Do farmers (farmer typology) have opportunity and skills necessary to shift to other activities? • Could the farmers make a living from their current agricultural activities? What are the limitations to accessibility of Banks, credit We need to know current SSI List of credit organizations financial opportunities by various type of organizations, NGOs, limitations and future and their credit/loan system, farmers identified in the study area? etc. Limitation in the possibilities of improving interest rates, repayment, • What are the various sources of finances for access of credits. credit systems and grace period, etc. agricultural activities in the study area? accessibility to all • How can the current constraint to access categories of farmers. finance be overcome? • How can the credit/loan system be improved? • What are the possibilities to get financial recourses? • How do farmers currently access finance? What are the marketing constraints and .Inadequate marketing Current marketing SSI Marketing channels, prices development options for different types of channels, poor channels, constraints, and promotion of all ranges of farmers in the study area? road/transportation opportunities and various products identified. • Where do the farmers market their product? system, low prices, poor forms of marketing Recommendations on • What are the constraints and opportunities for packaging, absence of promotions. marketing associations for the farmers to enter the market? processing/ storage improvement of their services. • How can the marketing channels for facilities, etc. agricultural produce be improved and expanded? • How are the prices set? • What are various forms of market adverts available in the area?
What is the potential for institutional linkages Poor collaboration and Possibility of effective and SSI Effective and efficient way of and collaboration in support of agricultural coordination between efficient collaboration for collaboration and coordination activities in the study area? the NGOs and; the the improvement of the recommended. • What forms of support are currently available NGOs and Government. integrated institutional to farmers in Goris and Sisian? supports to increase the • What integrated institutional supports are pace of agricultural needed to speed up agriculture development in development in the study the study area? area. • How can the institutional framework for agricultural policies be strengthened? • What collaborative efforts are needed to improve the livelihood from agriculture? • How can the efforts of various actors concerned be coordinated for effectiveness? • What is the relevance of government policies in The effects of Current policies affecting SSI agricultural activities? Government policies various aspects of • What are the current government policies are not felt by various agriculture such as on agricultural production, marketing, categories of farmers. production, marketing, agricultural export/import, agribusiness Major inputs such as insurance, taxation, land investment, tax, etc.? fuel, seed and fertilizer ownership and acquisition, • What are the effects of these policies on are less available in the agro-investment, etc and current agricultural production? market and are also how it could be improved • How could government policy be very expensive. in the future. improved in the future?
71 72
APPENDIX 4 TIME TABLE
When Date What How Who Where Stakeholder(s) Involved Expected output WEEK 1
Monday april 26 Arival in Armenia By Air All team members Yerevan - Settling at Guest house in Yerevan
Obtaining an initial feed back and plan meeting ACH, Alumni, (WVI, USDA, Additional information collected and feed Tuesday april 27 Formal inaugural meeting Monitoring group, Alumni Extensin Department, AAA, Yerevan with monitoring group AAA, UMCOR back from comments
Wednesday april 28 Travelling to Sisian By road All team members Yerevan - Arrival and settling at Sisian
Thursday april 29 Meeting with main counterpart Brief introductory meeting All team members ACH office, Sisian ACH Getting to know one another
Acquire more information on the study area Friday april 30 Conduct reconnaisance visit to study area Driving round the villages All team members Sisian and Goris ACH fro further planning
WEEK 2
Improve context "system of interest", context Incorporate comments from first meeting Comments fom alumniincorporated research question etc Monday mei 03 All team members ACH office, Sisian - Arrange for logistics, invitation schedule, Prepare for introductory workshop Invitation for workshop sent etc Use map of Syunik marz and other Selection of villages and key informants Villages and key informants selected information
Interview with key informants of SMEDNC Group interview with discussion All team members SMEDNC office in Sisian SMEDNC Director More information on SMEDNC obtained
Tuesday mei 04 Revised version of the time table produced, Review of time table and work plan Group discussion All team members ACH office, Sisian - summary of the interviewees produced
New insights into the TOR, Suggestion for Interview with ACH Key informant discussion Sub groups ACH revision of research plan
