Small Farmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province, Afghanistan

Home , Baghlan Province

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Office of Evaluation

Small Farmer Livelihoods and Income

Enhancement in Baghlan Province, Afghanistan – GCP /AFG/053/GER

Final report

March 2013

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Office of Evaluation (OED)

This report is available in electronic format at: http://www.fao.org/evaluation

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected] .

For further information on this report, please contact:

Director, OED Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 Rome, Italy Email: [email protected]

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Table of Contents

Table of Contents i Acronyms ii Acknowledgment iv Executive Summary v 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background and purpose of the evaluation 1 1.2 Methodology of the evaluation 2 2 Context of the Project 3 3 Concept and Relevance 5 3.1 Design 5 3.2 Relevance 10 4 Implementation 13 4.1 Budget and expenditure 13 4.2 Project management 14 4.3 Technical backstopping 17 4.4 Government Support 19 5 Results and Contribution to Stated Objectives 20 5.1 Outputs and outcomes 20 5.2 Gender issues 34 5.3 Capacity Development 35 5.4 Sustainability 36 5.5 Impact 38 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 41 Annexes 47

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Acronyms

AALP FAO’s Alternative Agricultural Livelihoods Program ACD Agricultural Cooperative Department of MAIL AFG Afghanistan AFAOR Assistant FAO Representative AFS Afghani AGK Aga Khan Foundation A.I. Artificial insemination AKF Agha Khan Foundation ANDS Afghan National Development Strategy APP Agricultural Production and Productivity Programme BAP Baghlan Agricultural Project financed by Germany BDS Business Development Service BL Budget Line BMELV German Federal Ministry of Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection BTF Bilateral Trust Fund of BMELV with FAO BTO Back-to-Office CBO Community-based Organization CDC Community Development Council CAP Community Action Plan CP Counterpart DAIL Provincial Department of MAIL FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations FAOR FAO Representation FAOAF FAO Country Representation in Afghanistan FAO-RAF FAO Regional Office for Asia and Far East FBO Farm-based Organizations FS Food Security GCP Government Cooperative Programme GDPP MAIL’s General Directorate for Extension, Policy and Planning GoA Government of Afghanistan GO Government Organization HQ Headquarters LFA Logical Framework Approach LoA Letter of Agreement LTO Lead Technical Officer LTU Lead Technical Unit (major FAO backstopping unit) M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAIL Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock of Afghanistan NADF National Agricultural Development Framework NBSC New Baghlan Sugar Company NGO Non-Government Organization NPD National Project Director NTS National Technical Specialist PIK Pul-e-Kumrhi PRT Provincial Reconstruction Team SALEH FAO’s Sustainable Agricultural Livelihoods in Eastern Hazarajat

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

SP Private sector service provider SOO Senior Operations Officer SPOO Senior Project Operations Officer SWG Sector Working Group ToR Terms of Reference ToT Training of Trainers TSS Technical Support Services, i.e. services provided by FAO staff UNAMA United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan USD United States Dollars

iii

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Acknowledgment

The evaluator would like to thank all project stakeholders, in particular the project staff, officials of FAO at headquarters and country representation, and managing staff of the MAIL and the DAIL (Baghlan Province) who contributed to this evaluation. Discussions were always frank, fruitful and stimulating, providing insights to the multi-dimensional issues related to the project and livelihood of people in Baghlan Province.

The author of this report is especially grateful to Mr M. Aslam Hamidi, the Technical Officer in charge of the Project in Baghlan Province, and his staff; Mr. Moeen ud Din Siraj and Mr Ahmad Faraz, Operations Officers in the FAO Country Office Afghanistan (FAOAF); Mr David Kahan, AGS Lead Technical Officer (LTO) for the Project, and Mr. Bernd Bueltemeier, Evaluation Officer (FAO Evaluation Office, Rome), for the time and effort put into ensuring that the evaluation could fulfill its function.

Finally thanks are due to all people who provided support to the mission in one way or the other. Every cooperative visited gave a warm welcome to the mission, and project staff provided thoughtful and comprehensive accounts of their activities.

Evaluator and timing of the exercise

The evaluation mission was originally expected to consist of the mission leader, Mr. Matthias Grunewald, Socio-Economist, FAO Consultant, and the Government representative, Mr. Saboor Shirzad, Director General of Alternative Agricultural Livelihoods of the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL). The participation of the latter did eventually not materialize, mainly because of the unpredictable schedule of the field trip due to the security situation.

Originally the evaluation work in Afghanistan was planned to take place from 12-25 March 2012 (11-26 March, i.e. 16 days including travel; 7 days were reserved for report writing (total duration of employment planned to amount to 23 days). De facto the evaluator’s mission lasted from 11 March (departure from Germany) to 29 March as the field trip to Baghlan had to be delayed by 4 days because of the security clearance (therefore actual duration of employment 27 days). This enabled the author of this report to design two surveys covering the heads of the 30 cooperatives and a sample of the direct beneficiaries. Some of the seven days planned to be spent on evaluation report writing were in reality also used for mission preparation and survey report writing.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Executive Summary

ES1. The FAO Project under evaluation, together with other projects, is financed from a German Trust Fund which supports livelihood development of small farmers in Afghanistan. It is a follow-up to the project Rehabilitation of the Sugar Industry in Baghlan which faced agronomic problems. The 3-year Project under evaluation actually started in January 2009 and is presently scheduled to end in June 2012. Its current total budget is US$ 2,024,636.

ES2. The Project is part of the portfolio of the German bilateral trust fund that the donor has set up in FAO. The three major parties, i.e. FAO and the Governments of Afghanistan and Germany promote similar approaches and concepts such as livelihoods, the right to food, farmer-based organizations and market-led agricultural development.

ES3. The one-man evaluation mission lasted from 11 March to 29 March 2012 and included a 4-day stay in Baghlan province. With the exception of the donor all major stakeholders could be consulted. A mix of methods and instruments were used including a standardized questionnaire which was tested and administered for heads of cooperatives and members of interest groups. This resulted in an impact survey report that prepared by the evaluation consultant right after his mission.

ES4. Baghlan Province covers a total area of 21,112 km², has 15 districts and 1,645 villages with an estimated population of 1,122,350 people. Many people are illiterate and have experienced food insecurity. The majority of the population depends on subsistence farming with some production for the market. The Baghlan river plains are fertile and have a potential for increased diversified production of fruit and vegetables. Pul-e-Kumrhi, the provincial capital, has good road connections with Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif.

ES5. The design of Project 053 was basically sound, the intervention logic generally consistent. The immediate objective, increased income levels for small farmers in the Baghlan province , once fulfilled, was expected to contribute to its development objective, improvement of food security and livelihoods of small farmers and their families. The Project had two components: (i) the strengthening of organizational, managerial and institutional capacity , and (ii) the promotion of increased farmer value addition and access to markets . The strategy of the project made sense and the management structure, as it was planned, looked suitable for project implementation. The Project was embedded in major Government development strategies and followed priorities of the three parties involved.

ES6. The weaker parts of the project document included: The farmer-based organizations which the Project was expected to strengthen were only vaguely described in the Project Document. The Project’s location in the MAIL and the Government departments/units to strengthen were not described. Not all indicators were of good quality. Critical assumptions/risks such as the one related to the security situation should have led to more clearly formulated fallback strategies.

ES7. Only about 10 % of all expected expenditures have gone to the budget category Salary for Professional , a very low share for an FAO technical cooperation project. Consequently there has been little activity in areas such as developing concepts, policy advice and normative work. The expenditures for equipment and training are much higher than anticipated at Project formulation stage. This reflects the relatively stronger than planned emphasis on production-related interventions during Project implementation.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

ES8. During the inception phase a survey was carried out but benchmark data for describing the baseline situation in terms of indicators listed in the logframe do not exist. The planned farm models and budgets were not prepared but the general description of farming systems have, in consultation with the target group, led to the Project’s areas of interventions. The semi-annual progress reports document comprehensively what the project was doing but only sporadically what has been produced and achieved.

ES9. Formally neither project management nor steering mechanisms are in place. The Ministry’s ‘oversight of all phases of project implementation’ announced in the Project Document did not materialize. The Project Steering Committee has never been set up. A Chief Technical Advisor foreseen for the whole project duration was on the Project’s payroll only 10 months after project start up at the end of 2009 and left already 9 months later. The National Field Manager could not be recruited at all. The National Technical Specialist who took post right from the project’s beginning is de facto managing the Project on a daily basis in Baghlan province and is operationally assisted by the Senior Operations Officer in the FAO Representation in Kabul.

ES10. The Project team , at the time of the evaluation consisting of the National Technical Specialist, three Field Assistants and a Finance and Administration Assistant, organized and implemented a large number of project interventions. They were supported by more than half a dozen government counterparts from the DAIL, the Provincial Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock of Afghanistan. Additional project implementers comprised private companies, an advanced specialized cooperative, a government department (cooperatives), and an international and several national consultants on short-term assignments.

ES11. FAO’s Lead Technical Unit backstopped the Project effectively but not sufficiently with its Technical Support Services missions as the security situation prevented field visits most of the time. During his second visit in 2011 the Lead Technical Officer could initiate critical activities of the second component. The follow-up of FAO staff in Kabul ensured the recruitment of an international Marketing Consultant and the involvement of a national Consultant Team for business development services.

ES12. The type of capacity generated is predominantly human as opposed to institutional capacity. In a number of agricultural and non-agricultural intervention areas the training of trainers approach proved to be working successfully. This led to large numbers of farmers and their families receiving support in the form of different types of training courses and demonstrations as well as agricultural inputs, tools and equipment; an impressive performance, especially in view of the problems of hiring staff ready to work in difficult situations, and keeping in mind that security measures did not allow Project staff to move freely in the project area.

ES13. Project implementers like DAIL staff not only gained practical experience in supporting agricultural production, processing and marketing, but also received training in numerous fields. They are believed to be capable of replicating activities in other areas after the Project yet may not have the necessary resources to do so. ES14. Thirty instead of the envisaged 24 cooperatives benefited from Project interventions, i.e. 16 % of all cooperatives in Baghlan province. Approximately 3500 cooperative members and their families received inputs from the Project directly. Thereby the number exceeds the target of 2000 families by far. While especially the managing boards of cooperatives and their

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 families have benefited in more than one area, 20-30% of all cooperative members have not received any project inputs.

ES15. Direct production support areas included: establishing and maintaining orchards, intercropping in orchards, livestock feed and fodder, artificial insemination, poultry rearing, bee-keeping, vegetable (seed) production, provision of improved rice seed, poplar cultivation, vegetable processing and solar drying. In addition the Project helped to build a bridge across the Baghlan river connecting people to the market, cleaned an irrigation canal and conducted a number of 9 month literacy courses for men and women.

ES16. There could have been more efforts in project monitoring and internal evaluation . Indicators were hardly used in monitoring the results of project activities. The impact evaluation survey foreseen has not been realized but an effort has been made during the evaluation mission to make up for this. The Project is relatively weak in result-orientation and –documentation. Conclusions from most types of farmer support activities have yet to be drawn.

ES17. The Project and this evaluation are rather gender-biased . Gender issues are not considered in the Project Document although a National Gender and Social Development Expert was expected to be engaged for a period of two months. There is no female Project staff and only few women could be interviewed during this evaluation. Backstopping officers from FAO have been exclusively men so far. A few female staff have been involved as Project’s implementing partners especially in the literacy courses, in poultry and beekeeping training. The direct recipients of the Project’s equipment and services were predominantly male although it is recognized that a substantial part of the work in the Project’s intervention areas is carried out be women.

ES18. There are a number of indications that the Project has achieved its immediate objective . Many support activities have led to a more diversified production base and already resulted in increased income of farmers and their families. The average estimate of 30 cooperatives heads on their members’ agricultural income increase due to project activities was above 50% compared to the before-project situation. The income is expected to increase further once the fruit trees come into full production and marketing of produce is further improving.

ES19. It can also be said with confidence that there is a positive contribution of the Project to its development objective . Improved household food security has been achieved in two ways, through a greater variety of nutritious food produced and consumed by farm families, and through the increase of income from selling farm products promoted by the Project. Heads of all 30 cooperatives with which the Project had worked were convinced that the contribution of Project activities to food security and livelihoods of small farmers and their families was substantial.

ES20. However , neither have cooperatives become self-reliant nor have beneficiaries been formed into self-help groups. The problems of a lacking credit system and the absence of saving schemes have not even been addressed. Contractual arrangements with input-traders or processors have not been made and group marketing is hardly practices so far.

ES21. So far only an estimated 16% of all cooperative members of Baghlan province have benefited directly from the Project’s activities in one way or the other. There are however indications in several areas that the technology introduced by the Project is spreading among vii

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 farmers. For instance, farmers are reported to multiply and share improved vegetable seed with others who are either their cooperative members or other farmers outside their cooperative.

ES22. The Project has no exit strategy yet which would consolidate achievements; assess and compare the different Project interventions; document approaches and procedures; complete databases; and prepare the different stakeholders for the after-Project situation. The Project’s NTE date at the time of the evaluation is 30 June 2012. Activities of the current work plan prepared by the LTO in collaboration with the Senior Operations Officer (SOO) and the National Technical Specialist are ongoing and are unlikely to be fully completed until then. The remaining balance of the project budget was USD 405,427. It is recommended to initiate a no-cost extension of the Project until 30 November 2012.

viii

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and purpose of the evaluation

1. The German Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture (BMVEL) via its bilateral trust fund has financed several projects executed by FAO in Afghanistan. Among them is the Project under evaluation, GCP/AFG/ 053 /GER 1 which carries the title Small Farmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province . According to the Project Document this project was to start in March 2008 and to be completed in February 2011. Its original budget was USD 2,043,429.

2. The project aims to promote income enhancement for small farmers in the Baghlan province through improved farmers’ organizations, value addition and market linkage development. It was to build on lessons learned in the region during the implementation of another project of the trust fund, GCP/AFG/038/GER ( Rehabilitation of the Sugar Industry in Baghlan ), and the experiences gained by FAO in the implementation of livelihoods diversification and enterprise development projects in Afghanistan.

3. The 3-year Project under evaluation actually started in January 2009 and is presently scheduled to end in June 2012. Its current total budget is US$ 2,024,636. The main expected beneficiaries were the 2,000 small farmer families originally targeted by GCP/AFG/038/GER.

4. The terms of reference (TOR) of the final evaluation (see Annex 1) state that ‘the evaluation will be appraising the overall contribution of the project towards the set goals and objectives’ and that ‘the main objective of the evaluation is to assess the approach of the project and the outcomes and to provide recommendations to support designing and implementing similar projects in the future.’ the TOR further explain that ‘in particular, the evaluation will document the lessons learned by the project stakeholders and the effectiveness of the project in creating conducive environment to ensure continuation of the project approach beyond project life.’

5. The evaluation of the project was originally planned for November 2011 to assess the project outputs and outcomes during the preceding 30 months, but was postponed to March 2012 for two reasons: travel to Baghlan in winter can be difficult, and an impact evaluation survey that had been planned was not yet conducted.

6. The evaluation benefited from the presence of the Lead Technical Officer (LTO) of the Project during the first days in Kabul and from the generous help granted by the Technical Officer in charge of the Project in Baghlan Province including his staff who drafted the field visit schedule and accompanied the author of this report throughout his mission. Documents and logistical assistance were provided by the operations officers of the FAO Representation in Kabul.

______1 In the following called ‘the Project’ or ‘Project 053’.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

7. The evaluation briefing and debriefing process included the Government and the FAO Representation. In addition, the evaluation officer in charge for the exercise at FAO HQs participated in the debriefing of the mission in Kabul on Tuesday, 27 March 2012. A debriefing session at FAO HQs foreseen in the TOR was dropped.

8. Whereas a summary of evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations was already prepared for the debriefing in Kabul, and the impact survey report was sent in April 2012, due to health problems of the evaluation consultant the complete draft evaluation report could only be submitted at the beginning of November.

1.2 Methodology of the evaluation

9. The desk study comprised the review of documents such as the Project Document, the Inception Report, maps, progress reports, back-to-office (BTO) reports, contracts and letter of agreements (LoAs), budget revisions, project workplans, end-of-assignment and completion reports of implementing partners and service providers as well as notes and tables prepared by national project staff. In addition, it involved internet research which led, among others, to the discovery of a very relevant research done as part of a Master degree study at the University of Wageningen on cooperatives in Baghlan province covered by the Project.

10. In Kabul, visits in the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL) included the Department of Alternative Agricultural Livelihoods and the Department of Cooperatives. In Baghlan Province various locations in three districts were visited (see Annex 2); they included the Project’s office, the artificial insemination (A.I.) station rehabilitated with the assistance of the Project, the bridge constructed with Project support, the Baghlan Agriculture Project (BAP), several cooperatives some of which were used by the Project to provide services to other cooperatives (e.g. in the field of apiculture), a literacy group of women, and farms of people who received support in poultry keeping and orchard establishment.

11. Discussions were held among others with (i) project staff in the FAOR Office and in the Project office at Pul-e-Kumrhi (seat of the provincial government), (ii) government staff in departments of MAIL and DAIL (Baghlan Province), (iii) cooperative committees and their individual members in cooperative offices, (iv) interest group members (direct beneficiaries) in their fields and homesteads, (v) literacy course trainers in training rooms; and (vi) their supervisor as well as the head of the only women cooperative with which the team is working at the Project office.

12. Checklists were prepared for field visits, group discussions and interviews with resource persons. Standardized questionnaires were drafted, tested and administered for heads of cooperatives and members of interest groups (direct recipients of project inputs). Databases were designed for the two surveys and on the 30 cooperatives the project is working with.

13. This report includes, among others, results of the author’s impact survey report which is based on analysis of data originating from cooperative heads. The database was filled by project staff. The second survey designed targets a larger number of direct beneficiaries (ordinary cooperative members). The questionnaire for this survey is attached as Annex 12.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

2 Context of the Project

14. Baghlan is one of the 10 largest 34 provinces of Afghanistan. It is situated about 250 km north of Kabul. 60% of the province is considered mountainous or semi-mountainous while 40% is classified as flat or semi-flat. Baghlan has 15 districts (see maps in Annex 11) which cover a total area of 21,112 square kilometers 2. Seventy-eight percent of the province’s cultivated land is concentrated in five districts located in the north and east due to the proximity to the Baghlan River which plays an important role for irrigation. Primary all- weather roads connect Pul-e-Kumrhi with Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif. Pul-e-Kumrhi, the provincial capital and urban centre of Baghlan Province, and towns like Doshi are established marketplaces. The infrastructure connection to main regional and national market places indicates good potential for future economic growth.

15. According to the 2008 Census, Baghlan Province has a total of 1,645 villages with an estimated population of 1,122,350 people 3. The composition of population in terms of ethnicity is: 52% Tajik, 20% Pashtun, 15% Hazara, 12% Uzbek. The Project Document of 053 has pointed out that a large proportion of the rural population is illiterate. Subsistence farming predominates although there are signs of growing markets for food products. Most farmers lack skills in market-oriented production and in productivity enhancing farming techniques. A substantial proportion of the population seems to be food insecure.

16. Fertile soils enable a double-cropping agriculture showing a good production potential that is only limited by extensive frost periods during the harsh winter season. The river plains are fertile, and there are comparatively few areas affected by water logging and high salinity which decrease productivity. Today, wheat and rice production still dominate but development initiatives promote crop diversity. The total crop production in 2008 was estimated at 428,636 metric tons, consisting of grains (79%, mostly wheat), vegetables (12%), fruits (8%) and fodder and industrial crops (1%). The main agricultural products of Baghlan province next to wheat are: Baghlan brand rice, cotton, potato and fodder crops like alfalfa, maize as well as vegetables and fruits like: carrot, onion, tomato, okra, melon and water melon. Farmers raise livestock in all districts.

17. Baghlan used to have farmers’ associations like cooperatives and organisations of milk producers along collection chains. Today many farmers still have a sense of institutional membership although most of the institutions have been inactive for many years. New informal groups are emerging as a result of NGO activities. Though they are informal these arrangements provide a form of self-help organizations. Seed Bank Associations and other groups formed during the humanitarian relief period have almost completely been handed over to Community Development Councils (CDCs).

18. Some investment has been made in processing of cotton, sugar, dairy products and – more recently in tomato sauce production. Most of these ventures target smallholders as major suppliers of raw products.

19. The project ‘Small Farmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province’ (GCP/AFG/053/GER) is partly a follow-up to the project ‘ Rehabilitation of the

______2 the total number of districts in Afghanistan is 398 comprising an area of 647,500 km² 3 total population of Afghanistan is estimated to be some 30 million

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Sugar Industry in Baghlan : Technical and Managerial Support for Small Family Farmer Participation in the Sugar Beet Supply Chain’ (GCP/AFG/038/GER).

20. Some seven years back, the German authorities decided to support a public-private partnership that had been established between Afghan private businessmen, the country’s government and a group of German investors, with the goal to rehabilitate a sugar processing plant located in the region. The New Baghlan Sugar Company (NBSC) was established in 2005 and has been investing in the recuperation of its facilities and equipment, the training of technical personnel and in agronomic research to promote sugar beet growing under contracts with small farmers in the region. The above mentioned FAO Project 038 strengthened farmers’ organization, financed farm inputs for growing sugar beet and supported the extension services provided by NBSC.

21. The problems encountered by this project included agronomic production difficulties with Nematodes that led to substantial crop losses, and socio-economic difficulties, i.e. a reluctance of farmers to run further risks and produce sugar beet for the price offered by the factory.

22. The Baghlan Project under evaluation is still committed to the 2000 farm families that were planned to benefit from the sugar project as the expectations created among farmers in the region for a potentially attractive cash crop are yet to be met. Besides sugar beet, there is the possibility to diversify farm production and introduce new crops and livestock enterprises and other agro-based income generation activities. Diversification into alternative enterprises was planned to be promoted to contribute to enhancing farmers’ income. Lessons could apparently be learnt from the implementation of two FAO livelihoods development projects in Afghanistan ( Agricultural Development of Sustainable Livelihoods in Eastern Hazarajat , and Alternative Agricultural Livelihoods Programme (AALP) – Phase I ).

