Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Office of Evaluation
Independent Evaluation of Project Development
Assistance to Farmers in Remote Areas of Kosovo and Montenegro - GCP/RER/019/LUX
Final Evaluation Report
December 2011
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
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is hereby granted without fee and without a formal request provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page. Copyright for components of this work owned by others than FAO must be honoured. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission from OED.
For further information, please contact:
Director, OED Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 Rome, Italy Email: [email protected]
______The views expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or of its Member States and partners.
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 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. All references to Kosovo in this report should be understood to be in the context of United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). 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.
Acknowledgements
The evaluation team is grateful to the FAO team members in Kosovo and Montenegro for their hospitality and dedication to the evaluation process. We particularly thank James Airey, Afrim Sharku, Emrullah Spahiu, Tatjana Dedic and Saso Martinov for the time and effort they set aside for the evaluation. Our gratitude also extends, of course, to all the other team members and partners who participated in the evaluation.
We thank Pierre Weber of the Office of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for his active recognition of, and engagement with, the evaluation process.
We also gratefully acknowledge the kind hospitality and cooperation of the authorities in Kosovo and Ministry of Agriculture of Montenegro.
iii Composition of the Evaluation Team
Brian Perry (Team Leader; United Kingdom, resident in Kenya) Enrique Lora (Team member; Mexico, FAO Office of Evaluation)
iv
Table of Contents
Acronyms ...... vi Executive Summary ...... vii 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background to the project...... 1 1.2 Background to the evaluation ...... 2 1.1.1 Purpose ...... 2 1.1.2 Scope ...... 3 1.3 Evaluation methodology ...... 3 2 The Project ...... 5 2.1 Design ...... 5 2.2 Activities ...... 7 2.3 Partnerships ...... 8 2.4 Project management ...... 9 2.5 Technical and operational backstopping ...... 10 2.6 Project budget and expenditure ...... 10 3 Evaluation synthesis...... 11 3.1 Relevance ...... 11 3.2 Effectiveness ...... 14 3.3 Efficiency ...... 22 3.4 Impact ...... 27 3.5 Sustainability ...... 30 4 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 33 4.1 Conclusions ...... 33 4.2 Recommendations ...... 34 Appendix 1. Evaluation terms of reference ...... 37 Appendix 2. List of meeting conducted during the evaluation mission ...... 55 Appendix 3. Summary of reported achievements of the project ...... 60 Appendix 4. List of documents reviewed ...... 66 Appendix 5. Key evaluation questions ...... 68 Appendix 6. Evaluation Framework ...... 70 Appendix 7. Consultants employed by the project ...... 71 Appendix 8. Budget and expenditures ...... 73 Appendix 9. Geographical coverage of the project ...... 76 Appendix 10. Governmental subsidies and direct support to livestock and agricultural activities in Kosovo and Montenegro ...... 77 Appendix 11. Profile of team members ...... 80
v Acronyms
AGA Animal Production and Health Division of FAO ARDK Agricultural Rural Development Project of the WB in Kosovo AoK Authorities in Kosovo (UNSCR1244) BH Budget Holder BTOR Back to Office Report CTA Chief Technical Advisor DAFKM Project Development Assistance to Farmers in Remote Areas of Kosovo and Montenegro (GCP/RER/019/LUX) implemented by FAO EC European Commission EU European Union ET Evaluation Team FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO HQ FAO Headquarters FPMIS Field Programme Management Information System GDLx Grand Duchy of Luxembourg GoM Government of Montenegro IPARD Instrument for Pre‐Accession in Agriculture and Rural Development of the EC LTO Lead Technical Officer M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MIDAS Institutional Development and Agricultural Strengthening Project of the WB in Montenegro NC National Consultant NPO National Professional Officer OED FAO Office of Evaluation PSA Personal Service Agreement REU Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia of FAO RYE Rural Youth Europe SARD-M FAO project for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in Mountain Regions SEE South-Eastern Europe SEU Sub-regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe of FAO SNV Netherlands Development Organization ToC Table of Contents ToR Terms of Reference UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme USD US dollars WB World Bank YFC Young Farmers Club
vi Executive Summary
The evaluation
ES1. The project Development Assistance to Farmers in Remote Areas of Kosovo1 and Montenegro - GCP/RER/019/LUX (DAFKM), supported by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, was implemented in two phases between 1 June 2006 and 3 December, including a four months no-cost extension of phase 2, with a total budget of USD 5 139 762.
ES2. The final evaluation of DAFKM was commissioned by FAO’s Office of Evaluation (OED) in compliance with the FAO policy on evaluation. After broader consultation with the Sub-regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe (SEU), the evaluation was defined to be an assessment of both phases of DAFKM, with the purpose of drawing out lessons which could be taken up during a proposed extension phase. Lessons learned for FAO corporate usage in future implementation of similar initiatives were also considered to be an important part of the purpose of the evaluation.