ACH, WV, AAA, UMCOR, Wednesday mei 05 ACH office, Sisian Workshop presentation Follow programme plan All team members SMEDNC, Farmers, BC, ASC, Feedback on research instruments/plan etc. Intimate them with tools and Good understanding of the study by the Briefing of the interpreters Sub groups interpreters terminologies interpreters Conduct interview with 2 farmers' groups and two Farmers' groups plus 2 Focus group method Sub groups Balack individuals individual farmers. Thursday mei 06 Raw data collected for review Checking for errors and inconsisitent Review of respondents information Sub groups Basen Hotel Complex, Sisian - information Conduct interview with 2 farmers' groups and two Farmers' groups plus 2 Focus group method Sub groups Getatagh individuals individual farmers. Friday mei 07 Raw data collected for review Checking for errors and inconsisitent Review of respondents information Sub groups Basen Hotel Complex, Sisian - information Review data collection and copile information in 4 sub groups All team members collected Saturday mei 08 Basen Hotel Complex, Sisian - First draft of chapter 1 Progressive report writing Submit individual assignment Moderator
73 74
When Date What How Who Where Stakeholder(s) Involved Expected output
WEEK 3
Conduct interview with 4 farmer's groups and 4 Dasterket (3 groups 3 individuals); Farmers' groups plus 4 Focus group method individuals Torunik (1 Group, 1 individual). individuals Monday mei 10 Sub group Raw data collected Checking for errors and inconsisitent Review of Respondents information Basen Hotel Complex - information Darbas (1 group, 1 individual); Conduct interview with 4 farmer's groups and 4 Farmers' groups plus 4 Focus group method Vorotan (2 groups, 2 individuals); individuals individuals Tuesday mei 11 Sub group Norovan (1 group, 1 individual). Raw data collected Checking for errors and inconsisitent Review of Respondents information Basen Hotel Complex - information Review data collection and complete Analyse information collected All team members, Wednesday mei 12 information collected Review/formulate research questions ACH office, Sisian - Draft report Moderator Meeting with monitoring group Formal meeting Conduct interview with key informants from WV WV, Agric Dept of Syunik Group interview with discussion WV and agric Dept offices in Sisian and agric Dept of Syunic marz marz 2 sub groups Checking for errors and inconsisitent Reviews of respondent information Basen Hotel Complex - information Thursday mei 13 Raw data collected for review Collect information from 2 farmers' groups and Ishxanasar (1 group), Tasik (1 Farmers' groups plus 2 Focus group method 2 individuals group). individuals 2 sub groups Checking for errors and inconsisitent Reviews of respondent information Basen Hotel Complex - information Analyse information collected by sub Revise data collected Friday mei 14 groups and report writing All team members ACH office, Sisian - Analysed data compiled in formal report Report writing Compile results from data analysis
Week 4
Collect data from 3 farmers' groups and 3 Farmers' groups plus 3 Focus group method Aghitu (3 groups, 3 individuals) individual individuals Monday mei 17 Sub group Raw data collected for review Checking for errors and inconsisitent Review of Respondents information Basen Hotel Complex - information
Collect data from 2 farmers' groups and 2 Farmers' groups plus 2 Focus group method Tolors (2 groups) individual individuals Tuesday mei 18 2 sub groups Raw data collected for review Checking for errors and inconsisitent Review of Respondents information Basen Hotel Complex - information Analyse data for progressive report writing All team members with Report presented to reviwer for comments Wednesday mei 19 Discussion with reviewer ACH office in Sisian - Preparation of report for external reviewer reviewer and modifications Meet with external reviewer
Interview with WVI and 2 individual farmers per Sub group Angeghakot Group interview with discussion Farmers' groups Raw data collected for review village Thursday mei 20 Sub group Goraik Revision of questionnaire with WVI group Group discossion All team members ACH office in Sisian -
Interview with SMEDNC clients Focus group method Sub group Sisian Entrepreneur (3) Friday mei 21 Raw data collected for review Interview with farmers Individually/formal group interview Sub group Brnakhot/Uits 3 individual farmers
When Date What How Who Where Stakeholder(s) Involved Expected output
WEEK 5
Travelling to Goris By road All team members Take off from Sisian Farmers' groups plus 4 individuals Arrival at Goris and Settling
Monday mei 24 Interview with ASC, BC, Aregak and youth club Group interview with discussion Sub group Respective offices in Goris ASC, BC, Aregak and youth club Raw data collected for review Farmers' group plus individual Interview warmers' groups and 2 individuals in Goris Focus group method Sub group Selected villages in Goris region farmers Farmers' group plus individual Interview warmers' groups and 2 individuals in Goris Focus group method Sub group Selected villages in Goris region Raw data collected for review Tuesday mei 25 farmers Travellin to Kapan By road All team members Take off from Goris - Arrival at Kapan and Settling
Interview with head of Agric Dept in Kapan Group interview with discussion Kapan Agric Dept. Raw data collected for review All team members Wednesday mei 26 Return to Sisian By road Take of from Kapan - Arrival at Sisian and settling Comments from team members Discussion of Richard's report Fromal meeting Richard ACH office in Sisian All team members incorporated Comments from team members Discussion of Richard's report Fromal meeting Richard All team members incorporated Scenario planning Group discossion All team members - Thursday mei 27 ACH office in Sisian Meeting with Vagho and Suren Formal meeting All team members - Focus reviewed