23. The concept of livelihoods stresses an approach that puts people at the centre of development, builds upon their strengths rather than their needs and unifies different sectors behind a common framework. Improving livelihoods of the households was to bring well- being to its members, contribute to community development and prevent the development of socially threatening coping strategies (poppy production, banditry, trafficking). In the meantime the importance of the approach is reflected in MAIL’s decision to establish a section headed by a Director General of Alternative Agriculture Livelihoods .

24. Among the externally supported projects an intervention with the title Strengthening Capacity of MAIL and its Partners for Integrated Food Security and Livelihoods Programming in Afghanistan could have been particularly important for inter-project collaboration. The project with nationwide coverage had a planned duration of three years from May 2009 to April 2012, and a budget of USD 2, 257,017 funded by Germany. One area of its activities was ‘ the increased awareness about nutrition, food security, sustainable livelihoods and the right-to-food and how to practically address them at community, district, provincial and national level ’. Another component was ‘ to support, monitor and evaluate projects’ related to livelihoods and food security.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

3 Concept and Relevance

3.1 Design

25. The Project was embedded in the major Government strategies and follows national priorities. The Afghan National Development Strategy (ANDS) 4, an interim Poverty Reduction Strategy which outlined the development priorities for Afghanistan, was built around the Millennium Development Goals. It gave particular emphasis, among others, to perennial horticulture and farmers’ associations. The Agricultural Master Plan and Strategy of the MAIL stressed assistance to male and female farmers to increase production and productivity, expand markets and develop human resource capacity. All these aspects figure prominently in the design of Project 053.

26. The exclusive promotion of a single cash crop, i.e. sugar beet, which dominated project GCP/AFG/038/GER was given up in favour of an approach in GCP/AFG/053/GER that was expected to lead to diversification of production and successful marketing of high- value crops already known and successfully cultivated by some farmers in the area.

27. The Project was to follow a two-pronged strategy consisting of • strengthening of organizational, managerial and institutional capacity, and • promotion of increased farmer value addition and access to markets

28. These two approaches are looked upon as being the two components of the project in the logical framework approach (LFA) matrices which were developed subsequently (see Annex 5).

29. The intervention logic or ‘theory of change’ is displayed in the main text of the Project Document, in its Annex 5 (as a logical framework matrix), and in Annex II of the Inception Report (again in the form of a logframe). The latter version dated July 2009 is a revision of the first logframe. This modified version has been prepared according to farmers priorities as the Inception Report argues. The development and immediate objective statements are the same in all three versions. They read:

30. Development Objective : Improvement of food security and livelihoods of small farmers and their families in the Baghlan province.

31. Immediate Objective : Increased income levels for small farmers in the Baghlan province (through improved farmers organization, productivity gains, value addition and market access).

32. Looking carefully at these statements there are two anticipated means-ends relationships : improvement in four areas, namely in farmers organization , productivity , value addition and market access are expected to lead to increased income for small farmers which in turn will result in improvements of food security and livelihoods . It is rather obvious that increased income can lead to improved food security, it may be less evident though that higher income will result in improved livelihoods.

______4 completed in 2008

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

33. The assumptions (positively phrased risks) mentioned in the fourth column of the logframes are: aggravation of the security situation may constrain the implementation of project activities and non-controllable, external variables affecting markets and prices may reduce the opportunities for value addition and market access. Especially the first one is valid already at input/activity level (mentioned three times at different levels), i.e. it is not an assumptions which applies between the immediate and development objective. The second one should have (and indeed has) led to planning some kind of marketing study as part of project preparation or at least as one of the initial project activities during project implementation. Essential assumptions at higher level such as ‘the increased income is being saved to buy food during times of food shortage’ or ‘increased income is to a large extent used by farmers for enlarging their families livelihoods’ have not been spelled out, and are therefore less likely checked during the Project’s lifetime.

34. The indicators for the achievement of objectives together with their related data sources shown in the project document’s logframe have been confirmed in the inception report: • indicator for development objective: Food availability at the household level (kg/family member/ year) increased by at least 25% • indicator for the immediate objective: Farm household income levels of at least 2,000 families increased by a minimum of 20% in year 2 and 30% in year 3.

35. Whereas indicators for improved food security and income increases have been stated, there is neither an attempt to operationalize the concept of livelihoods through the identification of indicators nor are there indicators which – if used – would show us improvements in farmers’ organization, productivity gains, value addition or market access. The immediate objective indicator is rather a specification of the objective statement in terms of targets. The way it is stated it is very unlikely to be used.

36. Besides this the targets of the indicators measuring achievement of objectives appear to be neither realistic nor clearly bound to what the Project was expected to achieve. They seem to be rather formulated from the desk in order to adhere to what was believed to be a methodological rule of the Logical Framework concept 5.

37. There are calls in the Project Document and in the Inception Report (see Means of Verification column of the logframes, Annex 5) for before and after surveys as well as farm models and budgets to generate data for the indicators. These could have provided valuable evidence for the achievements of objectives and the change that has taken place as a result of the project.

38. The two technical project components 6 which were thought to lead to the achievement of objectives were already mentioned in paragraph 27. Strengthening local organizations was said to be considered by Government and FAO as a crucial turn-key for improving livelihoods of the rural poor. The first component strengthening of organizational, managerial and institutional capacity was therefore directed at assisting farmer-based organizations (FBOs) and – through them – individual farmers. Studying the Project ______5 Indicators do not necessarily need targets when a logframe is prepared as part of project design. They are often difficult to establish from the outset and may be determined at a later stage when it has become clearer what can be achieved. 6 For a listing of outputs and their indicators see paragraph 102.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Document thoroughly discloses that by using the term FBOs formulators of Project 53 referred to primary and secondary cooperatives. These were planned to be strengthened through promotion of income generating/ self-help sub-groups set up to respond to particular interests. These ‘interest groups’ as they were subsequently called were usually looked upon as commodity groups whose members showed a special interest in one agricultural activity. Among others, the Project was to encourage interest groups to save money and develop capital funds for internal lending.

39. The first component also included support for three other stakeholders : (i) locally based government organizations with administrative and regulatory functions (GO); (ii) non- government organizations (NGOs); and private sector service providers (SPs). With these FBOs were believed to build ‘working partnerships’ with these GOs and SPs, facilitated by the Project. For that purpose a training programme was needed that included topics such as farm planning, water harvesting and –management, livestock husbandry, value-addition, marketing, and business management (for individual farmers and FBO representatives); and enterprise development (for FBOs, SPs).

40. Building the capacity of GOs to continue with activities after project completion was obviously important. The Project Document mentions the Afghan government counterparts coming from the Departments of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Resources and Rural Rehabilitation and Development and the offices of the Provincial and District Governors, but it does not elaborate on what it calls ‘ their important administrative and regulatory role ’. The Agriculture Cooperatives Department is not mentioned. The Project Document does also not elaborate on the type of Project support to GOs. Only its annexed workplan includes one activity (1.3.1) related to them. This reads: ‘to provide information from the project to authorities responsible for provincial and district level planning’.

41. The second component , i.e. promotion of increased farmer value addition and access to markets marked the Project’s focus on diversification of rural livelihood options – both horizontally and vertically – to promote a range of cash crops and new products.

42. A strategy for product identification was planned to start with a market/value chain appraisal that was followed by project support (matching-grants schemes) in areas such as (i) market-oriented production activities, (ii) post-harvest value adding activities, and (iii) linking farmers to dealers, traders, processors, retailers and other service providers.

43. The Project Document lists a large number of agricultural production activities which read more like a menu from which to chose during project implementation: introducing high- yielding varieties; improving soil and water management technologies; identifying and promoting crop rotation strategies; local production of quality declared seed; better weed control and crop husbandry; vegetables and horticultural production; rearing chickens; animal husbandry and feeding, etc.

44. Post-production and value-adding activities were given emphasis at project planning stage. Areas mentioned comprised food processing and packaging technologies including simple sun-drying techniques. Products envisaged include jams, bottled juices and canned products.

45. The Project was also intended to help small farmers in getting better access to services (e.g. market information) and (input and output) markets . Enterprise promotion was thought to be linked to agro-input dealers and output buyers/processors through contractual 7

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 arrangements. Potential was identified in areas such as horticulture, small livestock production and irrigation.

46. Next to a third component , i.e. project management component , the lower levels of the means-ends hierarchy of project elements were further developed during the Project’s inception phase (see 2. Logframe in Annex 5). Activities and their results together with measurable targets for monitoring were specified in the revised logframe, and a more detailed workplan was prepared. These plans reflect the general orientation of the Project described in the two-pronged strategy (see paragraph 27)

47. The inputs for these activities are not described in the logframes but in the Project Document’s Input Chapter and budgets. The basic risk related to the personnel inputs (see paragraph 30) and the security situation ( Difficulties to recruit and keep well-qualified personnel and to identify reliable service providers ) is discussed in the Project Document and considered to be critical and relatively likely to occur. 7 So called non-expendable equipment included: three motorcycles for utilization by field support personnel; office equipment for the project management unit; complementary furnishings for at least six farm-based organizations; and crop and livestock processing equipment for demonstration purposes. Two 4-wheel-drive cars were expected to be transferred from the predecessor project GCP/AFG/038/GER. Farm inputs were budgeted for under expendable equipment for demonstration activities (fertilizer, seeds, plant protection chemicals, miscellaneous agricultural tools, animals, feed and other related supplies).

48. Budget allocations for inputs include (in USD):

International Staff: 659 100 National staff and consultants: 310 080 Travel: 151 164 Contracts with local NGOs - Capacity Building: 280 000 Expendable inputs (agricultural and agro-processing): 150 000 Non-expendable inputs (farm & agro-processing equipment; office equipment; information & communication): 110 000 Non-expendable (3 motor cycles): 4 500 Technical Support Costs (TSS): 83 500 General Operating Expenses: 60 000

49. Three years appeared to be adequate to implement the activities, to produce the envisaged outputs and reach (contribute to) the objectives. The overall 3-year workplan which is clearly related to the stated outputs suggested that the intention to conduct the technical activities within this period was realistic. However this workplan did not include the ‘non- technical’ activities of the management component added in the revised version of the logframe. Looking also at the quantitative targets included in the indicators, and keeping in

______7 This evaluation report compares the planned with the actual situation related to personnel in Annex 3: Lifetime diagram on personnel inputs. – In his feedback to the draft evaluation report the LTO wrote: “The original project design was generous regarding TSS missions some of these missions were unnecessary and others impossible to field. ... Another factor that would have prevented such broad based support is the policy of the regional office to use their own staff as a "first port of call" to provide backstopping support according to the new (FAO) policy regarding decentralization.”

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 mind the risks discussed in the Project Document suggests that the time-horizon could probably have been judged ‘overambitious’ already at the project planning stage.

50. Section 5 Institutional Arrangements in the Project Document includes plans for managing the Project . Short paragraphs describe the roles of the Government and FAO in rather general terms. No single department in MAIL has been mentioned for being in charge. The Ministry is expected to create an appropriate enabling environment which is not further explained (according to the Inception Report it is in charge of coordination and policy issues ). Similar standard phrases are put forward for FAO’s functions in the Project Document which – in the Inception Report are summarized as overall support and supervision .

51. An agreement was apparently reached between the three major parties to establish a coordinating committee that was expected to meet quarterly in order to ‘review project development and to recommend and coordinate actions needed to assure fulfilment of project goals and objectives’ (p.10). The idea of forming such a committee was obviously already dropped during the initial implementation phase as the management diagram in the Inception Report (see Annex 6) does not include a project coordination committee any longer.

52. The above mentioned diagram puts the National (Field) Manager in the centre for managing the Project on a daily basis. An International Livelihoods Development and Enterprise Diversification Expert as the Chief Technical Advisor (CTA ) was expected to be fielded for three years. Together with other consultants he/she was there to advise the National Manager. The latter was planned to be supported by an Administration and Finance Unit and a Technical Unit headed by a Technical Officer. Higher level support was to come from FAO’s Senior Project Operations Officer (SPOO ) who was meant to help coordinating three German funded projects for which however only three months of SPOO’s time at one month/year was budgeted. The Inception Report reflects already initial difficulties in posting a CTA in Baghlan Province for a longer period, when it explains that the National Manager would be ‘supported only periodically by a CTA of a similar project or an international consultant till the national team becomes capable to handle the project on its own’.

53. Members of the target group of Project 038 were obviously organized in cooperatives. These seem to be the FBOs (see paragraph 34) to which reference is made in several sections of the Project Document of 053. Thus, one of the output indicators of the Logframe of 053 is that ‘a minimum of 24 FBOs (i.e. cooperatives) will have been assisted by the project, and thereby improved their operational efficiency and level of services’. The Project’s workplan talks about ‘ training of farmer leaders and selected members of FBOs in business planning, business linkages, market appraisals and financial management ’ (activity 1.2.2); and ‘training of FBO members, specially women, in functional literacy and numeracy ’ (activity 1.2.3). The TOR of the CTA in the Project Document state that he/she should ‘ based on existing local farmers organizations (Shuras, CDCs, cooperatives etc.) help define and strengthen farmers organizations in the project area ’. This suggests that ‘FBO’ does not seem to be a synonym for cooperative throughout the document. May be there was not enough time to analyse and describe the different groups and organizations in the project area, or – may be – a consensus could not be achieved at that time of project planning which type of farmer group/organization to support, and defining those FBOs was therefore postponed to the implementation phase and made the responsibility of the CTA (see his TOR).

54. Generally the project concept , as it is presented in the Project Document and in the Inception Report, still appears generally sound . The ‘theory of change’ or ‘means-ends relationship’ makes sense, the market-led path to identify farmer production support activities 9

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 complies with strategies pursued by major stakeholders, the project’s components ‘capacity building’ and ‘direct farmer support’ for diversification of production and successful marketing complement each other well; and the planned management structure looks adequate for project implementation. Deficits appear to lie mainly in areas such as: (i) the poorly described function of existing cooperatives respectively the role of FBOs, (ii) high risks and vaguely formulated mitigation measures for successful project implementation, especially the risks linked to the security issue, and (iii) no contingency plans are presented in case of difficulties in recruiting and retaining project staff and consultants for the implementation of activities.

3.2 Relevance

55. There are different aspects of relevance . One may look at the relevance of the envisaged project activities for reaching national development objectives such as poverty reduction and food security. Secondly, the importance of planned interventions for the envisaged beneficiaries or target group could be assessed, i.e. for the 2000 farm families linked to the sugar project. Judging the influence of capacity building measures on institutions’ potential performance is another aspect of relevance. Fourthly one may ask, was the Project Document relevant for guiding those who were in charge for implementing the Project. Further, it is the question whether the author of this report is to pass his own judgment on the relevance of different aspects or whether he should report the assessments of different stakeholders. In addition, one may judge the relevance of the planned activities ex- ante and/or ex-post, i.e. before or after project implementation. And finally, activities that were indeed carried out may be studied with a view of deciding their relevance for different stakeholders. This list of topics clearly shows that it is not possible to cover the subject of relevance comprehensively in such a short project evaluation.

56. Looking at the first aspect mentioned above, one can conclude that the Project’s objectives and strategy were consistent with Baghlan’s requirements and Afghanistan’s policies at the time of planning Project 053 (see paragraph 25). This is still true to date as a short look at the National Agricultural Development Framework (NADF) confirms. The NADF consists basically of 4 programmes. The Agricultural Production and Productivity Programme (APP) is the way to build incomes for farmers and their families. The Economic Regeneration Programme (ER) strengthens the value chain linking agriculture, business development and customers. The project under evaluation can be seen to fall under both programmes. The Support and Change Management Programme is another key programme of the NADF. It relates mainly to institutional strengthening of the MAIL and its provincial departments, an effort that Project 053 was also believed to support.

57. The Project is part of the portfolio of the German BTF that the donor has set up in FAO. It is estimated that the fund has benefited more than 100,000 poor Afghan farming households by providing them with seed, fertilizer and tools. The emphasis of the fund has slowly shifted from emergency to development interventions still emphasizing food security . The latter has been a major concern also for FAO for many years. Until now the three parties promote similar approaches and concepts such as livelihoods , the right to food, farmer-based organizations and market-led agricultural development.

58. A participatory approach increased chances that project activities became relevant to beneficiaries’ needs and priorities. Thus, for example, the Project’s first workplan mentions activities such as ‘ to review farming systems and practices and identify productivity and value

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 addition improvement options ’ (activity 2.1.1), and ‘ participatory value chain development ’ (activity 2.2.1). The inception report even ‘ strongly recommend implementing the project in a participatory model with community involvement in decision regarding design, implementation, and management of the activities .’ It was also learned from project staff at the time of the evaluation that expressed interest of farmers in particular activities of the Project’s ‘menu’ was a major criterion in selecting recipients of inputs and services. 59. The survey of cooperatives launched by the evaluator in collaboration with the Project staff during the evaluation disclosed that heads of the 30 cooperatives with which the Project had worked were convinced that the contribution of Project activities to food security and livelihoods of small farmers and their families was substantial8. It has to be noted however that not all families of the 30 cooperatives benefited directly from Project inputs and services. According to the answers provided about 20 % of all cooperative members had not received any project inputs. The total number of cooperative members provided in interviews with heads of cooperatives was 4623; reducing this by 20% means approximately 3700 direct beneficiaries. Research 9 conducted on 2 of the 30 cooperatives covered by the Project concluded that 30% of all cooperative members had not received any project inputs. Taking this result to calculate the total number of direct beneficiaries leads to 3236 cooperative members who received inputs from the Project directly. In any case the number exceeds the target of 2000 families by far.

60. An attempt to assess the relevance in quantitative terms for the Baghlan Province as a whole, would also need to take into account that the total number of agricultural cooperatives in Baghlan province is 114 10 with 22100 members (i.e. 194 members per cooperative on average versus 154 in our sample). This implies that roughly 15-17% of all cooperative members of Baghlan province have benefited directly from the Project’s activities in one way or the other. This percentage was particularly high in Pul-e-Kumrhi district 11 where 13 cooperatives with 2061 members benefitted (more than 60 %) of a total of 22 cooperatives with 3300 members.

61. In order to judge whether the effect of a Project activity is relevant in terms of its sustainability , one would need to look at the activities one by one. For example, distributing improved rice varieties to farmers once could probably be considered to have a less lasting effect than building a bridge across the Baghlan river in Pul-e-Kumrhi district that facilitates marketing of agricultural produce. In principle capacity enhancement activities are also believed to have more lasting positive effects. From that point of view the training provided in vegetable seed production or fruit tree pruning may be considered more relevant for a sustainable improvement of livelihoods than distributing agricultural inputs for a season.

62. Strengthening the capacity of an institution like DAIL in providing services to cooperative members, could be even more relevant for ensuring continuous broader impact, provided the organization – in this example DAIL – indeed can and does offer such services in the future without project assistance. In view of shortage of operational funds this may ______8 Interviewees were requested to use a point scale from 1-5 to indicate the degree of contribution the Project had made to food security and improved livelihoods of small farmers and their families (1 being ‘none or marginal’ and 5 ‘very substantial’). The average score was 4 points. 9 Agriculture Cooperatives Assessment, in Puli Khumri District of Baghlan Province, Afghanistan; a research project submitted to Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Science part of Wageningen UR, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Masters Degree in Agriculture, by Hamdullah Tokhi; Wageningen, The Netherlands; September, 2011. 10 another source assumes the number to be rather 160 11 Puli Khumri district was said to have a population of 191,640 people.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 appear rather unlikely in the short term. Giving NGOs, CBOs and companies with special capabilities a chance to extend their services to smallholders falls also into this category of Project support. For example, the Project contracted Ajmair, a cooperative particularly advanced in apiculture, to introduce members of other cooperatives to beekeeping, or a company like Kahnoor in Kunduz to provide its services to cooperative members in poultry. Hiring individuals from institutions to provide services as it happened in the area of Business Development Service (BDS) Training is likely to strengthen the capabilities of these individuals further especially if they are prepared and technically backstopped by international FAO staff. However it may not have the same institution-building effect. More thorough studying would be in any case required in order to judge the influence of the Project’s capacity building measures on institutions’ potential and their relevance for actual performance in providing services.

63. The previous sub-section 3.1 Design has already answered the question whether the Project Document was sound, concise and made sense. Although it had its weaknesses and deficits it could have been a relevant guide for those who were in charge for implementing the Project . It appears however that its actual relevance was not always sufficiently appreciated by those responsible for realizing the plan. Although meant to become a cornerstone, very little attention was given to enterprise development and marketing, especially during the first two years of project operation. Critical activities included in the work plan were not implemented. The steering committee foreseen was never established. The staffing, a key factor of technical assistance projects, was not realized as planned. Intensive backstopping foreseen did not materialize. Collaboration with other projects appears to have been limited compared to what had been anticipated. Some of these shortcomings may have stemmed from neglecting the relevance of what was planned, others may not. – In preparing the annual work plan 2011/12 one started from the activities laid down in the revised Logframe prepared during the inception phase (July 2009). Thus, the relevance of what had been planned was recognized at that stage. And it looks as if people who prepared that work plan tried to get the project back on course.

64. One can study the relevance of the Project for different stakeholders. During the evaluation there was the chance to ask systematically all heads of cooperatives how they assess the Project’s contribution to sustainable cash income of families in their cooperative . The answers of cooperative heads were rather positive. The average score of 30 respondents was 3.9 on a scale ranging from 1 (very low contribution) to 5 (very high contribution). 12 For the cooperatives as organizational entities most of the project activities were not particular relevant as they benefited individual members rather than the cooperative.

______12 cf. paragraph 55 where the degree of relevance was cited with respect to contribution in terms of food security and improvement of livelihoods.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

4 Implementation

4.1 Budget and expenditure

65. The original project budget (attached in Annex 7) shows a total amount of USD 2,043,429 of which the project support costs make up 13%, i.e. USD 235,085. The remaining amount of 1,808,344 was budgeted at project formulation stage as follows:

Budget Name of budget line Original amount in % of Total expendi-ture in % of code budgeted total expected (‘actual’ total (planned situation) budget situation) budgeted 5011 Salary Professional 659,100 36 200,740 36 5013 Nat. Personnel & 310,080 17 384,025 124 Consultants 5014 Contracts 280,000 15 240,288 86 5020 Temporary Assistant - 27,588 5021 Travel 151,164 8 81,815 54 5023 Training (all under contracts) 218,621 5024 Expend. Equipment 150,000 8 297,602 198 5025 Non -expend. Equipmt. 114,500 6 206,765 181 5527 Techn. Support Service 83,500 5 53,570 64 (TSS) 5028 Gen. Operating Expend. 60,000 3 80,700 135 Sub-total Total Budget w/o PSC 1,808,344 100% 1,791,713 5029 Project Support Costs 235,085 232,923 Total Total Budget/Expend. 2,043,429 2,024,636 13

66. The total project budget remained unchanged when the budget was revised twice, however allocations to different budget lines have been revised based on new work plans and staffing arrangement. The budget revisions were necessary as the Project evolved and the security measures made it extremely difficult, especially for international staff, to work in Baghlan province.