ES3. The evaluation assessed the project by using the internationally accepted evaluation criteria and it was undertaken as a forward-looking process. It was shaped by a desk review of available reports and documentation and an exhaustive field mission comprising semi- structured interviews with relevant stakeholders and field visits to different areas intervened and beneficiaries of the project. The field evaluation was carried out from 26 September to 14 October, 2011, which was followed by the drafting of the evaluation report.
The development context
ES4. In Montenegro and Kosovo, agriculture plays a critical role in economic development, and within agriculture, livestock is central. In a context evocative of many regions of the developing world, livestock provides an important safety net which protects rural households against vulnerability, and in which the marketing of livestock products offers an important opportunity to improve rural livelihoods. Moreover, livestock agriculture in the remote rural mountainous areas targeted by the project gives the impression of being in a time warp, a status exacerbated by the weakness of public sector services to farmers, by the profound weakness in livestock commodity marketing infrastructures, and by the cultural, ethnic and societal apprehensions left by the recent conflicts.
ES5. The DAFKM introduced a bottom-up model of identifying priority constraints at the small-scale livestock producer level in mountainous municipalities, identifying key lead farmers with whom to work, and introducing innovations and technologies designed to improve the nutrition, health and breeding of cattle and sheep through the establishment of farmers’ groups. In addition, the project has sought to promote improvements in the processing and marketing of emerging commodities through the establishment of pilot enterprises, particularly for cheese and wool.
1 All references to Kosovo in this report should be understood to be in the context of United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999)
vii ES6. DAFKM has achieved important technical, operational and institutional successes. Within the technical achievements are the introduction of ideas and innovations for livestock farming, and the generation of some examples of successful small enterprises and cooperation among famers.
Relevance
ES7. The project is considered highly relevant to addressing the opportunities for livelihood improvement through livestock agriculture by engaging with a sample of farmers in the mountainous areas of Kosovo and Montenegro. Furthermore, the project has been relevant not only to governmental priorities for rural development, but also to FAO’s corporate and regional priorities by contributing to enhancing the productivity and collaborative capacity of livestock farmers.
ES8. FAO has a comparative advantage within the Balkans region, relying on its neutrality and specialized knowledge, and supported by the reputation it has established from the implementation of a precursor project model in Serbia. However, the project has yet to take full advantage of this recognition and of the knowledge it has gained in providing broader strategy and policy advice on livestock development, on capacity building in public sector extension services, and on wider market opportunities for livestock commodities.
ES9. The relevance of the project is camouflaged by a disconnect in the project design between project activities, attainable outputs and realistic outcomes. A lesson learned for the Organization is that proposing a cause and effect relationship between project activities and broader poverty reduction objectives requires more than lip service, but rather the development of a logical continuum between project activities, outputs, outcomes and overall objectives.
Effectiveness
ES10. The project has effectively promoted livestock enterprises on a relatively small scale in Kosovo and Montenegro. The project has been effective in introducing innovations and techniques for livestock feeding, wool processing, cheese processing, wool marketing and seed production, among several other areas, and in promoting farmers’ empowerment through the use of participatory approaches in an environment of economic stagnation. The project has also been effective in promoting the concept of small group formation among farmers and youth; this has provided a valuable mechanism appropriate for a rural setting characterised by high unemployment. The effectiveness achieved in group formation and the adoption of innovations was largely the result of giving high priority to “leader farmers” in farmer selection, which has supported entrepreneurship. The devolution of project coordination offices to key municipalities has indeed enhanced these mentioned achievements. Nonetheless, operational effectiveness might have benefited from greater technical backstopping from both SEU and FAO HQ.
ES11. Effectiveness has been primarily, but not exclusively, limited to those producers selected to participate in the project. There has been some spill-over to other producers who have associated themselves with project activities, particularly on forage and silage production and other technologies through demonstration plots. A systematic and rigorous quantification of this spill over effect and the factors affecting it has not been undertaken.
viii ES12. Measuring the effectiveness of the project is obscured by features of its design. This is due to a lack of clear performance targets and a frame of reference (or denominator population) of the sample of farmers selected. A lesson learned for the Organization is that the project would undoubtedly have benefited from the establishment of relevant and measurable indicators, with well-defined targets.
Efficiency
ES13. Overall, the project activities have been managed in an efficient and timely manner, due largely to the presence of a committed, dedicated and action-orientated team. However, the project has missed an important opportunity to use data collected to derive a robust synthesis of its activities and develop a strategic overview of the implications of project contributions to national strategies and policies. Additionally, the project would benefit from greater objectivity within the reporting functions, complemented by more systematic and evidence-based documentation of the project’s achievements.