Review of research question and report writing Compile results from data analysis All team members Draft report
Friday mei 28 Observe public holiday but activities may be scheduled depending on the work load
Sunday mei 30 Travelling to Yeghegnadzor By road All team members Yeghegnadzor/RP village - Arrival in Yeghegnadzor and settling
Week 6
Collect data from 3 farmers' groups and 3 individual Focus group method Sub group Herman and Sali villages USDA associations Raw data collected for review Monday mei 31
Travelling to Yrevan By road All team members - Arrival and settling
Tuesday juni 01 AAA, USDA, UMCOR, Interview with key informants in Yerevan Formal interview and discussion Sub group Yerevan Raw data collected for review Deputy minister of Agric
Wednesday juni 02 Meeting with monitoring group Formal meeting Monitoring group Reviewd focus All team members Return to Sisian By road Sisian - Arrival and settling
Thursday juni 03 Interview with 2 farmers' associations Focus group method Yeghegnadzor/RP village UMCOR Associations Formal interview and discussion (on the sub groups Raw data collected for review Interview with USDA USDA office in Yeghegnadzor USDA way to Sisian) Analyse information collected by subgroups and Friday juni 04 Compile results from data analysis All team members ACH office in Sisian - Draft report report writing
75 76
When Date What How Who Where Stakeholder(s) Involved Expected output
WEEK 7
Monday juni 07
Tuesday juni 08 Draft report writing, interview with Banks and Modality to be worked out later Wednesday juni 09 other relevant outstanding stakeholders
Thursday juni 10
Adjust plan/time table Revised time table
Complete report notes collected by individual team Circulate draft report notes Friday juni 11 Formal meeting All team members ACH office in Sisian - members
Clear understanding on the financial status of the Discussion on finances team
Saturday juni 12 Review notes, comment and give feedback Formal meeting - Revised report outline/report format All team members ACH office in Sisian Incorporation of feedback, suggestion into Individually/informal team Sunday juni 13 - Individual formal draft report report meeting Week 8
Preparation for the final workshop (invitation Invitation for worksho sent and venue arranged and arrangement of venue) Monday juni 14 Incorporation of feedback, suggestion into Individual formal draft report report Individually/informal team meeting Preparation for the final workshop (invitation Tuesday juni 15 Invitation for worksho sent and venue arranged and arrangement of venue) All team members Incorporation of feedback, suggestion into Individual formal draft report report
Presentation of first draft to reveiwer Draft report reviewed by reviewer ACH office in Sisian - Formal meeting Wednesday juni 16 Full preparation for the final workshop Invitation for worksho sent and venue arranged (slides, visuals, charts, etc.)
Thursday juni 17 All team members Comments and feedback from the reviewer Second meeting with reviewer Discussion with reviewer members with reviewer obtained
Friday juni 18 Incorporation of feedback, suggestion into report Individually/informal team All team members Individual formal draft report Saturday juni 19 meeting Report writing Sunday juni 20
When Date What How Who Where Stakeholder(s) Involved Expected output WEEK 7 Individually/informal team Individual formal draft report merged Monday juni 21 Final report writing All team members ACH office in Sisian - meeting into a single document Preparation for the final workshop (invitation and Follow programme plan All team members ACH office in Sisian - Feedback for modification arrangement of venue)
Tuesday juni 22 Final workshop in Sisian Powerpoint presentation All team members ACH office in Sisian All stakeholders Modification incorporated
Incorporation of feedback, Wednesday juni 23 Formal report editing All team members ACH office in Sisian - Report presented suggestion into report
Travelling to Yerevan By road All team members Yerevan - Arrival and settling
Thursday juni 24 Final workshop in Yerevan Powerpoint presentation All team members Yerevan All stakeholders Modification incorporated
All team Final meeting with monitoring Friday juni 25 Formal meeting members/Monitoring Yerevan - Comments for feedback group group
Saturday juni 26 Travelling to Sisian By road All team members Sisian - Arrival and settling Week 8
Monday juni 28 Final editing of draft report Formal report editing Helen Copies of final draft report
Preparation for report Modify presentation slides Noah and Narine presentation in Wageningen used in Yerevan
Tuesday juni 29 Final editing of draft report Formal report editing Helen and ZC - Individual formal draft report
Preparation for report Modify presentation slides Noah and Narine presentation in Wageningen used in Yerevan ACH office in Sisian Printing and binding of final Designated team As occasion serves report members
Final meeting with and formal ACH, WV, AAA, UMCOR, Wednesday juni 30 submission of final report to Formal meeting All team members SMEDNC, Farmers, BC, Draft report distributed to stakeholders clients, stakeholders ASC, etc.
Farwell Programme To be arranged All team members All well wishers Response from stakeholders
Thursday juli 01 Travelling to Yerevan By road All team members Yerevan - Arrival and settling
Friday juli 02 Free
Saturday juli 03 Departure By air All team members Wageningen ICRA Arrival and settling
77 78