67. Salary for Professional , the single most costly budget category (USD 659,100), made up 36% of the total budget (without PSC) at the planning stage. This is only a little less compared to the 40% average for other FAO trust-fund projects. However, in the last Budget Revision C, this has melted down to 200,740 (36% of the originally budgeted amount) which presents only 11 % of all expected expenditures, a very low share for a technical cooperation project. The reason for this is that the Chief Technical Advisor (CTA) was only on the Project’s payroll for seven months 14 in 2009 and 2010. Lower expenditures can also be recognized in budget/expenditure lines Travel and TSS. These are related to the meagre provision of international expertise to the Project which is at least partly due to the security situation. Consequently there has been very little activity in areas such as developing concepts, policy advice and normative work.

68. By contrast, the expenditures for equipment and training are much higher than anticipated at Project formulation stage. This reflects the relatively stronger emphasis on

______13 Difference is due to € - $ exchange rate; donor pays in € 14 Annex 3 comparing planned with actual personnel inputs shows nine months instead, 2 for 2009 and 7 for 2010

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 production related interventions during Project implementation than planned. In the original project document no funds were allocated to the Training budget line as it was planned to conduct training by hiring local NGOs through letter of agreements (LOAs). Hence funds for training were allocated to the Contract budget line 15 for the purpose of LOAs.

69. Allocation to the Temporary Assistant budget line has been made to include the government counterparts in the project team as payment to them is allowed only from this budget line.

70. Under Non Expendable budget line an armoured vehicle was purchased in 2010. This was not foreseen in the original budget of the Project Document which said that two four wheel cars would be transferred from GCP/AFG/038/GER to this Project.

71. Funds seem to have been efficiently managed and used for the production of outputs. Savings were made in several areas. Equipment of the predecessor project could be used. Staff from other FAO projects was seconded, e.g. for training women in using solar driers or backstopping in poultry production (UTF/AFG/051/AFG). Project, cooperative and government staff expertise was used as much as possible in farmer training, demonstration and extension work. Training material from other projects and UN agencies was used (e.g. UNICEF’s booklet for literacy courses). The Sr. Project Operations Officer (SPOO) 16 in Kabul and the National Technical Specialist have taken over managerial functions when a CTA was not in place and a National Project Manager could not be recruited. The Training- of-Trainers (ToT) approach has been used where appropriate (e.g. for training 600 farmers in marketing and post-harvest management). Adequate personnel management seems to be practiced: field assistants have been assigned based on their knowledge and experience to look after different project activities, the Administrative and Finance Assistant keeps project records, and drivers use logbooks which are monitored.

72. The rate of project delivery in terms of field activities seems to be more or less satisfactory compared to what was foreseen in the project document and work plans. The number of different types of training courses and demonstrations conducted is impressive, especially in view of the problems of hiring staff ready to work in difficult situations, and keeping in mind that security measures did not allow Project staff to move freely in the project area.

73. The remaining balance of the budget was USD 405,427 at the time of the evaluation. This would allow to implement the activities of the work plan prepared by the LTO in collaboration with the Senior Operations Officer (SOO) and the National Technical Specialist who is de facto managing the Project on a daily basis in Baghlan province.

4.2 Project management

74. The Project office was set up in a rented building in Pul-i-Khumri where UN security allowed UN staff to be located. To become MOSS compliant the place required six guards, high walls, barbed wires around its perimeter, a bunker and windows with shatterproof glass. At the time of the evaluation a national technical specialist, three field assistants and a

______15 see paragraph 75 16 3 months in 2010. In budget revision C (August 2011) nothing was budgeted for SPOO.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 financial and administrative assistant were working there with a number of support staff and guards.

75. Progress in the early phases of the project is summarized in the Inception Report (July 2009) and thereafter in the BTO Report (June 2010) prepared by the LTO 17 . The Project Document had foreseen a CTA for the whole project duration. De facto the CTA was on the Project’s payroll only at the end of 2009. In the Inception Report it was announced that the International Livelihood Development Expert would be recruited to work as the CTA for this and the SALEH 18 Project in a cost-sharing arrangement. However, when the SALEH Project came to an end, the CTA left in July 2010. The post has not been filled since then, so that the Project has benefited from his presence (in Kabul) less than a quarter of the time foreseen in the Project Document.

76. In the meantime the Project was managed on a day-to-day basis by the national team in Pul-eKumrhi and looking at its (formal) capacity, it was doing this very well. Workplans 19 prepared with the help of the CTA respectively the LTOs were generally implemented as much as this seems to have been possible under the prevailing circumstances. However, the ‘culture’ of documented (i.e. short-term quarterly or monthly) workplans, adherence to which is systematically monitored, was not observed.

77. There was an attempt by the LTO in June 2011 to officially recognize the efforts and achievements of the National Technical Specialist (NTS ) who was de facto functioning as the team leader. In his Back-to-Office (BTO) Report he recommended the NTS’ promotion to the vacant post of National Field Manager 20 . Whether it was due to a missing academic degree of the NTS that this has not happened could not be verified during the evaluation.

78. Some disagreement existed at least shortly before and during the evaluation mission with respect to the allocation of a Project vehicle that had been taken by another Project although it was needed for the work in Baghlan province. This may be an effect of the comparatively weak position of the Project team being led by a national technical specialist in the absence of a project field manager or CTA. The fact that the Project Document did not foresee a Kabul-based national project director (NPD) may have further weakened the ‘standing’ of the Project, in spite of the generally good support provided by the FAO Representation in Kabul.

79. Contracts with NGOs and other service providers was planned to become the major implementation modality of the project. The Inception Report still emphasized that the Project will develop linkages with independent service providers (the NGOs, private sectors, traders, etc.) for the implementation of the project activities but indicated already that more activities than originally foreseen would be conducted through project and DAIL staff or bringing expertise from other projects. Contracts were signed in August 2011 with the Kunduz Poultry Services 21 that had an office in Pul-i-Kumrhi and in April 2010 with the Ajmair Apiculture Cooperative 22 . As a marketing specialist and business development service (BDS) provider, a ______17 The evaluator did not see the BTO Report of the first Bangkok-based LTO nor the first 4 progress reports or the End-of-Assignment Report of the CTA. 18 FAO’s ‘Sustainable Agricultural Livelihoods in Eastern Hazarajat’ Project 19 A workplan was prepared in mid-2009 as part of the Inception Report, another one was covering the period from January 2011 to June 2012. 20 This post was never filled; reason being the security situation according to the SPOO. 21 Kohi noor Foulad (KNF) 22 USD 19,200 and 39,000 respectively

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 staff member of the Agha Khan Foundation (AKF) 23 was contracted in the last year of the Project. A 5-month consultancy for a national marketing and enterprise development specialist was proposed by the LTO in June 2011. An international marketing consultant had a 1-month contract during which he visited the project area for 3 days 24 .

80. The Department of Agricultural Irrigation and Livestock (DAIL ) is the Government counterpart organization at district level. It falls under the direction of MAIL’s General Directorate for Extension, Policy and Planning (GDPP). Agricultural Extension is its main occupation 25 . However, marketing extension is a concept unheard of by the extension officers and no efforts whatsoever in this area have taken place at field level. Several DAIL staff members have been involved in the implementation of the project since its very beginning, four of them as coordinators who are assisting FAO technical staff in various project activities. Next to their capacity in technical subjects, their managerial capacity has been developed in the Project’s training courses which covered among others management and planning topics.

81. The DAIL staff was also participating in decision-making processes and regular coordination meetings, something the Project initiated. Thus, DAIL staff went to inter-agency meetings (IAMs) and the monthly Sector Working Group (SWG) meetings. The SWG is a forum of all related governmental and non-governmental organizations at provincial level where work plans are shared and activities coordinated. In progress reports the expectation was even expressed that DAIL, with the help of the Project, would chair the agricultural SWG meetings.

82. By contrast there are no clear indications that there was a lot of interaction between the Project and DAIL on the one side and MAIL departments on the other (see paragraph 46). Nobody from MAIL had ever visited the Project in Baghlan province, and the Director General of Alternative Agriculture Livelihoods did not seem to be particularly well aware of the Project and requested to be regularly informed in the future. The Project team argued that it had simply assumed that the Project’s progress reports which were shared with the DAIL would then be forwarded to MAIL. The Ministry’s ‘oversight of all phases of project implementation’ announced in the Project Document did not materialize.

83. Staff of the FAO office in Kabul was kept informed about the Project’s activities mainly through the National Technical Specialist who visited the office regularly. On the other hand, nobody from the FAOR office had ever paid a visit to the Project. This also seems to be true for the donor. It was already mentioned that the envisaged Coordination Committee never met (see paragraph 47). Therefore one may argue that coordinated tri-partite steering of the Project did not take place.

84. The FAO Representation in Kabul, also under-staffed, managed the Project operationally. It recruited two field assistants for the Project who took office in October 2011. ______23 AGF has obviously conducted a marketing development project for a number of years, and the person recruited was representing AGF in Baghlan. 24 The consultant had prepared his draft end-of assignment report in February 2012 25 MAIL estimates the official number of extension personnel at the provincial and district levels nationwide to be about 650 (the Ministry of Interior recognized 398 districts in Afghanistan), but claims the actual number of field staff is likely closer to 300-400 (Afghanistan Agricultural Extension Project, 2011 Request for Applications, USDA, 2011). A 2009 report commissioned by MAIL and conducted by the Department for International Development (DFID) states that less than 2% of farmers surveyed in 2007 had contact with any agricultural extension provider.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

It also helped, among others, in the timely preparation of semi-annual progress reports, contracts with service providers, recruitment of consultants, procurement of equipment, project extension, budget revisions and launching of backstopping and evaluation missions.

85. The evaluator could study the last two semi-annual progress reports (no.5 and no.6) of the Project covering the year 2011. They were comprehensively prepared with a lot of efforts by Project staff and covered the year 2011. Reporters used the FAO Trust Fund Programme format for reporting. Using the format however did not mean providing always the right type of information on the different sections/parameters. So, for instance under the objectives we find a lot of information on what the project was doing (e.g. distribution of animal feed or technical backstopping mission under the heading development objective ). There is a lot of repetition in the description of Project activities under different headings. The data provided with respect to indicators that are supposed to tell us something about the achievement of objectives are either not provided (e.g. food availability at the household level, measured in kg/family member/ year 26 ) or use other parameters (e.g. 380kg of legume per Jerib from intercropping ). There is also no clear description of the methods applied to generate this data. It looks as if one has often reported something that is only remotely related to the indicator to hide that actually the indicator has not been used! Several pieces of information are presented on income increase but this information is not produced as part of a systematic monitoring system. Unfortunately the authors have not received feedback on their progress reports from the major stakeholders.

86. The weakness of not having provided reliable representative information on the achievement of project objectives seems to have been realized by the authors of the progress reports as reference is being made a couple of times to conducting a post-harvest or impact evaluation survey that would provide more detailed information. This was also recommended by the LTO in his BTO Report (June 2010). The survey was expected to be conducted by an individual of the Agha Khan Foundation who cancelled his involvement in an early stage of survey implementation at the beginning of 2012 27 . Since then the Project team drafted a questionnaire that was clearly inadequate to eventually result into any sound judgement on the Project’s success in terms of having reached its objectives.

87. The need for formulating a comprehensive phase-out strategy was already mentioned in the TOR of the LTO for his June 2011 mission. The evaluator has not become aware of such an exit strategy during his stay.

4.3 Technical backstopping

88. As mentioned earlier a total of 15 FAO Support for Technical Services (STS) missions were foreseen over the project’s duration. They were supposed to come from the following FAO organizational entities: Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Service (AGSF), Agricultural and Food Engineering Technologies Service (AGST), Animal Production Service (AGAP) and the Crop and Grassland Service (AGPC). Co-payments for TSS time was expected of officers from the Gender, Equity and Rural Employment Division, Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division and Forestry Products and Industries Division on mission to support other projects. ______26 Exception: honey production 27 The evaluator was informed that the person had already received USD 4,800, and that the issue is followed up by FAO.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

89. Actually comparatively little of the support mentioned above was realized. There were four missions launched by AGS, the LTU, each lasting less than 2 weeks. The last three 28 (July 2010, June 2011, March 2012) were done by the same LTO, the Senior Officer Agribusiness and Enterprise Development.

90. The BTO-Report prepared by the LTO in mid-2010 covers the Project 053 only on a little more than one page 29 , but it summarized the Project’s achievements (e.g. project has conducted a household survey and established a baseline data 30 ; it provided office equipment and support in record keeping; and formed linkage with other projects ) and mentioned already some weaknesses which were apparently not (or could not be) rectified during the following 12-18 months (e.g. i) the ‘software’ aspects of cooperative development have been weak; ii) attempts to estimate cop profitability were not systematically conducted, iii) farmers require ... training in post harvest handling and marketing ). The recommendation made in the report were not realized 31 : i) more support ... to strengthen cooperatives’ management and ensure that they provide effective services to their members; ii) an evaluation should be conducted during the current planning period of the performance of the cooperatives ... to better strategise the areas required for future capacity development; iii) recruit a local technician as a marketing specialist to develop the capacity of field assistants in post-harvest handling and marketing; iv) marketing and farm business management .... should be a priority for the project over the next implementation period.

91. It look as if the second mission of the present LTO in June 2011 gave the Project a new direction . During the mission the LTO went to Baghlan province to see the results in the field. He delivered a two-day training in key aspects of marketing and enterprise development for project counterpart and NGO staff. A training strategy and plan for follow up work over a four to five month period was subsequently developed which included the recruitment of field staff to undertake a training of trainers programme in marketing and enterprise development. Finally the LTO prepared a new work plan for the Project and initiated a budget revision.

92. One may argue that the original emphasis of the Project on value chains, enterprise development and marketing was re-discovered. The LTO pointed out in his second BTO Report that (i) the training of farmer leaders and selected members of the FBOs in business planning, market linkages, market appraisals and financial management had not been conducted ; (ii) no action had been taken to study the product value chains, support dialogue and business linkages among value chain stakeholders … and introduce pilot technologies to improve access to market information ; (iii) more support was required to strengthen cooperatives management ; (iv) little was done to develop the skills of group members to market their produce in groups and to establish collection centers for commodity aggregation. (v) it was now too late for value chain and market appraisal studies and an assessment of the performance on the cooperatives and farmer interest groups.

93. Action was taken and recommendations were made by the LTO in several areas related to the points mentioned above. The LTO provided business development services ______28 The evaluator did not see the BTO-Report on the first TSS mission. The first three missions started from FAO’s RAP Office in Bangkok, the last one from Rome. 29 The LTO had to cover also the second Afghanistan livelihood project being implemented in Afghanistan under AGS-RAPG technical responsibility, i.e. the SALEH project mentioned earlier. 30 The evaluator did not see the documented results. 31 This can be concluded from the fact that many of the deficiencies and recommendations cited here have been repeated in the LTO’s BTO Report prepared one year later in June 2011.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

(BDS ) training in line with Farmers Business School (FBS) concepts. Subsequently participants conducted ToT on the same topics.

94. The LTO, realizing that it was too difficult for the Project staff and too late for the Project to do a thorough value chain analysis of different commodities, advised the Project team to look at the value chain studies prepared by other agencies in the districts and the province at large since it was learned that the AKF had commissioned a series of such studies.

95. A meeting of the LTO in the Cooperative Department in Kabul led to an engagement of the department in training of half of the cooperative boards 32 with which the Project was working, a training that was expected to strengthen their management capacity.

4.4 Government Support

96. Since the emphasis of the Project was on technical field-level interventions and direct support to cooperatives and their members and not on normative, policy-related support the appropriate primary government counterpart institution was the DAIL rather than the MAIL in Kabul. The Provincial Agriculture Directorate is mainly responsible for providing support services and inputs to farmers in the province. Those people who are employed as extension staff at provincial and district offices are, for the most part, poorly trained, underpaid, and lack both the research-based knowledge and the resources (such as transportation) to provide adequate services.

97. There was support from provincial and district authorities with regard to staff assignments to Project activities in operational and technical areas as well as in terms of planning and coordination. In addition, facilities were provided for Project activities, such as venues for training courses and workshops.

98. DAIL deputed seven extension workers of which three were designated to be the trainers to train farmer in various technical areas and four of them were assigned as coordinators who are assisting FAO in the implementation of various activities. Three DAIL staff members have been regularly working with the project.

99. The farmer training and extension areas DAIL staff is said to have been involved in include, among others: soil management and conservation, water management for irrigation, composting, orchard and vineyard design and establishment, pest and disease control, processing of fruit and vegetables, nursery establishment, vegetable growing, paddy field cultivation, and stone fruit disease control. A lot of on-the-job training of DAIL staff has taken place and there are good chances that the knowledge and skills acquired will be used by the DAIL staff, if they have a chance, also after the Project’s completion.

100. DAIL’s cooperative staff facilitated the Project staff’s interaction with cooperative boards and shared information on their performance. They were involved in identifying direct beneficiaries of Project activities.

101. Like in other provinces of Afghanistan there are sector working groups of which all relevant government and non-governmental organizations are members. The Project has been

______32 Director, Deputy, Secretary, Treasurer, and Clerk

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 invited to participate regularly in monthly meetings of the SWG of Baghlan province where experience- and information-sharing of participating organizations is taking place.

102. At the request of the LTO, MAIL’s Cooperatives Department has also conducted a training course on cooperative policy and management for leaders of half of the accessible cooperatives the Project is working with.

103. The Director General of Alternative Agricultural Livelihoods in a meeting with the LTO and the evaluator showed interest in the Project. However the Food Zone Programme he was mentioning during discussions is a 3-year agriculture and rural development cluster- supported counter narcotics program offering a range of packages to keep farmers from growing poppy does not seem to cover Baghlan Province, and can therefore not be seen as supporting the Project’s efforts.

5 Results 33 and Contribution to Stated Objectives

5.1 Outputs and outcomes

104. According to the Project Document the Project has one immediate objective which is related to farmers’ income (see paragraph 29) and there are six major expected outputs of the Project. The common logic behind the design is that the outputs can and have to be produced in order to achieve the immediate objective 34 . The term outcome has replaced the term immediate objective in many project plans recently. In this evaluation report the term outcome is used to refer to the specific direct effect of each output. Like objectives they are strictly speaking already outside the control of project management. These direct effects or outcomes have not always been spelled out in the Project Document and yet have to materialize before one can argue that a major output has contributed to the achievement of the immediate objective.

105. Unfortunately the monitoring arrangements of the Project have not covered the (expected but not explicitly formulated) outcomes of project activities and outputs systematically 35 and it is usually not possible during an evaluation like this to make up for this shortcoming. At the same time experience tells us that we cannot take it for granted if management of the Project tells us in the progress report: ‘ the project activities have been implemented as scheduled and all objectives have been achieved ’ (Project Progress Report no.6, p.1). Scepticism is legitimate since often no difference is being made between activities and objectives as the statement in the same report (p. 8) demonstrates: ‘… 25 field demonstrations in different agricultural sectors like … 5 field demonstrations were held in …. In total, 480 farmers benefited from the above mentioned activities. It is self explanatory from these figures that the project has gained the said objectives. ’

______33 The term ‘results’ includes outputs, outcomes and impact. 34 Although, strictly speaking, each output should be necessary and all outputs together should be sufficient to reach the immediate objective, analysis shows that this principle is not always applied in the project design. 35 For instance none of the indicators identified for the two components in the Logframe have been used.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

106. In the revised Logframe 36 of the Project (see Annex 5) one indicator was formulated for each output 37 (indicators in blue script):

Output 1.1: FBOs established, local partnerships to support FBOs developed and initial data base completed Minimum of 24 FBOs, 9 established partnerships, at least 5% (100 farmers) surveyed Output 1.2: FBOs become functional 38 and capacity developed in management and leadership issues 39 At least 24 FBOs with office, minute books, field note books by end of year 1. At least 120 executive members trained and able to develop CAP and practice CBME by end of yr 1 Output 1.3: Governmental capacities to replicate upon focusing on some farmers, villages, communities in Baghlan and other provinces reinforced At least 12 DAIL staff capable of designing and implementing different livelihood intervention programs

Output 2.1: Practices and equipment that increase farm productivity introduced and validated At least 1 000 farmers in year 2 (2 000 in year 3) have adopted improved farming practices. Output 2.2: Income generation opportunities especially to landless people and nominal land holders provided through diversification of farm activities (poultry, bee keeping, food processing) 400 farmers ( 200 in yr 2, 200 in yr 3 ) benefited with at least 25% increase in household income Output 2.3: Access to markets and services improved At least 1 000 farmers in year 2 (2 000 in year 3) benefit from value addition and improved access to markets and services A summary assessment of the Project’s outputs can be found in Annex 9.

107. The indicators for the three outputs of Project component 1 are specifications of the outputs in terms of quantities and time 40 (e.g. minimum of 24 FBOs … or by end of year one ). In some cases they are measures for certain aspects or desired qualities of the outputs (e.g. executive coop members … able to develop community action plans ). By contrast, the indicators of Project component 2 are not direct measures of the outputs but rather refer to outcomes (e.g. adoption of improved farming practices ) or the immediate objective (e.g. 25% increase in household income ).