ES14. If the project is to achieve the products, impacts and outcomes to which it aspires, there is need for continuity in the current team and management system during the planned 14-month extension, which combines experience, enthusiasm and commitment. The project will benefit further from a stronger focus on the development of appropriate partnerships, and the building of project capacity for monitoring and evaluation. Importantly, many routine management responsibilities should be increasingly devolved to national staff in the municipalities, as appropriate, and to the cooperatives and farmers’ group formed.
ES15. A lesson learned for the organization is that compliance with corporate regulations for reporting does not necessarily ensure high quality reports. There is a need to develop a more functional guideline for reporting that is aligned with the efforts made by the Organization to implement a managing-for-results approach.
Impact
ES16. The inception phase provided a characterisation of the farming enterprises engaged in the project, serving as a useful baseline. However, this data has not been used effectively in analysing and characterising the prevalent production systems. Furthermore, there does not seem to have been any attempt to explore the representativeness of these farm attributes with those of the broader population for contextual purposes. Nor has this baseline been used effectively to monitor project performance and impacts.
ES17. The project undertook two cost-benefit analyses, one each in Kosovo and Montenegro. They focus on forage production, fertilizer use, the benefits from farm mechanisation undertaken by farmers’ groups, and changes in milk yield from silage use. These analyses are preliminary, and based primarily on demonstration plot data rather than on longitudinal data collected from farms. They represent a demonstration of the potential for improvements in productivity and profitability rather than of changes induced by the project. This contributes to an overall impression that the project is characterised by a weak data synthesis and presentation record, coupled with the weak documentation of the performance changes due to project activities.
ES18. Little attempt was made to measure the outcomes resulting from project activities, even though the project collected some statistics that could have been made better use of to
ix measure changes at the beneficiary level. While there are several indications of change, the project has paid too little attention to demonstrating changes in productivity and profitability due to the interventions proposed by the project.
ES19. In order to strengthen the chances of having an impact on rural livelihoods (as aspired to in the project documents), there is a need to adopt a value chain framework, coupled with greater engagement with, and documentation of the roles of, other actors. Additionally, there is a need to better measure the extent by which the project model is replicated by those outside the partnership of key project farmers, and, indeed, of the effective adoption of technologies, so demonstrating the connection between the activities conducted and the expected outcomes.
Sustainability
ES20. Greater attention should be paid to measures that will enhance the sustainability of the project achievements during the extension phase. There should be consideration of strengthening the capacity of farmers’ groups and cooperatives, while progressively strengthening the engagement and commitment of government extension services. At the same time, the development of a strategy for the project’s withdrawal from the regions currently being covered might contribute to an assessment of the complementarity to be offered to consolidating its achievements through appropriate strategic partnerships.
ES21. A lesson learned for the Organization is that projects could benefit from a stronger involvement with LTU and decentralized offices to support the development of strategic partnerships, especially in those cases where there is no FAO representation at local level, as in Kosovo and Montenegro. Additionally, in order to enhance the sustainability of achievements of field projects, a strategy for the operational closure of the projects’ activities should be developed in advance, considering an assessment of partners and actions for project’s institutionalization.
Conclusions
ES22. The project has provoked a successful groundswell of innovation in livestock agriculture among two of Europe’s poorest and most neglected rural communities. Its success is due to the focus on livestock producers themselves rather than on government extension systems; to the importance allocated to the selection of lead farmers; to the commitment and practical approach adopted by the dedicated team; and to the weaknesses in services and farmer institutions when it started. As a result of the project, examples of improved livestock management, increased productivity and profitability of livestock, and growth in farmer cooperation have emerged, and these have been complemented by a few new enterprises in the processing and marketing of commodities emerging from livestock agriculture, particularly cheese and wool.
ES23. While focussing on the participating producers, the project has paid inadequate attention to developing a structured and quantitative synthesis and presentation of the project outputs, and to developing a contextual analysis of the lessons learnt, necessary to promote the wider application of its successes within the regions and beyond. There is an urgent need to scale-up key elements of the project (in particular, forage conservation), and to ensure that the innovations achieved contribute to the respective national livestock development strategies, where appropriate. To be successful in this, there is an urgent need for a structured
x monitoring and evaluation system which a) quantifies project achievements, and b) places them in the broader context of future livestock development opportunities in the project regions.
ES24. The challenge now is to ensure that these models of success are not short-lived, and that they are extended beyond the participants involved in the FAO project.