108. Component 1 of the Project strengthening of organizational, managerial and institutional capacity comprises 3 outputs; the first reads:

Output 1.1: FBOs established, local partnerships to support FBOs developed and initial data base completed

______36 Compared to the Project Document the first two outputs have been reformulated and a third output (now 2.2) has been added for component 2. Generally there has been more emphasis in the revised Logframe on community level participation and less on marketing. 37 The outputs of the Project’s third component ‘management’ (office established, progress reports, etc.) have been discussed in the previous chapter. 38 This part of the output statement looks more like an outcome as the functioning of FBOs is not under the control of the Project. 39 The original formulation of this output in the Project Document read: Effective market oriented and sustainable FBOs established 40 often referred to as targets

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Indicator: Minimum of 24 FBOs, 9 established partnerships, at least 5% (100 farmers) surveyed

109. The importance of farm-based organizations (FBOs) and the poorly described function of existing cooperatives respectively the role of FBOs in the Project Document has already been mentioned (see paragraphs 34 and 49). At the time of the evaluation the Project team worked with 30 cooperatives. Partnerships have been developed with some projects (FAO, UNICEF and GIZ), with service providers (e.g. AKF, IRD, Ajmair apiculture cooperative, KNF Poultry Service, Artificial Insemination Center in PIK, and suppliers of equipment such as solar driers) and processors (e.g. tomato processing plant). 41 Databases are maintained on cooperatives and Project inputs provided by the senior Field Assistant and the Financial and Administrative Assistant. The results of the survey undertaken during the evaluation (see paragraph 12 f.) allow to characterize the cooperatives briefly: a) The total size of the 30 cooperatives is 4623 members (average number is 154, the range is between 30 and 424 members) 42 . b) The distance from the provincial capital, ‘PIK’, ranged from 3-80 km (22 km on average). 27 cooperatives are located less than 35 km from ‘PIK’, the three remaining ones are located in the districts of Doshi and Khenjan. c) Asked how many months had elapsed since the registration of their cooperative, the answers received from the heads of cooperatives ranged from 6 to 72 months. On average two years had passed since the registration, more precisely new registration, since many cooperatives had existed as registered ones before. d) The 22 cooperatives with which the Project worked initially in 2009 are identical with those belonging to the preceding sugar beet project. They alone have already more than 3000 members now according to the figures provided by project staff. f) Being asked how many months had passed since the last general assembly of the cooperative, the answers of 30 cooperative heads led to an average of 3.8 months ranging from a minimum of 1to a maximum of 13 months. According to information provided by the heads of cooperatives roughly two thirds of the members were present at the last general assembly. g) The total wealth (property and savings) of cooperatives is 5,869,400 AFG (average: 195 .647; minimum 1.300 and maximum 1,600,000 AFG) 43 . Thus, differences between cooperatives related to wealth are very pronounced. Accumulation of capital through cooperatives’ enterprises do not exist with the exception of the apiculture cooperative. h) The cooperative managing board consists usually of director, his deputy, secretary, treasurer, and clerk. In the sample 44 of a survey conducted in the course of a Master thesis in agriculture at the Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Science , Wageningen 45 , 6 of the 10 board members interviewed had never attended school.

______41 Time was too short to assess the quality of these partnerships. 42 The total size of membership of the 30 cooperatives according to project staff’ records was only 4222 members (average 141; differences may be due to the fact that Project figures have been generated earlier). 43 per capita figures are: avg.: 1,938; min.: 10; and max.: 25,806 Afghani. 44 For the interviews 5 managing boards members and 10 ordinary members were randomly selected from two cooperatives in Puli Khumri district (Sadaqat and Akhwat) that were among the ones covered by the Project. Although the managing board members are still strongly over-represented in this survey, two-thirds of the sample are at least ordinary cooperative members. 45 By Hamdullah Tokhi, Wageningen; The Netherlands; September, 2011. In the following called the ‘Wageningen Master Thesis’

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

110. The 30 cooperatives were obviously all formally registered, had a managing board, statutes, a development plan, kept records and a registration book, and received different types of training. If this is what ‘established’ means, then the evaluator can confirm that the Project has exceeded its output target , i.e. ‘24 FBOs established’.

111. The related expected outcome would be properly functioning cooperatives . This resembles what has been specified as the second output:

Output 1.2: FBOs become functional and capacity developed in management and leadership issues 46 Indicator: At least 24 FBOs with office, minute books, field note books by end of year 1. At least 120 executive members trained and able to develop CAP and practice CBME by end of year 1

112. In the Progress Report no.5 (p.3) of July 2011 it is argued that the ‘ 30 Farm Based Organizations (FBOs) are fully functional’. The agricultural cooperative law (2008) 47 gives us an idea of what ‘properly functioning ’ means in the context of Afghanistan: members of the cooperatives produce agricultural commodities; cooperatives organize training for their members who apply what they have been trained in; they practise collective marketing, i.e. they buy inputs and sell outputs jointly; members work together in areas like planning, organization, coordination and control; value-addition is gained through product sorting, grading, packaging and storing; cooperatives provide financial services in accessing loans (from institutions) and using members’ savings/capital for investments benefiting the cooperative as a whole or on-lending to cooperative members; cooperative boards manage and administer cooperatives in a transparent, efficient and effective way in the interests of their members; etc.’ The proper functioning of cooperatives could further be verified by checking whether: cooperatives have statutes to which the board and individual members adhere to; they have a development plan; they keep records in journals and registration books; they have regular general assembly meetings; and the cooperative board defends or works for the interests of the majority of coop members.

113. There are indication that it is premature to call the 30 cooperatives fully functional . Heads of cooperatives (not all the board members) have eventually been trained in cooperative management by the Department of Cooperatives, but do these heads or the cooperative managing boards have management and leadership capacities now, and are these applied? Cooperatives have been equipped by the Project with stationery , and some have received office furniture, but does this make them functional? In the Progress Report No.5 (p.4) it was claimed that all FBOs have developed their community action plans (CAPs) 48 and shared them with FAO. Approximately at the same time, i.e. in July 2011, all 30 cooperative members interviewed in the Wageningen Master thesis survey said that they do not have any plan for cooperative activities. ______46 In the Projet Document the output was phrased differently: Effective market oriented and sustainable FBOs established 47 cited in ‘Wageningen Master Thesis’ 48 Unfortunately the evaluator has not seen any of these CAPs. It appears however that priorities were established in meetings between the Project and the cooperatives in 2009 which were somehow subsequently incorporated into the Project’s work plan. The Concluding Remarks (chapter 7) of the Inception Report read: ‘It is therefore recommended to assist farmers in developing the community action plans (CAP) for each agriculture year with technical input from the project. These CAPs would be the basis for project intervention. Likewise, each cooperative should be trained in community based monitoring and evaluation (CBM&E) process so that farmers monitor process themselves and self evaluate the outcomes.’

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

114. The cooperative boards have helped the Project team to identify cooperative members as participants of the Project’s training activities and as recipients of the Project’s agricultural inputs, tools and equipment; and some board members were even engaged as trainers and demonstrators in the Project’s field activities.

115. Ordinary cooperative members do not seem to work together in areas like planning, organization, coordination and control. The cooperatives are not used by their members to jointly buy agricultural inputs or to sell agricultural products. Cooperatives also do not provide financial services to their members, neither in accessing loans (from institutions) nor in using cooperative capital for on-lending to members. The capital of cooperatives remains on bank accounts, it is not used for investments benefiting the cooperative as a whole.

116. According to the law of cooperatives the cooperative managing board should be determined through the election of members. Three quarters of the 30 respondents of the Wageningen Master thesis survey said that there had never been an election conducted for forming the managing board, and one quarter answered that such an election had taken place only in the first years when the cooperative was established. Some cooperative members explained during the study that such an election of board members is only a symbolic act and that farmers are under the influence of ex-warlords and traditional leaders (‘maleks’ and ‘qomandan’), and most of these just follow their own interests. This information corresponds somehow to the findings of the impact survey carried out during the evaluation. According to the 29 heads interviewed they had fulfilled this function already on average for more than 4 years, one was holding this post already for the last 8 years. All argued however that they had been elected democratically by the members of their cooperative.

117. The Progress Report no.6 mentions that monthly meetings are held to discuss the major issues, to resolve them and improve systemic planning and management of cooperatives. From the impact survey conducted during the evaluation during the evaluation it was learned that the boards met slightly more than twice on average. According to the information received in the same survey 3.8 month had passed on average since a general assembly meeting had taken place.

118. All interviewees said that their cooperatives had statutes and that members fully adhere to them. Likewise all heads of the 30 cooperatives argued that records are kept in their cooperatives.

119. It is questionable however whether cooperative boards manage and administer cooperatives in a transparent , efficient and effective way in the interests of their members, whether they lobby for their fellow members and are considered by members as their representatives fighting for ordinary members’ interests.

120. The agricultural cooperatives the Project is working with only play the role of facilitators between members and supporters ( project personnel, NGOs and DAIL) providing agriculture services to the farmers. Until today, they hardly have any other role that is common for what can be called a well-functioning cooperative.

121. The concluding judgment of the author of the Wageningen Master thesis on the status of cooperatives’ development is much more crushing when it argues: Agricultural coops are not functioning well. It seems that none of them operate as a cooperative. The cooperatives hardly do anything for their members. They exist only in the books of the Agricultural

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Cooperative Department (ACD) . There is no difference between an ordinary farmer and an agricultural cooperative member. Both grow and sell their products outside the cooperative individually. MAIL’s support to agriculture cooperatives is meagre, the resources of the ACD are inadequate to train ordinary members of the cooperatives on cooperatives’ role. Therefore the awareness and knowledge of cooperative members about purpose and functions of cooperatives is low and so is their interest and participation in cooperative affairs. The communication between the cooperative board and ordinary members is weak and there is no request for accountability and transparency from ordinary members’ side. Village elders, ‘Malek, Khan and Qomandan’ still dominate the cooperatives’ boards strongly. They have the power and skills to distribute the agricultural inputs from supporting organizations to their families and request the type of support that benefits their land holdings and families.

122. Some results of the impact survey conducted during the evaluation seem to support the last statement. All interviewed cooperative heads were aware that a member could only receive support from the FAO Project in one area, and they argue that this rule has been followed. However, being asked at a later stage of the interview, in which areas they themselves received Project inputs, a somehow different picture appeared:

No. of coop heads who received inputs in … 1 area of project support: 1 2 areas of project support: 9 3 areas of project support: 10 4 areas of project support: 7 5 areas of project support: 1 6 areas of project support: 2

123. On average a cooperative head himself received project inputs in 3 different areas of support. This could apparently happen in spite of efforts made by Project staff to identify and eliminate applicants from the lists received from cooperative boards whose names had already been submitted for other types of Project support. – One of the more costly types of Project support per capita was the design and establishment of orchards. Only those farmers who had extra land for fruit trees were eligible for this type of support. Looking at areas in which interviewees received project support, their favourite enterprise was obviously orchard establishment, indicating that they also were among those who had enough extra land on which to grow fruit trees. As much as 70 % of cooperative heads received inputs and support in this area alone, while at the same time cooperative heads estimated that on average 35 % of their cooperatives had not received any Project inputs.

124. Although some observers who know the cooperatives well may find the assessment of the Wageningen Master thesis too general , a judgment too harsh and exaggerated, the question remains whether the existing top-down established cooperatives have the potential to become fully functional , i.e. organizations that effectively serve the interest of the majority of their members. Anyhow, the effort of the Project to strengthen the cooperatives’ development and management through training has come too late and was too much concentrating on the managing boards and not enough on ordinary members to have a decisive lasting effect.

125. From studying the Project Document it was concluded that cooperatives were planned to be strengthened through the promotion of income generating / self-help sub-groups set up to respond to particular interests. These ‘interest groups ’ were usually looked upon as 25

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 commodity groups whose members showed a special interest in one agricultural activity. 49 In principle they could also be the FBOs mentioned in the output statements. The promotion of interest groups, i.e. of groups consisting of people who received the same types of input has not been an emphasis of the Project 50 . Organizational support of such ‘interest groups’ could eventually have gone beyond the boundaries of single cooperatives.

126. In this context the New Cooperative Policy needs to be studied. In his meeting with the evaluator the Director General of the Department of Cooperatives pointed out that the new policy puts the focus on strengthening commodity or interest groups with respect to post- harvest operations and market linkages. Since the provincial capacity of the Cooperative Department was weak he welcomed the opportunity provided by the Project in the recently organized training to explain the department’s new concepts to cooperative heads of Baghlan province.

127. The third output expected from the Project is related to capacities created by the Project. Output 1.3: Governmental capacities to replicate upon focusing on some farmers, villages, communities in Baghlan and other provinces reinforced Indicator: At least 12 DAIL staff capable of designing and implementing different livelihood intervention programs

128. The type of capacity generated is predominantly human as opposed to institutional capacity . Although there are a few documents, posters and papers which can be used in activities similar to those of the Project, comprehensively described institutional procedures, job descriptions, technical guidelines or manuals have not been prepared. Two motorcycles and A.I. equipment handed over to staff of the Artificial Insemination Centre and some furniture for the Agricultural Department in Baghlan is perhaps all that can be seen to have contributed to institutional capacity.

129. The Project has undoubtedly strengthened Government staff’s capabilities in many technical, organizational and managerial fields. The major contribution of the Project is definitely the enhanced capacity of DAIL staff which has already been discussed in previous sections of this report (see paragraphs 76 f. and 96 f.). Next to DAIL staff’s participation in Sector Working Group (SWG) meetings, Interagency meetings and Project’s field and training activities, ten DAIL staff members were recently trained in ToT courses preparing them for the work as trainers in agricultural marketing. The last Progress Report claims that they have already participated in the training of 600 farmers from 30 cooperatives. The evaluator was told by Project staff that farmers increasingly show confidence in the technical support of DAIL extension agents.

130. The outcome of this output could be seen in the application of the newly acquired capacities without Project support. One can easily imagine that DAIL staff who has collaborated intensively with the Project is in a position to replicate activities for other FBOs provided the operational funding and the necessary agricultural inputs are forthcoming.

131. Component 2 of the Project promotion of increased farmer value addition and access to markets comprises also 3 outputs; the first reads:

______49 see paragraphs 34 and 49! 50 an estimated number of 225 such groups exist in the 30 cooperatives

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Output 2.1: Practices and equipment that increase farm productivity introduced and validated Indicator: At least 1 000 farmers in year 2 (2 000 in year 3) have adopted improved farming practices.

132. Farming systems and practices , their constraints, opportunities and key intervention areas (value addition measures) were described during the Project’s inception phase and summarized on a one-page table in the Inception Report. The results were based on a rapid field assessment of the project area by the Project team as well as on a survey on existing agricultural practices covering 100 households. They were presented and validated in three workshops attended by lead farmers and stakeholders.

133. The areas of Project interventions implemented changed slightly over time. At the time of the evaluation mission they comprised: Area of solar literac Labourer support rice dryin veget. y for bee- orchar poultr veget. cultiv g proces group PW/infrastr. keeping d y prod. . s. 51 * No. of coops covered 26 30 30 30 28 29 29 30 6 * bridge, canal, etc. for which people from the coop were employed as wage labourers; other project activities included poplar cultivation, intercropping in orchards, livestock feed and fodder, and artificial insemination

134. The literacy programme and the community labour for infrastructure construction (partially paid) have, if at all, only a marginal and indirect influence on farm productivity.

135. In most cases the agricultural interventions in each area included : (i)training of beneficiaries, (ii)demonstration of practices and (iii)inputs such as seed, fertilizer, agricultural and processing equipment, animal feed and live animals, saplings, and sperm and nitrogen for A.I.. Communication material was used in some cases.

136. The Project achievements reported on MAIL‘s Webpage comprised: • 600 stone fruit orchards established with planting 36000 saplings • 200 vineyards established through plantation of 20,000 saplings (200 farmers trained on viticulture) • 300 farmers completed two months extension course • 220,000 hybrid poplar cuttings distributed to 240 beneficiaries 52 • 500,000 cabbage & cauliflower seedlings distributed to 250 beneficiaries • 9,172kg legumes seed distributed to 300 beneficiaries as intercrop • Tomato seedlings distributed to 600 beneficiaries (each received 2000 seedlings) • Paddy rice demonstration plot established for 32 beneficiaries • Sunflower and soybean seed distributed to 200 beneficiaries • 200 beneficiaries trained in livestock management • 300 farmers trained in horticulture courses • Distribution of 200kg fodder crop to the farmers ______* bridge, canal, etc. for which people from the coop were employed as wage labourers; other project activities included poplar cultivation, intercropping in orchards, livestock feed and fodder 52 After four years the wood can be used e.g. for manufacturing boxes with which horticulture products can be transported.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

• Distribution 22 sprayers 440 shovels and pruning shears to 22 cooperative members

137. Unfortunately information has not been collected systematically on the outcome s of the introduced practices and distributed inputs/equipment; i.e. the utilization of knowledge, skills and equipment by farmers and recipients’ benefits. These aspects would be investigated in the second impact survey for which a questionnaire has already been prepared. Meanwhile one can only cite some results from individual observations and case studies. Many farmers, as a result of the Project, practiced the recommended intercropping in their orchards for the first time. In early 2012 one noted that 80% of the stone fruit trees in the orchards established 2009 were fruiting. Almost 400,000 seedlings of tomato, pepper, and red cabbage were produced in eight plastic tunnels set up with the help of the Project and were distributed to 400 vegetable growing members of the 30 cooperatives. It was recorded that these varieties have significantly higher production compared to local and other improved varieties. Improved fodder crop seed distributed to 200 farmers led to production increases of 20% compared to local and 12% compared to improved varieties already in use 53 . The last Progress Reports claims that over 400 cows were successfully artificially inseminated after DAIL’s A.I. Centre had been rehabilitated and equipped by the Project.

138. The fourth major expected output was included in the project design only after the inception phase. The intention was mainly to support also the landless people in the communities and to diversify agricultural production. It reads:

Output 2.2: Income generation opportunities especially to landless people and nominal land holders provided through diversification of farm activities (poultry, bee keeping, food processing) Indicator: 400 farmers ( 200 in yr 2, 200 in yr 3 ) benefited with at least 25% increase in household income

139. The areas of interventions included poultry raising, bee-keeping and food processing. Again the agricultural interventions in each area included : (i)training of beneficiaries, (ii)demonstration of practices and (iii)agricultural inputs and equipment.

140. The Project achievements reported on MAIL‘s Webpage in these agricultural support areas comprised: • 6000 pullets distributed in 22 coops to 400 beneficiaries 54 • 300 honey bee beehives distributed to 200 beneficiaries 55 • 400 women trained in tomato processing 56 • 20 beneficiaries trained in solar fruit drying 57

141. The construction of a bridge crossing the Baghlan river (the 30 m long Shamarq bridge at Khenjan cooperative links rural producers to the urban market 58 ), the cleaning of a ______53 Whether these are general parameters from research/demos, answers given by some informants, representative survey results or from taking crop measures is unclear! 54 each beneficiary receiving also (i) a ‘starter’ package consisting of drinker, feeder, wire mesh net, vaccine for the first 2-3 months, 70kg feed, and (ii)a 3-day training 55 in 22 coops beneficiaries received a set of equipment and a 1-month training by one male and one female trainer of the Ajmair cooperative 56 Another source (Sr. Field Assistant) reports that an FAO food processing specialist came and trained 260 women as trainers in tomato processing and then 1040 women were trained by the new trainers. 57 solar driers were delivered by a Kabul-based company, one for a number of families; 20 women were trained as trainers in Baghlan by a Home Economist working in another FAO project

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

5km long irrigation canal benefiting some 2000 farming families 59 and the rehabilitation of DAIL’s A.I. Centre were undertaken with the participation of cooperative members and their families. They remained the only activities of this type as the Project was never conceived and did not have the financial resources for infrastructure measures.

142. An impressive result of another type of Project activity – that is however not directly leading to higher farm productivity – is the large number of people that have become literate . As many as 1400 beneficiaries attended literacy courses organized and financed under the Project. The training rooms for literacy courses were usually made available by the cooperative members.

143. Trying to describe the outcomes of the outputs mentioned above we again face the consequences of a lacking monitoring and evaluation (M&E ) system . There is no meaningful documentation on the production of poultry products, preserved fruit and vegetables, and only cursory information on apiculture. The last progress report mentioned that the cooperative of Sahar-e-Kona in Omaid-Baghlan with 65 farmers started honey production; and that each family produced an average of 160 kg honey there. In the preceding progress report an average family production of only 21 kg honey per family had been reported. This tells us only that honey is obviously being produced. It does not tell how many beneficiaries produce honey and how much honey is being produced, and whether honey was produced, how much and by whom before the Project’s intervention.

144. Some kind of beneficiary assessment on the benefits people gained from the bridge construction and the canal cleaning would have been appropriate before calling these activities successful. About the rehabilitated artificial insemination (A.I. ) centre we learn that until December 2011 the total number of the artificially inseminated cows was 400. Effects at the next level (more productive livestock) can only be verified in the future.

145. Neither is the share of the 1400 literacy course participants known that can be considered literate now 60 , nor the usefulness of knowing how to read, write and calculate in the beneficiaries’ environment. The latter could be illustrated with cases such as the one that was brought to the evaluator’s attention: After completion of the literacy course, a young woman became a great help for her father as she could now more properly record the milk that he was collecting from different livestock owners and calculate the various costs and milk prices. One of the literacy trainers also pointed out that for the younger participants this course is the entry ticket for school enrolment.

146. Being asked during the impact survey conducted during the evaluation, what cooperative heads consider the most important and the second most important contribution of the FAO Project to the development of their cooperatives, the interviewees mentioned:

Area of Most Second most contribution important important Orchards 17 9 Literacy 7 8

______58 requested by the community and co-financed with the Department of Public Works 59 No further information is available with the evaluator on this Public Works activity. 60 The master teacher assured the evaluator that the proportion of students who do not pass the final test is marginal.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Area of Most Second most contribution important important Poultry 2 8 Bee keeping 2 2 Others 2 3

147. It is quite remarkable that literacy courses were rated the second most important Project activity behind orchard establishment.

148. Heads of all cooperatives provided information on the number of members who received support in each intervention area . The results of the statistical analysis are displayed below:

Statistical bee - rice solar veget. literac Parameter keepin orchar poultr veget. cultiv dryin proces y g d y prod. . g s. group sum (1) 237 818 61 903 453 164 418 810 1460 avg 9,9 27,3 30,1 15,6 6,8 13,9 30 50,3 min 1 20 10 1 1 1 30 20 max 25 45 36 100 16 100 30 80 stdev 5,8 7,8 7,8 17,4 5,4 18,7 9,2 18,0

149. The figures in the first row of the table above suggest that until March 2012 cooperative members have directly benefited 5263 times from FAO project interventions in the 8 areas of support. This implies that every family in all cooperatives could have benefited from the Project at least in one area of intervention had the one adhere to the announced principle that one member can only receive support in one area. The average number of people benefiting from support was highest in literacy (i.e. 50); in agriculture activities it was poultry and vegetable processing where the average number of beneficiaries per cooperative was 30. In some cooperatives up to 100 people benefited from horticulture activities and vegetable (especially tomato) processing. However there were also some cooperatives where only very few members, if at all received inputs in apiculture, horticulture, rice cultivation and solar drying.

150. An attempt has been made by the Finance and Administrative Assistant at the request of the evaluator to calculate the average Project cost per recipient for each area of intervention. Preliminary results indicate that an intervention in the area of orchard establishment was the most costly while a much cheaper intervention was the one related to literacy; for 43 USD one could open a universe for a girl by turning her into a women that can read and write for the rest of her life. This analysis would need to be thoroughly completed as together with the calculation of profits gained by beneficiaries some kind of cost/benefit analysis would allow a comparison between different types of intervention from an economic point of view.

151. The last expected output relates to the improvement of the marketing situation of cooperative members:

______61 cf. paragraph 131; the higher number in this table may result from respondents having put together orchards and vineyards as the latter was not listed as a separate area of intervention in the questionnaire.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Output 2.3 62 : Access to markets and services improved Indicator: At least 1 000 farmers in year 2 (2 000 in year 3) benefit from value addition and improved access to markets and services

152. After the first half year of Project implementation it was recognized in the Inception Report of July 2009 that the value chain addition for key products and marketing issues need further studies and analysis . The recommendation to hire an international consultant for this task could not be followed, it is argued by the FAO Office, for security reasons.

153. As was pointed out earlier in this report, the measures taken by the Project to produce the above mentioned output started practically only with the second mission of the LTO in June 2011 63 . Realizing that it was too late 64 for the Project team under the prevailing circumstances to make up for all deficiencies mentioned in the LTO’s BTO report 65 , some activities were cancelled or reduced in scope. These included: (i) business linkages development among value chain stakeholders; (ii) support on contract negotiation and compliance; and (iii)introduction of innovative technologies to improve access to market information on pilot basis. The no-cost extension of the Project up to June 2012 was mainly justified to improve the project performance especially in value addition and market linkages/networks.

154. The question of marketable surplus has been asked in the survey conducted during the evaluation. The table below shows the number of cooperative heads who have stated for the different intervention areas that there is already a lot of surplus production in their cooperatives:

bee- veget rice solar veget. Already substantial keepi orcha poultr . culti dryin proces marketable produce ... ng rd y prod. v. g s. yes: 21 28 28 29 23 25 29 no: 8 0 1 0 0 4 0 no info: 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 % of 'yes': 70 93 93 97 77 83 97

155. There is obviously already a substantial marketable surplus in many cooperatives. This seems to be particularly high in vegetables (fresh and conserved) but also in fruit and poultry products. 18 cooperative heads argue that it is substantial in all areas of intervention mentioned above.

______62 originally output 2.2 which in the revised Logframe became output 2.3 63 see paragraphs 87 and 88; but also take note that with respect to post-harvest operations , vegetable and fruit processing was introduced by the Project earlier; regarding improved access to markets co-financing the construction of the afore mentioned bridge has ensured 5000 families access to the central market at PIK; likewise the varieties of tomato, pepper, and red cabbage distributed through the Project were noticed to be more suitable for long distance transportation, and could therefore be brought to Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif markets 64 the Project was expected to terminate in December 2011 at that time 65 With respect to post-harvesting practices the author of the Wageningen Master thesis came to similar conclusions when he pointed out at about the same time that the farmers do not know about the post-harvest practices e.g. sorting, grading and packaging , and that traders are mostly involved in sorting, grading and packaging .

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

156. Other results of the survey together with observations the evaluator made during farm visits have disclosed that the groups involved in fruit production seem to be already fairly well organized and have developed some marketing capacity .

157. As proposed by the LTO, the International Marketing Consultant was engaged in a number of activities in his one-month consultancy. He went to Baghlan province for a couple of days and prepared a fairly comprehensive description of the marketing situation in his draft end-of assignment (EoA) report dated February 2012. In Kabul he conducted two one-week ToT courses, one on agriculture marketing 66 (November 2011) and the other on post-harvest management 67 (December 2011), using his own training material which was translated after it had been adapted to the situation. Each course had 25-30 participants, coming from MAIL and DAIL, cooperatives, implementing partners and the Project 68 .

158. As a consequence of the TSS mission and the visit of the Marketing Consultant, the Project team seems to have become more involved in the areas of marketing . It was argued in the last progress report that Project staff was monitoring the local markets with farmers to explore the potential for farmers’ produce 69 ; that, together with cooperatives, the Project team investigated in different packaging options and marketing hurdles; that an analysis of the demand and supply situation of products, the price formation process, trading margins and cost calculations of processing and storage were completed; and that linkages/networks were developed for the purpose of marketing analysis. Unfortunately the evaluator learned this only after the mission and could not verify to what extent these activities resulted in meaningful conclusions and decisions.

159. A more general concern of the evaluator is the appropriateness of the Project’s marketing approach which has targeted cooperatives, especially managing board members, more than commodity or interest groups. (see critical discussion of outputs 1.1 and especially 1.2).

160. In the absence of a representative survey it is difficult to give hard evidence that the overall immediate objective of the Project, increased income levels for small farmers in the Baghlan province 70 , has been achieved or is likely to be achieved . This is also difficult since the indicator for the immediate objective, i.e. farm household income levels of at least 2,000 families increased by a minimum of 20% in year 2 and 30% in year 3, has not been used. There are however several pieces of information which suggest that this is, respectively will be, the case.

161. It has been claimed in the fifth Progress Report that small farmer’s household income level for at least 3000 families has increased by a minimum of 35% based on a sample of farmers. The following Progress Report prepared in January 2012 states with respect to Project output 2.2 that 400 farmers (200 in project year 2, and 200 in year 3) benefited with at ______66 Topics covered included: principles of marketing; planning production for the market; group marketing and market linkages; legal and institutional environment; business planning and enterprise budgeting; cash flow budgeting; and specific value chain mapping of existing crops 67 Topics covered included: sorting, grading, packing, cold storage, and processing 68 Following the strategy designed by the LTO, participants (master trainers) then conducted training for 10 participants in Pul-i-Khumri who formed 5 pairs, which then imparted the training to 20 people of each cooperative. Thereby some 600 people were expected to receive this training. 69 An example cited was the retail price difference for tomatoes in 2010/2011: the price for 1 kg, according to information provided, was 2 Afghani in July/August and 58 Afghani in January/February. 70 (through improved farmers organization, productivity gains, value addition and market access)

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 least 25% increase in household income. These figures were however not results of a representative systematic random sample but rather extrapolated numbers provided by some farmers.

162. Some figures on farmers’ income stem from individual areas of Project interventions : A number of farmers have switched from growing wheat on pieces of their land to cultivating improved varieties of tomatoes received through the Project. Based on farmers’ information the Project staff reported a gross income from tomatoes of 180,000 AFS, compared to 15,000 AFS from wheat production. There are good chances for tomato producers as three small factories of tomato processing are under construction in the province.

163. In the Progress Report no. 6 the Project staff estimated that by enhancing backyard vegetable production program each farm family earned US$ 300.00 more annually . The corresponding figure in the preceding report was USD 240. Farmers who benefited from support in apiculture in the cooperative of Sahar-e-Kona, Omaid-Baghlan, provided figures which led the Project team to estimate that each household earned USD 390 per annum. Another calculation provided in Progress Report no.6 concludes that an average of 21 kg honey per family means a gross income of USD 220 p.a. 71 With Project assistance apiculture activities were extended to another 8 cooperatives/villages 72 . From the 6000 pullets distributed to 400 beneficiaries, families made an estimated gross average income of 2100 AFS per month. From intercropping legume in stone fruit orchards the average income from 1 jerib (0.2 ha) of land that usually was used for cereal production was estimated to be 26,600 AFS according to Progress Report 6. The corresponding figure of the preceding report was 21,600 AFS 73 . This can be seen as a considerable contribution to income until the orchards 74 become fully productive. Substantial gains in terms of income are also expected from the cattle breed and animal feed improvement program in the future.

164. Eventually the evaluation survey team requested the heads of cooperatives to make an estimate on the extent to which direct beneficiaries could increase their net income 75 from agriculture due to FAO Project activities compared to the before-project situation in 2008.

Income increase in % compared to before-project Statistical Parameter situation average: 52,2 min 30 max 85 stdev: 15,0

______71 On p.6 figures are cited from the fourth Progress Report: ‘300 beehives which were distributed to 200 farmers remained a good impact on the beneficiaries’ income. According to the beneficiaries, they get 10-20kg honey per box per year and earned over 5000-10,000 Afs from selling of the honey production.’ 72 Khorasan, Ansar, Sultan Daud, Rodaky, Okhowat, East Shamarq, Weast Shamarq and Housain Khil 73 360kg @ 60 AFS instead of 380 kg harvest @ 70 AFS per jerib the following year 74 600 orchards have been established; 60 trees per farmer; 70 kg fruit harvest per tree is expected 75 Unfortunately it has not been specified in the interviews whether we refer to income from agriculture only or to total income.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

165. The project’s contribution to cooperative members’ net income can be called meaningful if it really amounts to more than 50 % on average.

5.2 Gender issues

166. It appears that the whole Project is rather gender-biased . Gender issues are not considered in the Project Document although a National Gender and Social Development Expert was expected to be engaged for a period of two months. There is no female Project staff. Backstopping officers from FAO have been exclusively men so far. A few female staff seem to have been involved as Project’s implementing partners. There were some women involved in the literacy courses and in poultry and beekeeping training 76 . The direct recipients of the Project’s equipment and services were predominantly male with the exception of literacy courses.

167. There is also a gender-bias in the evaluation of the Project. The evaluator is a man and the large majority of his resource persons were men. There were also no female evaluation survey members. Only one women was among the 30 respondents in the evaluation survey.

168. At the same time we know that women are usually heavily involved as work-forces. Therefore the evaluation survey team wanted to know the percentage of work that is carried out by women in the various production/processing activities supported by the Project, and came to the following results:

bee - veget. Infrast Work done by keepin orchar veget. rice solar proces r. women in % g d poultry prod. cultiv. drying s. works average: 51,8 28,9 81,6 50,3 33,5 55,5 49,4 10,1

169. Especially poultry but also solar drying are the production/processing areas where women – according to male heads of cooperatives – are doing the majority of work. Their share of work appears to be relatively small in rice and fruit cultivation, although in estimating their share of work in the latter respondent have probably referred to orchard establishment rather than maintenance of the orchard and doing the harvest and post-harvest operations.

170. One of the low-cost interventions of the Project has been the literacy training provided (see also paragraph 139 f.). Originally conceived equally for men and women, girls and young women became the main beneficiaries. In general, the interest of men seem to have faded away or has become weaker, according to Project staff, because they had to take care of agricultural work during the 9-month courses 77 . After completion of the basic numeric and literacy training, the participants are introduced to functional literacy courses in the areas of horticulture and vegetable production, livestock management, and sewing and embroidery.

______76 The LoA with the Ajmir Apiculture Cooperative explicitly states that 2 women trainers must be involved. The contract with the Kunduz Poultry Services (no ToR included in the 24 page contract paper!) requires the contractor to engage six female poultry trainers and a female poultry monitor. 77 Project Progress Report no.6, p.5: ‘During the reporting period, 91 batches with 20 female participants having 1820 students. The course content includes basic numeric and literacy courses. Furthermore 68 batches with 1360 participants have completed the nine-month advance courses. 23 batches with 460 participants are continuing their courses.’

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Once the numeric and literacy training is completed, most of the students take an examination and are absorbed in Government schools; other work in livestock management and horticultural crop production jobs requiring abilities to read, write and calculate. The literacy training has apparently been highly welcomed by men and women as further demand for Project support has been expressed by cooperative heads in this area (see also Annex 10 for two reports prepared by former literacy training participants).

171. The head of the only cooperative having exclusively female members (60 members) the Project was working with mentioned in a meeting with the evaluator that the Project’s vegetable production and women literacy advancement programs were considered to be the best programs launched by the Project. She requested further assistance in the development of kitchen gardens and expansion of literacy classes.

5.3 Capacity Development

172. The concept of the Project puts emphasis on capacity building as described earlier in paragraphs 27 and 34. 78 During implementation the Project was very active in strengthening farmers’ capabilities in technical fields through many different types of training and demonstration. The relative proportion of board members receiving training in different agricultural practices appears to have been higher compared to ordinary cooperative members.

173. The last Progress Report summarizes the technical training activities including BDS and marketing training as follows: • The project has trained over 1530 farmers in different agriculture related issues in over 12 training events and 56 training sessions excluding farmers’ field days. The training subjects were: • Business development services (BDS): The LTO had conducted a short course on the subject during his mission (see paragraph 89). Subsequently 3 national consultants who attended the training provided 10-day BDS training of trainers (TOT) courses for 50 people (cooperative board members and DAIL staff attended). Then these BDS trainers provided similar training to 350 beneficiaries from 30 cooperatives. • Agricultural marketing : (see paragraph 149) • Post-harvest management: (ibid.) • Orchard establishment and orchard management : ‘300 persons received this training. Moreover the project also provided this training to 22 cooperatives, from each cooperative ca. 20 persons participated; the total number of participant was 420.’ 79 • Tomato processing : 1040 women were trained in tomato processing 80 • Livestock management : 200 beneficiaries were trained in livestock management • Solar fruit drying : 20 beneficiaries trained in fruit solar drying training • Viticulture : 300 farmers received training in viticulture .

174. In addition, DAIL’s A.I. Centre staff was sent to training in artificial insemination , 200 farmers received training on viticulture , and 240 farmers were given instructions how to best plant, maintain and use poplar trees. ______78 Different aspects of capacity have already been discussed in the paragraphs 58, 76f., 124f. 79 It is likely, but not completely clear from this phrase of the progress report whether all owners of the 600 orchards established under the Project received this training. 80 p.8; but on p.4 it is mentioned: 10 person from DAIL staff were trained in TOT and they visited 600 farmers from 30 cooperatives

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

175. Field demonstrations took place in horticulture and rice planting in addition to sunflower, cabbage and cauliflower growing. In total, 480 farmers were reported to have benefited such demonstrations.

176. Such training and demonstration activities of the Project were generally going hand in hand with the distribution of equipment, tools and agricultural inputs . For instance, the project distributed budding knives and pruning scissors to 300 participants of orchard management training; 100 saplings were received by each of the 200 trainees attending the viticulture courses; and 240 beneficiaries instructed in poplar growing got 220,000 hybrid poplar cuttings. Solar-dryers were received by people who were introduced to fruit and vegetable drying; and the trained staff of the A.I. Centre received a semen container, a refrigerator and a microscope.

177. In most cases it was the combination of receiving training , being exposed to demonstrations and getting instruments and inputs which enabled the beneficiaries to practice their newly acquired capacities.

178. Functional literacy courses and the training material distributed have also contributed to technical capacity formation of farmers and their family members.

179. DAIL staff participated actively in practically all activities mentioned above, thereby developing their skills and knowledge which makes them respected extension agents in the eyes of farmers. In addition, the two motor-cycles have increased DAIL staff’s mobility and furniture has made their offices more functional.

180. No doubt, recently capacities have also been developed of the cooperative boards81 how to develop and manage their cooperatives. Half a dozen cooperatives have received basic furniture for their office, the bee-keeping cooperative has even been provided with a computer. The future will show how these new capacities are put to good use.

181. Unfortunately no systematic efforts have been made to ensure that the new capabilities (e.g. in the areas of marketing) of Baghlan-based DAIL staff are properly documented and widely shared with staff of other provinces being in similar posts and positions, and that the trained managing board members impart their knowledge with the ca 100 cooperatives of other districts.

5.4 Sustainability

182. The Project Document points out that ‘Lessons gleaned from the many income generation projects scattered around Afghanistan strongly support the idea that in order to sustainably improve household and on-farm income generation, "effective" farmer-based organizations are essential’ (p.7). The idea of lasting Project effects is also expressed in the original statement of output 1.2 Effective market oriented and sustainable FBOs established – however not so in the revised one anymore (see revised Logframe version of the Inception

______81 More than 120 (of an estimated total of 150) executive members of the cooperatives have been trained in different subjects.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

Report 82 ). The objective of self-reliant cooperatives mentioned in the Project Document does not seem to have been achieved 83 . A reason may be that this objective has neither been thoroughly discussed in the Project Document nor has it been translated into activities. Cooperatives’ role is still limited to that of a distributor of externally donated inputs 84 . There are hardly any joint economic activities of the cooperative as such, and the social cohesion of cooperative members does not seem to be particularly strong 85 .

183. What the Project has been generated are human resource capacities of the DAlL 86 , strengthened cooperative boards, and technical knowledge and skills among better equipped individual farmers. Some of the human capacities generated may not have been fully internalized yet, and knowledge and skills acquired may fade away unless they are applied and practiced. Especially those capacities which can only be used in combination with new tools, equipment and additional agricultural input supply are endangered. Financial resources for operations, equipment and inputs that have been made available by the Project so far will probably be lacking once the Project has come to an end. Costs for different interventions per beneficiary seem to have varied between USD 43.- and approximately USD 150.-. Presently these cannot be covered by the cooperatives, the MAIL or any other Government and non- governmental organization.

184. One of the most pressing problems expressed by cooperative members in both surveys is the lack of loans . The Wageningen Master thesis reports that in 2008 the Afghan National Bank distributed 6 million Afghani to all agricultural cooperatives in Baghlan province. Bank records seem to indicate that from the total amount 60% of the loan still remains with cooperative members (p.37). The results of the survey conducted during the evaluation also revealed that there is membership fee collection and some of the cooperatives have accumulated some capital. In principle, one can also imagine a mechanism which would have allowed the cooperative to charge individual recipients of Project’s giveaways a nominal amount for increasing the cooperative’s capital. However, the availability of financial resources is probably not the only problem because to date the cooperatives’ savings are neither used for joint purchases of agricultural inputs nor for lending to individual members.

185. The income-generating self-help groups (cf. paragraph 34) envisaged in the Project Document have also not emerged. The Project was to encourage interest groups to save money and develop capital for internal lending: Groups will be encouraged to save money and develop capital funds for lending internally as the need is identified ’ (Project Document p.7). This has not happened.

______82 There the output 1.2 is: FBOs become functional and capacity developed in management and leadership issues 83 The only cooperative which may be called self-reliant is the Ajmair Apiculture Cooperative; but this was already strong before the Project. 84 Wageningen Master thesis p 38: ‘ It seemed that none of the Agri coops operated as a cooperative and also there is a poor interest of making cooperative efforts to reach common goals. The cooperatives exist only in the books of ACD administration ’ 85 On p.23 the Wageningen Master thesis states that 63% of respondents say that they never have a meeting in the cooperative On page 29 it says that 23 of the cooperative members interviewed argue that their communication with the cooperative board is weak. 86 To include the government counterparts directly in the project implementation process instead of service providers (decision taken at the end of the inception phase) has definitely contributed decisively to their competences. Established parameters, procedures and experiences have often not led to the preparation of manuals and guidelines which would have helped to replicate the new approaches beyond the Project’s lifetime.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

186. Sustainable benefits for individual recipients of Project inputs are very likely to occur in most areas of interventions (e.g. orchard establishment, poultry, vegetable cultivation, apiculture, etc.).

187. It has been shown in paragraph 155 that, listening to the heads of cooperatives, the average general income increase of their cooperative farmers due to Project interventions is substantial. With respect to sustainability one question of the survey questionnaire was: Project activities in which area have contributed most to families' sustainable cash income from agriculture? Results of the analysis of answers to this question are displayed below. Interviewees were requested to use a point scale from 1-5 to indicate the degree of contribution: 1 being the least useful and 5 the most useful.

vege solar literac t. rice dryin veget. y Labourer Statistical bee- orcha poultr prod cultiv g proces group PW/infrastr. Parameter keeping rd y . . s. 87 * average: 3,9 4,5 4,6 4,2 3,2 3,7 3,9 4,9 2,0 1 pt.= contr. least: 3 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 13 2 points: 4 2 1 2 2 3 2 0 11 3 points: 2 3 2 2 13 6 6 0 2 4 points: 6 4 4 11 7 12 14 2 2 5 pt.= contr. most: 15 21 23 14 4 8 8 28 2 median: 4,5 5 5 4 3 4 4 5 2 stdev: 1,4 0,9 0,8 1,1 1,2 1,2 0,9 0,3 1,2

While the average number of points (3.9) is relatively high, the highest rates of the contribution to income from agriculture activities proper are those for poultry (4.6) and orchard (4.5). It is interesting to see however that literacy (4.9) is obviously rated highest in contributing to income in the long run. Less surprising that casual labour for infrastructure measures is rated lowest in this respect.

188. The Project has no exit strategy yet which would consolidate achievements; assess and compare the different Project interventions; document approaches and procedures; complete databases; and prepare the different stakeholders for the after-Project situation. This could include, among others, strengthening the self-help spirit of interest/commodity groups, further facilitation of initiated partnerships with input and service providers as well as improved producer-market linkages.

5.5 Impact

189. Judging the impact of a Project is always difficult since the concept of impact comprises in principle all effects, judging the impact of Project 053 in this evaluation report is however particularly difficult for various reasons: First, the thrust of the Project is on field- level interventions of which thousands of people may have been affected. Secondly, there is a ______* bridge, canal, etc. for which people from the coop were employed as wage labourers; other project activities included poplar cultivation, intercropping in orchards, livestock feed and fodder

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 broad range and a variety of Project activities each having its special effects. Thirdly, the security situation in the area restricted the movements of the evaluator. Fourthly, sex and language limited the evaluator’s access to the farming community members, and so did his status as a short-term foreign visitor (an Afghan evaluation team member would certainly have been an asset under such circumstances). Fifthly, neither has an on-going baseline data collection taken place describing the before-Project-intervention situation of people receiving different inputs and services, nor the announced impact survey from which this report would have been benefited 88 .

190. Discussing briefly some aspects of the Project’s impact here, some indications can be cited that a contribution has been made to the achievements of the development objective , i.e. improvement of food security and livelihoods of small farmers and their families in the Baghlan province and a few observations will be presented that positive changes have or are likely to occur as a result of the Project.

191. Improved household food security has been achieved in two ways, through a greater variety of nutritious food produced and consumed by farm families, and through the increase of income from selling farm products promoted by the Project. More and more an income increase may also be the consequence of better marketing and higher prices that farm families get for their products.

192. The last Progress Report gives examples for improvements in food security. Thus farmers who had received pullets generated a reasonable income increase by selling the surplus eggs. At the same time roughly 50% of the produced eggs were consumed directly by the family. Likewise it rightly argues: ‘ Besides, the increase of income, honey is a rich nutrition source which brings diversity in the food of beneficiaries and helps to ensure food security in the region .’ This has likely also happened to all those who cultivated new types of vegetable in their backyards or produced more using improved vegetable seeds.

193. Livelihoods have improved when agricultural production became diversified. Poor harvest of one agricultural product is often compensated by a good harvest of another one. The value-added production in the form of dried or processed fruit and vegetables are also seen by farmers to improve their livelihoods. The 600 orchards will have a major impact of beneficiaries’ lives once the fruit trees come into full production. This is likely to give also a further boost to value added production.

194. The earlier described Project’s collaboration in the construction of the bridge was justified by arguing that it connected 5000 families to the central market. These families certainly considered better access to schools, health centers and other public places additional important aspects of their improved livelihoods.

195. The contribution of the Project to food security and livelihoods of small farmers and their families was also an aspect that cooperative heads were asked to assess. Again, interviewees were requested to use a point scale from 1-5 to indicate the degree of contribution: 1 being the least useful and 5 the most useful.

______88 An impact assessment survey questionnaire has been designed by the evaluator and was left with the Project team before departure (see Annex 12).

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012

vege solar literac t. rice dryin veget. y Labourer Statistical bee- orcha poultr prod cultiv g proces group PW/infrastr. Parameter keeping rd y . . s. * average: 4,3 4,7 4,6 4,3 3,6 4,0 4,0 4,8 2,1 1 pt.= contr. least: 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 2 points: 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 13 3 points: 3 1 3 2 10 8 6 0 7 4 points: 9 3 2 14 8 8 9 7 0 5 pt.= contr. most: 16 25 24 13 8 12 12 23 0 median: 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 2 stdev: 0,9 0,7 0,8 0,7 1,1 1,1 1,0 0,4 1,0

196. Results look similar to those presented for the sustainable cash income. Only beekeeping, rice cultivation with improved varieties and solar drying play a comparatively more important role for food security and livelihoods than for sustainable cash income.

197. When judging the impact we also have to consider the spread of technology or innovations especially in view of the limited number of direct beneficiaries that projects usually have (see paragraph 56). The last two progress reports include some interesting statements in this respect. The farmers are reported to multiply and share improved vegetable seed with other farmers who are either the cooperative members and/or are other farmers. The coverage by the end of the Project is therefore estimated as 10,000 farming families who will either directly and indirectly benefit from improved varieties of vegetable seeds. This dissemination is expected to happen also after the Project. In regard to artificial insemination the last report states: ‘ The AI centers are now providing services to farmers in the targeted districts as well as outside of the Project boundaries. Furthermore, expansion of AI services in the province patiently requested .’

198. The evaluation survey team was also interested in the type of production/processing initiatives that have the greatest chance to spread . The same point system has been followed as for the previous questions. 1 point indicating very low chances and 5 points extra- ordinarily high chances. Analysis results are given below:

vege solar literac t. rice dryin veget. y Labourer Statistical bee- orcha poultr prod cultiv g proces group PW/infrastr. Parameter keeping rd y . . s. * average: 4,0 4,5 4,3 4,0 3,7 3,9 4,4 4,4 2,3 1 pt.= contr. least: 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 4 2 points: 5 2 0 2 4 3 2 2 15 3 points: 5 1 5 8 8 8 2 1 9 4 points: 6 2 4 5 7 9 8 1 1 5 pt.= contr. most: 14 24 19 14 10 10 18 24 1 median: 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 2 40

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 stdev: 1,2 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,0 0,9 1,3 0,9

Orchard and vegetable processing received the highest average values when it came to rating the chances for a production/processing initiative to spread.

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

199. The evaluation would have benefited from the participation of the other two parties, i.e. the Afghan Government and the Donor Government. More intimate knowledge of cultural and policy aspects may have enriched this report. FAO’s policy of promoting tri-partite evaluations assumes that six eyes see more than two, especially if they look at the Project from different directions. Triangulation techniques could certainly have been applied more frequently. --- R1 -f89 : (MAIL’s Evaluation Section) Make efforts to participate in project evaluation missions as it would benefit the evaluation and enhance the capacity of MAIL staff . R2 -f: (Management of the German Trust Fund) Decision makers should send their representative to project evaluations like this one as they offer unique opportunities to review a project in-depth and generate useful lessons for similar Fund interventions in the future.

200. The evaluation TOR have become rather demanding whereas the time allotted for a project evaluation does not seem to have been adjusted. The evaluation contract for Project 053 does not include time for evaluation preparation. The draft contract even covered only the time spent in Afghanistan, not the time required for report writing. --- R3 -f: (FAO) Give evaluators time (ca 2-4 days) for the preparation of the evaluation, especially for studying relevant documents and designing evaluation methodology and instruments! If possible, adjust contract length also to (i)number of evaluation team members, (ii)complexity of the project, and (iii)extent/quality of available M&E results (including progress reports) produced during the Project’s lifetime.

201. The standard evaluation TOR are comprehensive and show the enormous experience FAO has accumulated in this area. The TOR for this evaluation do however not reflect any interest which relates particularly to this Project90 . A specific interest could for instance exist in the advantages and disadvantages of national execution, or the Project’s achievements in turning the existing cooperatives into FBOs which offer different services to all its members. - -- R4 -f: (FAO) Mention in the evaluation ToR major project-specific issues requiring particular attention, especially if the time reserved for the exercise is short!

202. The pros in the Project design include: a generally sound project concept; a consistent project logic (means-ends relationship); the type of support complies with priorities of major stakeholders; the two project components complement each other; and the management structure appears adequate for implementation. The cons of the project design comprise: a missing analysis of the existing FBOs the Project is expected to strengthen; project location in the MAIL not defined and Government department(s) to strengthen not described; high risks and vaguely formulated mitigation measures for successful project implementation; and no clear fallback strategies in case critical assumptions, such as chances for recruiting competent ______89 ‘R’ stands for recommendation; ‘ o’ means relevant for on-going activities, ‘ f’ means relevant for general follow-up 90 See for instance paragraph 51 related to the different aspects of relevance.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 personnel, do not hold. --- R5 -f: (FAO) If essential analysis cannot be completed and important conclusions can not yet be drawn during the project formulation stage, such tasks should be carried out during the inception phase and inserted in the workplan and the project staff’s TORs.

203. The Project does not seem to be housed in the MAIL , i.e. it has no office there and is not located in or linked to a single department, division or service in Kabul. The Director General of Alternative Agricultural Livelihoods of the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL) is aware of but not informed on the Project. --- R6 -f: (MAIL) The exact institutional location of this and other projects should be defined; a section in the MAIL must become formally responsible for the Project; periodic visits to project sites by staff of the section in-charge are highly recommended.

204. The Project contrary to what was planned has no steering committee, no CTA and no Project Manager (FAO/MAIL). Although the FAOR is formally in charge and the AFAOR and the SOO set some time aside to look after the Project, it is fair to say that the Project has no management and no adequate tri-partite steering. The author of the Inception Report seems to have anticipated the situation when he argued (p.8), after emphasizing the importance of management for the Project, that management implies ‘ not only doing the things right, but doing the right things (impact monitoring, assessment of sustainability and cost/benefit issues)’ . Indeed the Project has been rather weak in these three areas up to now. In addition, project management would have been aware of the experimental/ pilot function that projects of this type necessarily always have. Drawing lessons based on systematic analysis of the Project’s interventions in several areas would probably have been promoted to identify those which lend themselves to be replicated on a larger scale in other geographic areas. –R7 -o: (FAO/Project team) The cost/benefit analysis of different interventions and the systematic impact and sustainability assessment which have started with the cost-per beneficiary calculations and the impact survey 91 carried out during the evaluation should be enlarged and deepened.

205. The LTU backstopped the Project successfully but not sufficiently with its TSS missions (see paragraph 84 f.). How important such a mission can be under the prevailing circumstances was demonstrated in the LTO’s last two missions (see paragraph 87 f.). In between the missions there should have been more communication of the LTU with the local Project Team and the SPOO on the Project’s progress. It seems that studying the semi-annual progress reports carefully the LTO could have realized the shortcomings in implementing activities of project component 2 earlier. 92 --- R8 -f: In between LTU backstopping missions there should be regular communication between the LTU and people implementing activities on progress in following the work plans.

206. The qualified and highly respected Technical Officer leads the local Project team in Pul-e-Kumrhi, fulfils most of the routine management functions, and does much more than what could realistically be expected from a man in his post. At the same time his position

______91 The questionnaire designed by the evaluator was tested during the evaluation mission. 92 The LTO in his response wrote: ”A look at some of the e-mail communications and correspondence between me and the representation and project team over the period since July 2011 should in my view dispel the perception that there was inadequate communication . Your conclusion that the LTO "could have realized the shortcomings in implementing activities of project component 2 earlier", are in my view unwarranted.”

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 does not give him the authority and influence in Kabul that a Project Manager or a CTA has 93 . Fortunately his requests were usually taken care of by the SOO, who also frequently advised him. --- R9 -f: (FAO) It is important in situations like this that senior staff in the FAO Representation is cognisant of the danger that a project which is not represented by a senior FAO project manager is potentially put at a disadvantage compared to others. AFAORs and SOOs should sharpen their awareness of the requirements of such projects through more frequent project site visits.

207. The Project team in Baghlan province has changed during the lifetime of the Project (see Annex 3) 94 . It has done a good job in organizing and conducting project activities under difficult conditions. The competence of technical staff lies especially in agricultural production techniques and less in post-harvest operations and marketing. They have learned a lot during the Project’s life, on-the-job as well as in training courses and workshops. --- R10 - f: (FAO) It is recommended that FAO tries to keep those involved in future projects who worked in the Project for a long time and performed particularly well.

208. The Project team has apparently carried out most of the activities that were planned such as a baseline study and a farming systems analysis but their methodology and findings have not been clearly documented .95 On the other hand intervention areas have been identified in the inception report from the Project’s work on farming systems analysis. --- R11 -o: (FAO Project Team) Important activities should always be documented adequately and such documents should be put into an office file and a well structured electronic directory which can easily be accessed by people working for the Project.

209. Critical preparatory activities of component two, such as market analysis and value chain appraisal have started very late in the Project’s life. The evaluator has difficulties to accept the security situation and the resulting difficulties to recruit suitable candidates for field assignments as the only explanations. He has no doubt that a competent national manager, a CTA, a steering committee, more frequent backstopping missions from FAO or more rigorous monitoring arrangements – all factors foreseen at the planning stage – would have called for these activities earlier. --- R12 -f: (FAO, GoA) It must be avoided in the future that too many sources of corrective actions are not in place at the same time .

210. More than the originally targeted cooperatives benefited from project activities, i.e. one fourth of all cooperatives in Baghlan province. The attempt to benefit all 30 cooperatives equally by giving support to e.g. 10 members of each cooperative ignores the substantial differences in size and leads to a bias towards smaller cooperatives. At the same time it may make it more difficult to form interest/commodity groups as members live far from each other. The number of families who were directly supported in diversifying their livelihoods reached approximately 3500, i.e. many more than the 2000 expected. In spite of propagated principles (one family can only be supported in one intervention area) and efforts by Project staff to make sure cooperative boards adhere to them, 20-30% of the cooperative members have not received any inputs from the Project directly while at the same time others were supported in several areas. And finally, a difference has to be made between strengthening

______93 The 4-wheel-drive vehicle owned by the Project was sometimes used for non-Project 053 purposes outside Baghlan province. At the time it has been argued during the evaluation that 16 Project cooperatives could not be reached by Project staff as clearance by UNAMA was tied to the use of an armoured vehicle. 94 After joining the Project late, the CTA has left after a few months. 2 Field Assistants have left (one for further studies the other because of the security situation), 2 others joined in late 2011. 95 The Project cannot be seen to have contributed to FAO’s normative work.

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 individual cooperative members and strengthening the cooperative as such. --- R13 -o: (FAO/GoA) More rigorous monitoring involving representatives of the FBOs should be applied and further support should be given only to those FBOs that follow the principles announced by the Project (e.g. regarding double-benefiting).

211. The call for strengthening farm-based organizations (FBOs) in the Project Document was obviously interpreted by project implementers to mean supporting the existing cooperative boards, not farmer groups defined by common interests in growing the same type of crop and/or marketing a particular agricultural product 96 (see paragraph 34). The support provided has not led to economic activities of the cooperative as a whole but has benefited individual board members and ordinary cooperative members as individuals. --- R14 -f: (FAO/GoA) In the future the potential of existing FBOs to become economically active farmer (commodity) groups/cooperatives should be assessed more thoroughly at project preparation stage . --- R15 -f: (FAOR) Findings and preliminary conclusions drawn during this evaluation especially related to the Project approach assisting farmers through cooperatives (see paragraph 108 ff.) should be discussed with senior staff of MAIL’s Department of Cooperatives as they may contribute to a Government policy that benefits farmers more effectively, e.g. in the area of joint marketing.

212. In spite of some initial contacts 97 and one or two encouraging experiences 98 in collaboration with other projects , collaboration in general (could be with the German Trust Fund, the FAO executed, and/or all other Livelihood projects) seems to have fallen short of expectations 99 . A call for such collaboration, participation of the Technical Officer in management meetings organized regularly in the FAO Representation and the assignment of a National Development Communication Officer 100 do not seem to have automatically led to the expected intensity of collaboration which was of course hampered by the security situation. --- R16 -f: (FAO/GoA) The person in charge of the German Trust Fund Projects in Afghanistan, the AFAOR, and the Government Coordinator of all other livelihood projects in Afghanistan101 should together review the existing mechanisms and rules to ensure such collaboration (sharing of resources, implementation of joint activities, provision of technical inputs etc.), and, if necessary, revise and amend them.

213. Capacity development activities (see paragraph 58) were planned for farmer-based organization (FBOs), government organization (GOs) and non-government organizations (NGOs) but neither were their (baseline) status and potential thoroughly assessed nor were the capacity strengthening activities clearly defined at the formulation stage. --- (see R5 !)

214. The record of capacity building measures reaching individual farmers is impressive, by contrast systematic evidence-based information on the application of new capacities is limited. The latter applies also to capacities installed in cooperative boards, DAIL offices and non-government implementing partners. --- R17 -o: (Project Team and FAOR) During the ______96 The relatively small but wealthy Ajmair honey-bee cooperative example shows that groups having these characteristics can have the organizational form of a cooperative. 97 with the Nutrition Project (050/GER), Livestock Project ( 040/GER), Forestry Project ( 052/GER) and SALEH (029/UK) 98 food processing training through nutrition project 99 expressed e.g. in Inception Report, p.12 100 His/her ToR are attached to the Project Document as Annex 4. He/she has not worked for Project 053 (see Annex 3). 101 probably the Director General of Alternative Agricultural Livelihoods of the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL)

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 final stage of Project 053 information should be collected on the application of the equipment distributed and the new capabilities imparted to farmers 102 , cooperative boards and DAIL offices. Senior FAO staff in FAO’s Representation should ensure that result-oriented reporting complements activity reporting in semi-annual progress reports. This includes verifying whether the required data is provided for key indicators displayed in the Logframe. 215. A substantial part of the Project’s support to farmers has been the distribution of agricultural inputs such as seed, saplings, fertilizer, live animals, tools and equipment. At the same time there was a call in the Project Document for encouraging ‘interest’ groups to start saving money (see paragraph 173) which was not followed up by the Project team. --- R18 -f: (FAO) FAO should find out whether in future projects the two aspects can be combined in such a way that group members receiving such inputs pay a nominal fee to their group to form a capital stock.

216. The group of DAIL staff working with the Project is believed to be capable to replicate Project activities in other cooperatives and other districts. The question is whether they will have access to sufficient operational funds and the necessary agricultural inputs. . --- R19 -o: (Project Team and FAOR) Find out from the DAIL staff what chances they have to replicate Project activities in other areas, and document this in the Project’s completion report.

217. Judging the impact of the Project has been particularly difficult for reasons mentioned in paragraph 177. But from what has been said in section 5.5 one can conclude that the Project has a positive impact on the food security and livelihoods of small farmers and their families which does not only originate from increased income. Taking the assessments of 30 cooperative heads displayed in the three tables of paragraphs 175,183 and 185 as a yardstick for measuring the satisfaction of beneficiaries one must come to the conclusion that the Project’s areas of interventions were well chosen 103 . Negative effects have not been observed, except perhaps that the Project may have marginally contributed to a broadening gap between the haves and have-nots. M&E arrangements for this Project were inadequate and affected not only the assessment of impact. --- R20 -o: (Project Team and FAOR) More evidence on the positive effects of the Project should be generated through the second part of the impact survey, the sampling of which need particular attention. --- R21 -f: (German Trust Fund Management and FAOR) The tri-partite evaluation report of GCP/AFG/039/GER submitted in 2009 included a proposal (attached as Annex 7) on Building an M&E Systems related to Food Security, Nutrition and Livelihoods in Afghanistan which should be reconsidered if there is the will to improve the situation with respect to monitoring and evaluation.

218. The Project’s NTE date is 30 June 2012. Activities of the current work plan prepared by the LTO in collaboration with the Senior Operations Officer (SOO) and the National Technical Specialist are ongoing and are unlikely to be fully completed until then. A comprehensive phase-out strategy for the Project which can support sustainability of selected activities is not yet in place. --- R21 -o: (LTO, Project’s Technical Specialist and FAOR) An exit strategy would need to be elaborated by the three FAO staff mentioned above and implemented by the Project team in collaboration with the FAOR office. This should include among others: (i) completing activities of the current workplan, especially related to market linkages; (ii) conducting second part of impact survey and preparing survey report 104 ; (iii) ensuring that lists with names of direct beneficiaries by cooperative are available which show ______102 This would for instance happen by conducting the second part of the impact survey covering ordinary cooperative members. 103 The average rating value was >3.9 points (ranging from 1-5) for the datasets. 104 Should include calculation of average benefits of each type of intervention per beneficiary

Evaluation Report of FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, April 2012 type of inputs received; (iv) continuing calculation of average cost of each interventions per beneficiary 105 ; (vi) listing DAIL counterpart staff and Project intervention areas in which they have been involved together with training they have received; (vii) completing the file containing all contracts, LoAs and reports of implementing partners together with performance assessment by Project team; (viii) list contacts of input and equipment suppliers together with an assessment of their services; (ix) collaborating intensively with the Baghlan Agriculture Project (BAP) to identify modalities for transferring some of the Project’s support activities to the BAP 106 ; and (x) preparing of the last progress report and the project completion report.

219. The remaining balance of the project budget was USD 405,427 at the time of the evaluation. --- R22 -o: (German Trust Fund Management and FAOR) Initiate a no-cost extension of the Project until 30 November 2012.

______105 see paragraph 142 106 In talks the evaluator had with the team leader of the BAP it was indicated that the BAP may be in a position to continue some activities in areas like orchards and vegetable production (AP is not providing marketing support so far) in the districts in which it also operates, i.e. Central Bakhlan and PIK (the location of the Project’s 27 of 30 cooperatives).

Annexes

Annex 1: Terms of reference of evaluation mission Annex 2: Timetable and itinerary of evaluation mission of GCP/AFG/053 Annex 3: Lifetime diagram on personnel inputs Annex 4: Benefiting cooperatives Annex 5: Project’s Logical Framework Annex 6: Project’s management structure and institutional framework Annex 7: Project budgets Annex 8: List of Project’s key achievements according to Project team Annex 9: Summary assessment of project outputs Annex 10: Two reports by participants of the project’s literacy classes Annex 11: Maps of Baghlan province Annex 12: Questionnaire for direct beneficiaries or interest/commodity group members

ANNEX 1: Terms of reference of evaluation mission

FAO Office of Evaluation Final Evaluation of Project ‘Small Farmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province’ (GCP/AFG/053/GER)

1. Background

1. The German Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture (BMVEL) via its bilateral trust fund has financed several projects executed by FAO in Afghanistan. The German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) supports the BMVEL in administering the trust fund and monitoring progress.

2. The three-year project ‘ Small Farmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province’ (GCP/AFG/053/GER) started in January 2009 with a budget of US$ 2,043,429 (currently US$ 2,024,636) and is scheduled to end in June 2012.

3. The project aims to promote income enhancement for small farmers in the Baghlan province through improved farmer’s organization, value addition and market linkage development. It builds on lessons learned in the region during the implementation of GCP/AFG/038/GER (Rehabilitation of the Sugar Industry in Baghlan: Technical and Managerial Support for Small Family Farmer Participation in the Sugar Beet Supply Chain), plus the experiences gained by FAO in the implementation of livelihoods diversification and enterprise development projects in Afghanistan. The project focuses on the strengthening of farm based organizations and on the promotion of value chain integration, as a means to enhance production and marketing skills, promote enterprise diversification, develop opportunities for value addition and boost farm family incomes. The main beneficiaries are the 2 000 plus small farmer families originally targeted by GCP/AFG/038/GER. Problems encountered relate to the security situation, which is restricting the access of project staff to some targeted areas of the project.

4. The final evaluation of the project is planned for November 2011 to assess the project outputs and outcomes during the last 30 months.

2. Purpose of the Evaluation

5. The evaluation will be appraising the overall contribution of the project towards the set goals and objectives. The main objective of the evaluation is to assess the approach of these projects and the outcomes and to provide recommendations to support designing and implementing similar projects in the future.

6. In particular, the evaluation will document the lessons learned by the project stakeholders and the effectiveness of the project in creating conducive environment to ensure continuation of the project approach beyond project life.

3. Scope of the Evaluation

7. The evaluation will assess the project against the following criteria:

• Its relevance to: national development priorities, needs of the population; FAO Global Goals and Strategic Objectives/Core Functions and other aid programmes in the sector; • Robustness and realism of the theory of change 107 underpinning the project, including logic of causal relationship between inputs, activities, expected outputs, outcomes and impacts (against specific and development objectives) and validity of indicators, assumptions and risks; • Quality and realism of the project design, including: Duration; Stakeholder and beneficiary identification; Institutional set-up and management arrangements; Approach and methodology.

• Financial resources management, including: Adequacy of budget allocations to achieve outputs; Coherence and soundness of Budget Revisions in matching necessary adjustments to requirements of implementation; Rate of delivery and budget balance at the time of the evaluation.

• Management and implementation, including: Effectiveness of management, including quality and realism of work plans; Efficiency and effectiveness of operations management; Gaps and delays if any between planned and achieved outputs, the causes and consequences of delays and assessment of any remedial measures taken, efficiency in producing outputs; Effectiveness of internal monitoring and review processes; Efficiency and effectiveness of coordination and steering bodies (if any); Coordination with other projects active in the same sector; Quality and quantity of administrative and technical support by FAO; Timeliness, quality and quantity of inputs and support by the Government and resource partner; Extent to which the expected outputs have been produced, their quality and timeliness.108; and Extent to which the expected outcomes have been achieved.

• Use made by the initiative of FAO’s normative products and actual and potential contribution of the initiative to the normative work of the Organization. • • Assessment of gender mainstreaming in the initiative. This will cover: ______107 May be expressed in a logical framework matrix. 108 Key outputs should be listed for the evaluation team to assess. The evaluation team may add to the list as appropriate.

Analysis of how gender issues were reflected in project objectives, design, identification of beneficiaries and implementation; Analysis of how gender relations and equality are likely to be affected by the initiative; Extent to which gender issues were taken into account in project management.

• The prospects for sustaining and up-scaling the initiative's results by the beneficiaries and the host institutions after the termination of the initiative. The assessment of sustainability will include, as appropriate: Institutional, technical, economic and social sustainability of proposed technologies, innovations and/or processes; Perspectives for institutional uptake and mainstreaming of the newly acquired capacities, or diffusion beyond the beneficiaries or the project. Environmental sustainability: the initiative’s contribution to sustainable natural resource management, in terms of maintenance and/or regeneration of the natural resource base.

• Overall performance of the project: extent to which the initiative has attained, or is expected to attain, its intermediate/specific objectives and FAO Organizational Result/s (impact), and hence, to the relevant Strategic Objectives and Core Functions; this will also include the identification of actual and potential positive and negative impacts produced by the initiative, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. The evaluation team will also evaluate if project resources were efficiently used to support the overall project objective given the overall adverse factors during project life.

• Based on the above analysis, the evaluation will draw specific conclusions and formulate recommendations for any necessary further action by Government, FAO and/or other parties to ensure sustainable development, including any need for follow-up action. The evaluation will draw attention to specific good practices and lessons of interest to other similar activities. Any proposal for further assistance should include specification of major objectives and outputs and indicative inputs required.

4. Evaluation Methodology

8. Under the overall guidance of the FAO Office of Evaluation:

• The evaluation will adhere to the UNEG Norms & Standards; • The evaluation will adopt a consultative and transparent approach with internal and external stakeholders throughout the evaluation process. Triangulation of evidence and information gathered will underpin the validation of evidence collected and its analysis and will support conclusions and recommendations; • The evaluation will make use of the following tools: review of existing reports, semi-structured interviews with key informants, stakeholders and participants, supported by check lists and/or interview protocols; direct observation during field visits; surveys and questionnaires; the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework; the

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) framework for assessment of project results.

5. Consultation Process

9. The evaluation team will maintain close liaison with the FAO Office of Evaluation, project management, the LTU and Task Force members at headquarters, regional, sub- regional or country level, and all key stakeholders. Although the evaluation team is free to discuss with the authorities concerned anything relevant to its assignment, it is not authorized to make any commitment on behalf of the Government, the donor or FAO.

10. The evaluation briefing and debriefing process will include the Government, the resource partners, the FAO Representation and other relevant actors.

11. The evaluation team will present its preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations during a debriefing meeting in Kabul with key stakeholders, in order to discuss and obtain feedback.

12. The Team Leader will have a debriefing meeting in FAO HQ to present the results of the evaluation team. S/He bears responsibility for finalization of the report, which will be submitted to FAO within four weeks of mission completion. FAO will submit the report to Government(s) and donor together with its comments.

13. The draft evaluation report will be circulated among key stakeholders for comment before finalization; suggestions will be incorporated as deemed appropriate by the evaluation team.

6. Evaluation Team

14. The team will comprise experts/expertise to handle different components.

• Senior Evaluator (Team Leader): Extensive evaluation experience; excellent writing and presentation skills; familiarity with all phases of the programme/project management cycle; broad knowledge of Agriculture Livelihoods approaches. The expert should have experience in evaluating similar projects in developing countries. • Monitoring and Evaluation officer: Representative of MAIL, Government of Afghanistan • Representative of the donor if available.

15. The team will be supported by local expertise.

16. Team members will be fully independent who have not been directly involved with the project formulation, implementation or backstopping. However, they should be familiar with the socio-political situation of Afghanistan.

7. Reporting

17. The evaluation report will illustrate the evidence found that responds to the evaluation issues, questions and criteria listed in the ToR. It will include an executive summary. Supporting data and analysis should be annexed to the report when considered important to complement the main report.

18. The recommendations will be addressed to the different stakeholders and prioritized: they will be evidence-based, relevant, focused, clearly formulated and actionable.

19. The evaluation team will agree on the outline of the report early in the evaluation process, based on the template provided in Annex I of this ToR. The report will be prepared in English, with numbered paragraphs.

20. The team leader bears responsibility for submitting the final draft report to FAO within four weeks from the conclusion of the mission. Within three additional weeks, FAO will submit to the team its comments and suggestions that the team will include as appropriate in the final report within one week.

21. Annexes to the evaluation report will include, but are not limited to: • Terms of reference for the evaluation; • List of Persons Met, including job titles; • Itinerary of the evaluation team; • Data collection instruments (e.g. copies of questionnaires, surveys – if applicable).

8. Timetable and Itinerary of the Mission

22. The mission will commence in November 2011 with introductory meetings with the project team, the FAO Representation and officials of MAIL in Kabul. The evaluation team will visit the project sites in Baghlan to see activities of the projects and hold meetings with project stakeholders. In addition, the evaluation team will hold detailed meetings with relevant officials of MAIL and project partners in Kabul.

23. The evaluation team will spend at least ten days in Afghanistan including their travel days to field. A debriefing meeting by the Evaluation Team Leader will be held in FAO Headquarters in Rome within two weeks after the debriefing in Kabul. The Team Leader will submit a draft version of the evaluation report during the meeting in FAO HQ.

24. A detailed itinerary will be prepared for the evaluation team including daily activities. The mission in Afghanistan will conclude in debriefing workshop.

ANNEX 3: Lifetime Diagram of GCP/AFG/053/GER Positions and Staffing (p.1) Planned (in dark green) versus Actual (in different colours directly below planned row)

2008 2009 2010 No Project Positions Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 Sr. Project Operations Officer

2 Intern.LH Dev & Enterpr.Diversif.Exp.

3 National Field Manager

4 National Technical Specialist

5 Field Assistant

6 Field Assistant

7 Field Assistant

8 Admin & Finance Assistant

9 Driver

10 Driver

11 Guard

12 Guard

13 Guard

14 Cleaner

15 National Communication Officer

16 National Consultant

17 National Consultant

18 National Consultant

19 FAO Technical Services A total of 15 STS missions were foreseen over the project's duration

Lifetime Diagram of GCP/AFG/053/GER Positions and Staffing (p.2) Planned (in dark green) versus Actual (in different colours directly below planned row)

2011 2012 Total Total Diff. in No Project Positions Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Planned Done Months 1 Sr. Project Operations Officer 3 ?? 2 Intern.LH Dev & Enterpr.Diversif.Exp. 36 9 -27 3 National Field Manager 36 0 -36 4 National Technical Specialist 36 39 3 5 Field Assistant 36 39 3 6 Field Assistant 36 25 -11 7 Field Assistant 36 28 -8 8 Admin & Finance Assistant 36 31 -5 9 Driver 36 39 3 10 Driver 36 39 3 11 Guard 36 39 3 12 Guard 36 27 -9 13 Guard 36 32 -4 14 Cleaner 36 4 -32 15 National Communication Officer 12 ? 16 National Consultant 6 3 -3 17 National Consultant 6 ? 18 National Consultant 2 ? 19 FAO Technical Services 15 missions 3 missions - 12 missions

ANNEX 4: Benefitting cooperatives

District population ;

Baghlan 240,000 Polikhomri 200,000 Khejan 32,000 Doshi 68,000

ANNEX 5: Project’s Logical Framework (prepared during project formulation for inclusion into Prodoc) Intervention logic Objectively Verifiable Indicator Means of Verification Risks Goal (Development Objective) Improvement of food security and livelihoods of small - Food availability at the household - Before and after surveys farmers and their families in the Baghlan province. level (kg/family member/ year) Aggravation of the security increased by at least 25% situation may constrain the implementation of project activities Immediate objectives Increased income levels for small farmers in the Baghlan - Farm household income levels of at - Project reports Non-controllable, external province (through improved farmers organization, least 2.000 families increased by a - Synthetic (model) farm budget variables affecting markets and productivity gains, value addition and market access). minimum of 20% in year 2 and 30% in based on actual acreage and yields. prices may reduce the . year 3. Before and after surveys opportunities for value addition and market access - Model farm budgets Outputs Component 1: - At least 75% of the small farmers - Before and after surveys Strengthened organizational, managerial and targeted by the project will perceive institutional capacity that their FBOs have improved their operational efficiency and level of services - At least one of the ministries involved in implementation develops a capacity to replicate the project approach - Qualitative assessment by project management 1.1 Local partnerships to support farmer based organizations established - Minimum of 14 established Aggravation of the security partnerships - Project reports situation may constrain the 1.2 Effective market oriented and sustainable farmer implementation of project based organizations established - Minimum of 24 FBOs assisted by the - Project Reports; Field visits activities project 1.3 Governmental capacities to replicate upon focusing on some farmers, villages, communities in Baghlan and other provinces reinforced - Minimum of 45 capacity building - Project reports; field visits activities conducted

Component 2: - Slow adoption of project

Intervention logic Objectively Verifiable Indicator Means of Verification Risks Increased agricultural productivity, value addition and - Yields of priority crops increased by at recommended agronomic market access least by 20% practices to control soil-borne - Animal production efficiency indexes plant diseases currently present increased at least by 10% throughout the Baghlan may - Marketable surpluses increased by at affect crop yields during the least 15% project duration - At least 10% value added to crop and livestock based products 2.1 Practices, inputs and equipment that increase At least 1 000 farmers in year 2 (2 000 Project reports, Aggravation of the security productivity introduced and validated in year 3) have adopted improved Surveys situation may constrain the farming practices. implementation of project 2.1 Practices and equipment that increase farm value At least 400 farmers in year 2 (1 000 in - Project reports; Surveys activities addition introduced and validated year 3) apply value addition practices. At least 1 000 farmers in year 2 (2 000 2.2 Access to markets and services improved in year 3) benefit from improved access Project reports; Surveys to markets and services

Small farmers livelihoods and income enhancement in Baghlan Province (prepared during Inception Phase)

Intervention logic Objectively Verifiable Indicator Means of Verification Risks Goal (Development Objective) Improvement of food security and livelihoods of small - Food availability at the household level - Before and after surveys farmers and their families in the Baghlan province. (kg/family member/ year) increased by at Aggravation of the security least 25% situation may constrain the implementation of project activities Immediate objectives Increased income levels for small farmers in the Baghlan - Farm household income levels of at - Project reports Non-controllable, external province (through improved farmers organization, least 2.000 families increased by a - Synthetic (model) farm budget variables affecting markets and productivity gains, value addition and market access). minimum of 20% in year 2 and 30% in based on actual acreage and yields. prices may reduce the year 3. Before and after surveys opportunities for value addition and market access - Model farm budgets Outputs Component 1: - At least 75% of the small farmers - Before and after surveys

Intervention logic Objectively Verifiable Indicator Means of Verification Risks Strengthened organizational, managerial and institutional targeted by the project will perceive that capacity their FBOs have improved their operational efficiency and level of services - At least one of the ministries involved in implementation develops a capacity to replicate the project approach - Qualitative assessment by project management 1.1 FBOs established, local partnerships to support FBOs Minimum of 24 FBOs, 9 established - Project reports, household survey developed and initial data base completed partnerships, at least 5% (100 farmers) reports Aggravation of the security surveyed situation may constrain the 1.1.1 Stakeholder consultations to build consensus on start- - Project Reports; Field visits implementation of project up priorities and actions At least 3 consultation meetings held activities (govt, ISOs, Farmers) within first four 1.1.2 Potential partners and service providers identified and months of project start their capacity assessed Project reports; field visits

1.1.3 FBOs formed and network established among local At least 6 ISOs identified within six Project reports collaborators month of project start

1.1.4 Initial database prepared on households, incomes, Project reports agricultural practices and productivity Minimum of 24 FBOs assisted by the project HS survey report

1.2 FBOs become functional and capacity developed in management and leadership issues 100 household surveyed within first six month of project start FBO minute books, field books and action plans, project reports 1.2.1 Provide support to establish basic facilities and office equipment At least 24 FBOs with office, minute Project reports 1.2.2 Training of FBO executives and key farmers in books, field note books by end of year 1. leadership, office management, community action planning At least 120 executive members trained Training reports, Project reports, community based M&E and able to develop CAP and practice CBME by end of yr 1

1.2.3 Training of FBO members especially women in 50% FBOs by first six month and 100% Training plans, materials, field

Intervention logic Objectively Verifiable Indicator Means of Verification Risks functional literacy and basic numeracy by end of year 1 register, project reports

Minimum 12 ( 4 in yr 1, 6 in yr 2 and 2 1.3 Governmental capacities to replicate upon focusing on in yr 3) events of training involving at some farmers, villages, communities in Baghlan and other least 120 farmers Training/ extension reports provinces reinforced prepared by the govt staff, project Reports, At least 12 literacy circles established ( 250 persons), 50% by year 1, 100% SWG/PDP minutes and final 1.3.1 Provide information from the project to authorities within 2.5 years reports responsible for provincial and district level planning Training reports, attendance sheet) 1.3.2 training to selected government staff to reinforce At least 12 DAIL staff capable of capacity designing and implementing different Workshop reports livelihood intervention programs 1.3.3 Organize workshops with other development projects for awareness raising, policy planning and training SWG/PDP meetings attended (usually once in a month)

12 different structured trainings ( 4 in yr 1, 6 in yr 2 and 2 in yr 3)

Two workshops each year ( in June and Dec) Component 2: Project reports, crop survey reports, - Slow adoption of project Increased agricultural productivity, value addition and - Yields of priority crops increased by at farm surveys recommended agronomic market access least by 20% practices to control soil-borne - Animal production efficiency indexes plant diseases currently present increased at least by 10% throughout the Baghlan may - Marketable surpluses increased by at affect crop yields during the least 15% project duration - At least 10% value added to crop and livestock based products 2.1 Practices and equipment that increase farm productivity At least 1 000 farmers in year 2 (2 000 in Project reports, Ag gravation of the security introduced and validated year 3) have adopted improved farming situation may constrain the practices. FSA report implementation of project

Intervention logic Objectively Verifiable Indicator Means of Verification Risks 2.1.1 Farming systems and practices reviewed and Farming system analysis completed, and activities productivity improvement options identified key intervention areas finalized in first six month Training reports, attendance sheet, 2.1.2 Training workshops conducted to introduces practices project reports and equipment for increased productivity 36 training events covering 720 farmers (9 in yr 1, 15 in yr 2 and 12 in yr 3) Project reports, field visit, FBOs 2.1.3 Farm based demonstration to introduce and expand minute books productivity (horticulture, vegetables, main crops like wheat At least 1200 farmers (400 from and potato) horticulture, 400 from vegetables and 400 from main crops) benefit from this Field visit, project reports, FBO 2.1.4 Increased access to fodder, improved breeding in intervention. (300 by yr 1, 800 by yr 2 minute books cattle and 1200 by yr 3).

At least 300 farmers have access for Project reports, field visits Output 2.2 Income generation opportunities especially to improved breeding to cattle ( 100 in yr 2 landless people and nominal land holders provided through and 200 in yr 3), fodder availability diversification of farm activities (poultry, bee keeping, food increased to 600 farmers ( 100 in yr 1, processing) 300 in yr 2 and 200 in yr 3) Training reports, attendance sheet

2.2.1 Skill training to farmers on poultry, honey bee keeping 400 farmers ( 200 in yr 2, 200 in yr 3 ) and in food processing benefited with at least 25% increase in LOAs, input purchase forms, household income project reports

2.2.2 Assist farmers trained above to expand the activities Project reports, field visits, market through technical inputs and material support 400 farmers trained ( 100 in yr 1, 200 in survey reports yr 2, 100 in yr 3) in poultry, bee keeping Output 2.3 Access to markets and services improved and food processing Training reports, attendance sheet

2.3.1 Train Project staff, government officials and ISOs on Report on value chain development the concept, analytical methods of value chain approach 400 farmers have access to inputs for the activities identified above 2.3.2 Participatory value chain development planning of key Reports on marketing analysis, crops, horticulture and livestock products and identify the At least 1 000 farmers in year 2 (2 000 in most important products/group of products for value year 3) benefit from value addition and addition improved access to markets and services Project reports, field visit

2.3.3 Provide information, advice and technical support to 6 trainings, 2 each year

Intervention logic Objectively Verifiable Indicator Means of Verification Risks FBOs on prevailing marketing issue

2.3.4 market linkage/networks developed for the products Value chain development analysis for at identified above least 10 products ( 2 in main crop wheat and potato, 4 products in horticulture, 4 in livestock product)

Information workshops at least 3 times in a year discussing marketing analsysis

At least 7 such networks developed ( 4 within the province and 1 each with Kabul, Kunduz and mazar) COMPONENT 3: PROJECT MANAGEMENT Office equipments and other logistics support needed are in Within 4 months of project start place Complete team Within first six months Staffs hired, briefed and start working

Project inspection report prepared, work plan budget revised Within first six month of project accordingly beginning

QPIR, Semi annual progress report submitted Every quarter Workplans, logframe revised updated Continuous process Project evaluations ( mid term, final) conducted Towards the middle and end, as agreed by govt and donor Project technical notes, discussion papers finalized and printed ( if deemed necessary) At least six month before project completion Project terminal report finalized and submitted to government and donors Within the last four months of the project

Project vehicles and other equipments verified, list updated Within last two months of the project and handed over to the Government ( or as advised by the completion donors)

ANNEX 6: Project’s Management Structure and Institutional Framework as displayed in Inception Report

ANNEX 7: Project Budgets

VI. BUDGET (from Project Document)

Project Budget (US$2 043 429)**

PDRF Project No./Symbol: GCP/AFG/053/GER Oracle Code:

Name: Small Farmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province Org: FAAFG Budget Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 (2008) (2009) (2010) Account codes Staff Costs

5011 International Livelihood Dev. Expert (P-4)- 36 P/M 198 000 198 000 198 000 594 000 5011 Senior Project Operations Officer (SPOO)- 3 P/M 0 0 65 100 65 100 Subtotal 198 000 198 000 263 100 659 100

5013 National Personnel and Consultants National Project Manager - 36 P/M 21 600 21 600 21 600 64 800 National Technical Specialist - 36 P/M 16 800 16 800 16 800 50 400 national Communication Officer (12 P/M cost shared 0 0 16 800 16 800 among GER projects) Field Assistants (2 No. 72 P/M - FBO and Tech testing) 14 400 14 400 14 400 43 200 Drivers (2 No), 72 P/M 12 000 12 000 12 000 36 000 6 guards, 216 P/M 20 160 20 160 20 160 60 480 Administrative and Finance Assistant, 36 P/M 7 200 7 200 7 200 21 600 National consultant - value chain development, 6 P/M 2 800 2 800 2 800 8 400

National consultant - agroprocessing, 6 P/M 2 800 2 800 2 800 8 400 Subtotal 97 760 97 760 114 560 310 080 Contracts 5014 Contracts with local NGOs - Capacity Building 120 000 80 000 80 000 280 000 Subtotal 120 000 80 000 80 000 280 000 5021 Travel R & R of Expert (7 R & R / year) 17 500 17 500 17 500 52 500 Air Travel ATS (to and from Kabul/Rome and Kabul 20 000 20 000 20 000 60 000 Bangkok) including DSA Local travel 9 000 9 000 9 000 27 000 Local staff DSA 3 888 3 888 3 888 11 664 Subtotal 50 388 50 388 50 388 151 164 5023 Training (all under contracts) 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 0 0 Expendable Equipment 5024 Expendable (agricultural and agroprocessing inputs) 50 000 50000 50 000 150 000 Subtotal 50 000 50 000 50 000 150 000 Non Expendable Non-expendable (farm and agro-processing equipment; 5025 50 000 50 000 10 000 110 000 office equipment; information an communication) Non-expendable (3 Motor cycles) 4 500 0 0 4 500 Subtotal 54 500 50 000 10 000 114 500 Hospitality 5027 Technical Support Costs (TSS) 25 050 33 400 25 050 83 500 Subtotal 25 050 33 400 25 050 83 500 5028 General Operating Expenses 20 000 20 000 20 000 60 000 Subtotal 20 000 20 000 20 000 60 000 Total Budget w/o PSC 615 698 579 548 613 098 1 808 344 5029 PSC (13 percent) 80 041 75 341 79 703 235 085 Total Budget with PSC 695 739 654 889 692 801 2 043 429 Call For Funds: At Inception 695 739

After: 6 Months 327 445 12 Months 327 445 18 Months 346 400 24 Months 346 400 Total 2 043429

**The donor contribution will be paid in euros

Oracle Trust Fund Project Budget Revision (All figures in US$) Project Symbol: GCP/AFG/053/GER Project Name: Small Farmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province

Project Starting Date (EOD): 01 January 2008 ID: Operating Unit: FAAFG Completion date (NTE): 31 December 2010 Budget Holder: FAOR, Afghanistan

Budget Accounts Description 2008 2009 2010 Total

5011 Salary Professional 198,000 198,000 263,100 659,100 5012 Salary General Service 0 0 0 0 5013 Consultants 97,760 97,760 114,560 310,080 5014 Contracts 120,000 80,000 80,000 280,000 5021 Travel 50,388 50,388 50,388 151,164 5023 Training 0 0 0 0 5024 Expendable Equipment 50,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 5025 Non Expendable Equipment 54,500 50,000 10,000 114,500 5027 Technical Support Services 25,050 33,400 25,050 83,500 5028 General Operating Expenses 20,000 20,000 20,000 60,000 SUB-TOTAL 5029 Support Cost (13 percent) 615,698 579,548 613,098 1,808,344 TOTAL 695,739 654,889 692,801 2,043,429

ANNEX 8: List of Project’s Key Achievements prepared by the Senior Field Assistant

A…Key achievement of project tell to Dec 2011

• 600 stone fruit orchards established with planting 36000 saplings. • 200 vineyards established through plantation of 20.000 saplings. • 15000 pullets distributed to 1000 beneficiaries. • 600 farmers completed two months extension courses. • 1400 beneficiaries attended literacy courses (60% female) and thirty classes is ongoing with 600 beneficiaries (women 90%) • 220.000 hybrid poplar cuttings distributed to 240 beneficiaries • 300 honey bee beehives distributed to 200 beneficiaries • 500.000 cabbage & cauliflower seedlings distributed to 250 beneficiaries • 9.172 Kg legumes seed distributed to 300 beneficiaries as intercrops • Tomato seedlings distributed to 600 beneficiaries ( each beneficiary received 2000 seedlings) • Paddy rice demo plots established for 32 beneficiaries • Sunflower and soybean seed distributed to 200 beneficiaries • Artificial insemination center rehabilitated and equipped at DAIL • 1040 women trained in tomato processing • 200 beneficiaries trained in livestock management • 20 beneficiaries trained in solar fruit drying and 20 solar fruit dryer distributed for 20 cooperatives in Baghlan province • 300 farmers trained in horticulture courses • 200 farmers trained on viticulture • Distribution of 200 Kg fodder crops seed to the 100 beneficiaries • Cleaning of 5 km canal (2000 farming families benefited) • Distribution of 22 sprayer,440 shovel and 440 pruning shear to 22 cooperatives member • Establishment of shamarq bridge on PIK rivers to easiness transport of Agriculture production • Train 320 farmers business development school (BDS) • 30 member of cooperative and DAIL staff trained in marketing • 30 member of cooperatives and DAIL staff that they past the marketing training, they trained again in Post harvesting and it was TOT training and the project will use from them for training of more farmers in four districts ( Baghlan, poli khumri, Doshi and khinjan districts) • 20 tons animals fed distributed between 200 beneficiaries /each receive 100kg • 600 farmer ( each coop-20,farmer ) are trained –marketing & post harvest management in-2012 . • 310 farmers are gating training of Horticulture ( pruning & tinning) ( 2012) • 180 – stone fruit garden are designing & 10800 sapling distributed between 30 cop each received 60 sapling ( Almond-Apricots – Peach - & Plum

ANNEX 9: Evaluator’s Summary Assessment of Project Outputs

Assessment & Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness Rating rather What has been produced is : input/output relation is poor, output hardly or not at negative almost or completely excessively expensive all utilized, although it = 0 irrelevant for the achievement should have been used of objectives medium, What has been produced is: input/output ratio is average; output is already used to sufficient = 1 fairly relevant in principal, it proportionate use of inputs some extent by is necessary for achieving the respectively reasonable outputs for authorities/ target project’s objectives the amount of resources used groups rather positive What has been produced is : much has been achieved with very output is fully used = 2 very relevant for the little already by the intended achievement of the project’s target group development objective COMPONENT 1. Strengthened organizational, managerial and institutional capacity Output 1.1 Local partnerships to support farmer based organizations established Output 1.2 Effective market oriented and sustainable farmer based organizations established Output 1.3 Governmental capacities to replicate upon focusing on some farmers, villages, communities in Baghlan and other provinces reinforced

COMPONENT 2 . Increased agricultural productivity, value addition and market access Output 2.1 Practices and equipment that increase farm value addition introduced and validated Output 2.2 Access to markets and services improved ------Activity 1.1.1. Stakeholder consultations to build consensus on start-up priorities and actions Activity 1.1.2. Potential partners and service providers identified and their capacities assessed Activity 1.1.3. Local advisory group constituted and core of local collaborators established Activity 1.2.1. Provide support to establish basic facilities and office equipment to at least six small farmers’ organizations in the Baghlan province Activity 1.2.2. Training of farmer leaders and selected members of FBOs in business planning, business linkages, market appraisals and financial management Activity 1.2.3 Training of FBO members, especially women, in functional literacy and numeracy Activity 1.2.4. Pilot action-learning and mentoring on organization and coordination of production, marketing activities, small Activity 1.3.1. Provide info from the project to authorities responsible for prov. & district level planning Activity 1.3.2. Promote and support site to site exchange visits and sharing of lessons learned Activity 1.3.3. Organize workshops with other developmental projects for awareness raising, policy, planning and training Activity 2.1.1. Farming systems and practices reviewed and productivity and value addition improvement options identified

Activity 2.1.2. Training workshops conducted to introduce practices and equipment for increased productivity and value addition Activity 2.1.3. Farm based demos to introduce productivity and value addition improvement options Activity 2.1.4. Provide support to farmers and FBOs for action-learning and validation of practices and inputs

Assessment & Rating Outputs 109 Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness 1.1: FBOs established, local partnerships to support FBOs 0 1 0 developed and initial data base completed 1.2: FBOs become functional 110 and capacity developed in 2 1 0 management and leadership issues 111 1.3: Governmental capacities to replicate upon focusing on some 2 2 1 farmers, villages, communities in Baghlan and other provinces reinforced 2.1: Practices and equipment that increase farm productivity 2 2 2 introduced and validated 2.2: Income generation opportunities especially to landless people 2 2 2 and nominal land holders provided through diversification of farm activities (poultry, bee keeping, food processing) 2.3: Access to markets and services improved 2 1 0 3.1: Office equipments and other logistics support needed are in yes, but vehicle not always available place 3.2: Staffs hired, briefed and start working only partly bec. of security situation 3.3: Project inspection report prepared, work plan budget revised yes, done and of reasonable quality accordingly 3.4: QPIR, Semi annual progress report submitted yes, of moderate quality 3.5: Workplans, logframe revised updated yes, of moderate quality 3.6: Project technical notes, discussion papers finalized and printed hardly any produced ( if deemed necessary) 3.7: Project terminal report finalized and submitted to government not yet and donors 3.8: Project vehicles and other equipments verified, list updated not yet and handed over to the Government ( or as advised by the donors)

______109 Compared to the Project Document the first two outputs have been reformulated in the Inception Report’s logframe and a third output (now 2.2) has been added for component 2. 110 This part of the output statement looks more like an outcome as the functioning of FBOs is not under the control of the Project. 111 The original formulation of this output in the Project Document read: Effective market oriented and sustainable FBOs established

ANNEX 10: Two Reports by Participants of the Project’s Literacy Classes

Report by Jamila Habib Crul; Literacy Student of Jawidan Cooperative, Housinkhil Village

My name is Jamila and I am 24 years old. I was an illiterate girl in my village, and I was interested to learn. Due to family problems I did not find the chance to go to school. I have more interest to learn knowledge. It is about 8 months that I followed the literacy course. Now I am married an a far away village and I can solve my problems in reading and writing. Now I can read date of drugs, mobile numbers, and other things. Also I am trying to teach illiterate girls in this village where I live now. Regards Jamila

Report by Rahima Amin ul Haq, Literacy Student of Tarakhil Cooperative, Baghlan Markazi District

I am happy that the project started the literacy program and that it brought teaching books. During our learning period we found a lot of information about agriculture, vegetables, fruit and about benefits of eating vegetables and fruit. All this was explained by our teacher. The book that we have received is very good and useful for us. At the end I want to give thanks to our great teacher who helped us to learn. Regards Rahima

ANNEX 11: Maps of Baghlan Province

The 30 cooperatives were located in 4 districts of Baghlan Provinve: Puli Khumri (PIK), Baghlan, Dushi and Khinjan

75 FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, March 2012

ANNEX 12 Questionnaire for direct Beneficiaries or Interest/Commodity Group Members

Identification number of questionnaire [to be inserted by data entry clerk] 112 : Name of district: … Name of cooperative (coop): … Name of respondent: … Is the respondent holding an office in the cooperative’s board/committee? a) no b) yes specify whether as …c) coop.head d) deputy e) treasurer f) secretary or g) other ------Of which of the following interest (commodity) groups within the cooperative do you consider yourself to be a member who has received some input/support from the FAO Project 113 : solar popl literac rice dryin veget. ar y Labourer bee- orchar poultr horti- cultiv g proces culti group PW/infrastr. Other [specify!] keeping d y culture . s. v. 114 * … f) h) a) b) c) d) e) g) i) j) k) l) Comments/explanation: [if the respondent has crossed more than one of the groups above, ask the following question] Which group of the ones you have crossed above, is the most important one for you? f) h) a) b) c) d) e) g) i) j) k) [interviewer, explain that the following questions will focus on the group which has been crossed above.] How many members does your interest group have? (i.e. the interest group that you have ticked above) a) presently … members b) three years ago … members Membership of the group consists exclusively of a) male members b) female members How many other cooperative members outside your group were involved in the same activity in your cooperative last year? … coop. members What are the characteristics of your group? [tick all characteristics which apply!] a) all group members are at the same time members of this coop . b) the interest group existed already before the FAO Project support c) the group has been formed mainly to receive inputs from outside d) the group was formed by … (i) the Government/DAIL (ii) an NGO (iii) private sector(e.g. trader/processor) (iv) the Project (v) ourselves e) all group members take a special joint interest in what the group is doing f) all members of the group are more or less equally rich/poor g) all members are more or less equally equipped /endowed with resources required to participate fully in the group’s major activity h) the group has a leader who is recognized as such by all group members i) at least one of the group members is at the same time a member of the cooperative’s board/executive committee

______112 script in blue italic contains instructions how to make the interview respectively how to use/fill the questionnaire . 113 This questionnaire is prepared with the assumption that the support the Project has provided is strengthening the major enterprise or production/processing activity of the group. * bridge, canal, etc. for which people from the coop were employed as wage labourers ** furniture, generator, computer, etc. *** e.g. poplar cultivation, intercropping in orchards, livestock feed and fodder

FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, March 2012

j) all group members know each other well k) the group has assets which belong to the group as such (not to individual members) l) the group meets also without being called together by people from outside m) the group as a whole has a business plan for the future n) if yes, please, specify: … o) the group is formally recognized by the cooperative p) the group has started to keep records on its activities q) on the following topics… r) the group has relations with similar groups of other cooperatives s) please, mention name of cooperative(s): … t) compared to average other cooperative members, our group is … (i) better off (ii) equally wealthy/poor (iii) poorer u) the greatest achievement of our group so far is …

v) the group has received inputs , e.g. equipment or training from the Project as a group w) please, specify these inputs if you do not complete Table 1 in Annex 1: …

x) the inputs received by the group for use by individual members are generally distributed equally among group members y) the inputs (e.g. equipment, training advice) received from the Project for the group (not those meant for individual members) do benefit group members equally Please tick the inputs/interventions which you, your group members or your group have received from the Project: seed booklets , guide lines, posters received as an individual seedling / sapling booklets , guidelines, posters received as a group fertilizer special advice received as an individual pesticide / insecticide group advice received agric. equipment for individuals training of individual agric. equipment for the group training for whole interest group non -agic. equipmt .for the individual demo nstration to individual non -agic. equipmt. for the group gro up demonstration feed /fodder study (visit) tour for individual live animals study (visit) tour for the group Have members of the group who received scarce inputs been systematically selected by applying objective criteria? a) yes b) no c) do not know If ‘yes’ what were the criteria that have been applied in selecting direct beneficiaries ? a) … b) … c) … d) … Who do you think has selected the direct beneficiaries (input recipients) from among the group members? a) the head of the cooperative b) the cooperative’s board/executive committee c) DAIL staff d) Project staff e) other specify! f) … Please, estimate the number of your group members who are not among those who received inputs from the project and are nevertheless engaged in the production/processing activities: a) … members who received no inputs at all b) … members who sometimes have not received all the inputs that have been distributed to their fellow-group members 77

FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, March 2012

How many of these have benefited in directly from the project’s initiatives by copying the direct recipients’ new or improved production and/or processing activities? … members What do you consider the greatest contribution and the second greatest contribution from the project for the development of the group? a) most important contribution: … b) second most important contr.: … How many people in the cooperative outside this group do you think, were also interested to get the inputs for this type of enterprise (i.e. this group’s major activity) (i) … (ii) don’t know Who works directly with the inputs you received by the Project? [more than one of the answers to the following question below may be ticked] a) I myself as a group member and recipient b) my wife/husband c) my children d) other family members e) neighbours and friends What has hampered you making full (envisaged) use of the inputs received from the project? a) I have given away part or all of the inputs since others could make better use of them b) nothing, I have fully used the inputs in the way expected c) I could only partly use the inputs provided d) because … e) I could not use the inputs at all f) because … What of the above is also true for many other group members? a) answer a) b) answer b) c) answer c) d) answer d) e) answer e) f) answer f Do you know of cases where physical project inputs have been sold [info is treated confidentially and nobody will have disadvantages resulting from a disclosure of such info] a) no b) yes What do you think is the estimated percentage of input recipients who have sold all or part of the inputs received from the project in this group? … % Were you and your group members usually satisfied with the quantity of physical inputs? a) yes, satisfied b) partly c) not satisfied d) comments: …

Were you and your group members usually satisfied with the quality of physical inputs? a) yes, satisfied b) partly c) not satisfied d) comments: …

Were you and your group members usually satisfied with the duration of training and intensity of advice received? a) yes, satisfied b) partly c) not satisfied d) comments: …

Were you and your group members usually satisfied with the quality of training/advice received? a) yes, satisfied b) partly c) not satisfied d) comments: …

Have project inputs always arrived at the right point in time when you and your group members needed them? a) yes b) more or less c) no d) comments: …

What were the major constraints for the group to develop and reach its objectives? a) … b) … c) … Have they been addressed by the Project? a) yes b) partly c) no It seems that individual group members have sometimes more directly benefited from project support in the form of inputs than others . Do you think this is justified/fair? a) yes, this is justified b) no, this is not fair c) comments: …

FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, March 2012

Have you concrete examples which show that also other coop members (outside your group) involved in the same type of production/processing activity as your group have in directly benefited from the inputs provided to the few direct beneficiaries? a) no , others than those who received the inputs have not benefited b) yes , the example is the following: c) …

Can you think of forms of support that benefit the members more equally or that help your interest (commodity) group as a whole? …

What could/should be done from outside to further help develop the group? …

If we look at the effects of using the inputs, were your and your group members original hopes generally fulfilled ? a) yes, the original hopes regarding the effects of utilizing them were generally fulfilled b) although inputs were used as foreseen, this did not fully lead to the expected benefits …c) because … Was the training and advice you and your group members received through the project useful? a) most of it was very useful b) some of it was useful c) most of it was useless d) we have not received training or advice What turned out to be the most useful lesson in your group which you personally learned from training or advisory services of the Project? …

From which inputs did you and the group benefit most in terms of income? …

Please mention the major recommendations made to your group and say which ones most group members will be able to follow also after the project comes to an end, and which ones probably not or only with great difficulties? Recommendation Able to Not able Reasons follow to follow a) recommendation 1: … (i) (ii) (iii) reason 1: …

(iv) reason 2: … b) recommendation 2: … (i) (ii) (iii) reason 1: …

(iv) reason 2: … c) recommendation 3: … (i) (ii) (iii) reason 1: …

(iv) reason 2: …

Have you noticed a change in value-added production115 of group member households in the last 3- 4 years? a) very much so b) to some extent c) not much d) no change noticed Is there already a substantial increase of marketable surplus in your group? a) very much so b) to some extent c) not much d) no change noticed Do you foresee difficulties in selling your incremental production and your new crops? ______115 treatment/ processing/ packaging that gives products a higher value and therefore achieves a better price in the market

FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, March 2012

a) no, I do not expect problems b) yes, I do foresee problems of selling c) do not know If ‘yes’, what are these difficulties and what are their major direct causes? Difficulties Causes a) difficulty 1: … cause (i) : … cause (ii) : … b) difficulty 2: … cause (i) : … cause (ii) : … c) difficulty 3: … cause (i) : … cause (ii) : … Have you discussed difficulties, their causes and remedial actions… a) within your interest group b) with family and friends c) with DAIL staff d) with Project staff e) with cooperative board/committee f) with NGOs g) with traders/processors If this is the case, what are the conclusions that you have drawn, and which recommendations you and your group will follow? …

Do you think your group has a potential to venture into joint marketing of your produce? a) very much so b) to some extent c) not much d) no potential Please estimate the percentage of group-product-related work that is carried out by female family members of your fellow-group members … % What are these activities? … Who of the family members will have additional work that may be required if all re-commendations of the project to group members are followed? [you can tick more than one ] a) I myself as a group member b) my wife/husband c) my children d) my parents e) other family members And who of the family members will benefit by having more and different types of food ? [you can tick more than one ] a) I myself as a group member b) my wife/husband c) my children d) my parents e) other family members f) in total a number of … persons And who of the family will benefit by having more cash income at his/her/their disposal? [you can tick more than one ] a) I myself as a group member b) my wife/husband c) my children d) my parents e) other family members (f) in total a number of … persons How big do you estimate is the proportion of group members’ family income from agricultural as a percentage of their overall income from all income sources? … % If you look at the income of all direct beneficiaries of your group in 2011 – what is the percentage by which agricultural net income in 2011 has likely increased compared to that of year 2008? … % If you look at everything the project provided to you and the group, what was their effect on your net income within the last 3 years? a) there were no or even negative effects on my income from project b) my income has increased only marginally , i.e. below 20% c) with the help of the project my income has increased between 20 and 40% d) due to the project my income has increased between 40 and 60% e) with all project inputs of the last 3 years, my income has increased between 60-80 % f) thanks to the project my income in the last 3 years has increased between 80-100 % g) I think my income due to project assistance has more than doubled What are the most important things that will be bought with the additional income? …

FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, March 2012

------

[If the respondent belongs to more than one group, and has also received project inputs as a member of that group, the questions should be repeated in a second phase as follows:] Which group of the ones you have crossed earlier [refer to answers Q 6 ], is the second most important one for you? f) h) a) b) c) d) e) g) i) j) k) How many members does your interest group have? (i.e. the interest group that you have ticked above) a) presently … members b) three years ago … members Membership of the group consists exclusively of a) male members b) female members How many other cooperative members outside your group were involved in the same activity in your coop. last year? … coop. members What are the characteristics of your group? [tick all characteristics which apply! ] a) all group members are at the same time members of this coop . b) the interest group existed already before the project support c) the group has been formed mainly to receive inputs from outside d) the group was formed by … (i) the Government/DAIL (ii) an NGO (iii) private sector(e.g. trader/processor) (iv) the Project (v) ourselves e) all group members take a special joint interest in what the group is doing f) all members of the group are more or less equally rich/poor g) all members are more or less equally equipped /endowed with resources required to participate fully in the group’s major activity h) the group has a leader who is recognized as such by all group members i) at least one of the group members is at the same time a member of the cooperative’s board/executive committee j) all group members know each other well k) the group has assets which belong to the group as such (not to individual members) l) the group meets also without being called together by people from outside m) the group as a whole has a business plan for the future n) please, specify: … o) the group is formally recognized by the cooperative p) the group has started to keep records on its activities q) on … r) the group has relations with similar groups of other cooperatives s) please, mention name of cooperative(s): … t) compared to other cooperative members, our group is … (i) slightly better off (ii) equally wealthy/poor (iii) slightly poorer u) the greatest achievement of our group so far is …

v) the group has received inputs , e.g. equipment or training from the Project as a group w) please, specify in case you do not complete Table 1 in Annex 1: …

FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, March 2012 seedling / sapling booklets , guidelines, posters received as a group fertilizer special advice received as an individual pesticide / insecticide group advice received agric. equipment for individuals training of individual agric. equipment for the group training for whole interest group non -agic. equipmt .for the individual demo nstration to individu al non -agic. equipmt. for the group group demonstration feed /fodder study (visit) tour for individual live animals study (visit) tour for the group Have members of the group who received scarce inputs been systematically selected by applying objective criteria? a) yes b) no c) do not know If ‘yes’ what were the criteria that have been applied in selecting direct beneficiaries ? a) … b) … c) … d) … Who do you think has selected the direct beneficiaries (input recipients) from among the group members? a) the head of the cooperative b) the cooperative’s board/executive committee c) DAIL staff d) Project staff e) other specify! f) … Please, estimate the number of your group members who are not among those who received inputs from the project and are nevertheless engaged in the production/processing activities: a) … members who received no inputs at all b) … members who sometimes have not received all the inputs that have been distributed to their fellow-group members How many of these have benefited in directly from the project’s initiatives by copying the direct recipients’ new or improved production and/or processing activities? … members What do you consider the greatest contribution and the second greatest contribution from the project for the development of the group? a) most important contribution: … b) second most important contr.: … And how many people in the cooperative outside this group do you think, were also interested to get the inputs for this type of enterprise (i.e. this group’s major activity) (i) … (ii) don’t know

Who works directly with the inputs you received by the Project? [more than one of the answers to the following question below may be ticked] a) I myself as a group member and recipient b) my wife/husband c) my children d) other family members e) neighbours and friends What has hampered you to make full (envisaged) use of the inputs received from the project? a) I have given away part or all of the inputs since others could make better use of them b) nothing, I have fully used the inputs in the way expected c) I could only partly use the inputs provided d) because … e) I could not use the inputs at all f) because … What of the above is also true for many other group members? a) answer a) b) answer b) c) answer c) d) answer d) e) answer e) f) answer f Do you know of cases where physical project inputs have been sold [info is treated confidentially and nobody will have disadvantages resulting from a disclosure of such info] a) no b) yes

FAO’s BTF Project GCP/AFG/053/GER Smallfarmer Livelihoods and Income Enhancement in Baghlan Province; Afghanistan, March 2012

What do you think is the estimated percentage of input recipients who have sold all or part of the inputs received from the project in this group? … % Were you and your group members usually satisfied with the quantity of physical inputs? a) yes, satisfied b) partly c) not satisfied d) comments: …