ES25. The project has developed a highly commendable rapport with rural livestock enterprises; many of the lessons learnt have substantial potential for up-scaling within Kosovo and Montenegro and the region. The proposed extension of the project for 14 months is, therefore, fully justified. There is even justification for further extension of the project model, in Kosovo, Montenegro and beyond, if the desired impacts and institutional changes aspired to are to be achieved. The project has an excellent reputation; it should capitalise more on this through developing appropriate partnerships which offer new funding opportunities.
ES26. There is a need for a stronger focus on the widest possible range of market options for the key products emerging, and the adoption of a value chain approach to understand the potential for wider benefit distribution.
ES27. The mainstreaming of gender equity in the different processes, group formation and other activities of the project has been a challenge in the strongly patriarchal societies of the region. While the project has made certain advances, it is an area which deserves still greater attention in the future.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: To FAO on applications of recommendations
FAO should ensure that the recommendations made in this evaluation are taken into consideration for the proposed 14 month extension of the project. A proposal for extension of the project was submitted prior to this evaluation, and it is understood that approval by the donor, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, is independent of this evaluation. Nevertheless, it is in the interests of the sustainability of the technologies and innovations introduced by the project, and the broader application of the approaches taken to future strategies within Montenegro and Kosovo, that the recommendations made below are incorporated into the planning and execution of the extension phase.
Recommendation 2: To FAO on project impact and up-scaling
Rationalise the key products of the project. This project is characterised by practical on- the-ground interventions at farmer level aimed at the feeding, health and breeding of livestock, and the marketing of emerging commodities. During the 14 month extension phase it is recommended that a series of strategic thematic synthesis reports be developed which provide overviews and assessments of key successes of the project, presented in a balanced and objective manner and supported by empirical evidence. These are considered an essential legacy of the project, and also a valuable tool for widening the impacts of the project’s achievements. These can be used for the strategic scaling-up of impacts to other
xi municipalities and communities in Montenegro and Kosovo. Examples include, but are not limited to, forage crop production for winter feeding of dairy cows; silage production; incentives for the formation and durability of livestock farmers’ groups, etc.
Recommendation 3: To FAO on project monitoring and evaluation systems
Develop an internal monitoring and evaluation system. The project, its extension, and indeed any future application of this model, require an effective monitoring and evaluation system to document the relationship between project inputs, productivity changes (at the animal, feed, health, breeding and marketing levels) and the broader outputs and outcomes of its activities. An effective monitoring and evaluation system requires a project design with clear objectives, sound performance indicators and measurable targets. The recruitment of a specialist on M&E would be beneficial to support the development of such a system.
Recommendation 4: To FAO, the respective Government/authorities and donors on partnership development and sustainability
Widen the portfolio of partnerships. The project has promoted livestock development through a direct engagement with selected farmers, providing them with certain services. Given that public services to farmers are weak, the project will be sorely missed, as government, authorities and other extension services will not effectively fill the gap on the departure of FAO. It is therefore recommended that during the proposed 14 month extension the project explores aggressively the potential for strengthening the cooperative and farmers’ group institutions it has created, and for widening the range of services they offer to their members. It is also recommended that the project explores the potential for other government/authorities, donor and NGO initiatives, both current and planned, to contribute both philosophically and practically to the farmer and market-focussed ideals of the project in different ways.
Recommendation 5: To FAO on the value chain approach
Strengthen the market access drivers of the project. The project has sought to support the development of market opportunities for emerging commodities. It is recommended that during the proposed 14 month extension, much more effort is placed on exploring wider market opportunities for emerging commodities, in particular cheese (both local soft cheese and semi-hard Pirot), wool, and lamb. This is likely best undertaken through consultancies, potentially building on the project model of engaging regional expertise with an understanding of both informal market strengthening (predominant in the cheese markets), as well as the demands and opportunities of new EU markets. This initiative should adopt a value chain approach to explore widening the livelihood benefits to other actors in the chain.
xii Recommendation 6: To FAO on credit
Facilitating access to credit for producer and processing enterprises. While it is acknowledged that the project staff has provided support to several individual farmers in their application for credit facilities, it is recommended that a much broader and more strategic approach be taken to this role. In particular, it is particularly recommended that direct engagement is made with the World Bank initiatives in Kosovo and Montenegro on support to agriculture to explore how the sustainability of processing and marketing initiatives established by the project can be strengthened and enhanced through successful credit applications to these important funding opportunity initiatives.
Recommendation 7: To FAO on sustainability
Developing closer and more functional partnerships with extension services. It is recommended that during the proposed 14 month extension, a much closer and more practical partnership is developed between project staff and the municipal extension services. It is recognised that funds may need to be assigned to ensure this takes place. This is to ensure that the capacity of extension services is enhanced in all the techniques, procedures and initiatives being undertaken by the project in the interests of sustainability and institutionalization of the project’s model.
Recommendation 8: To FAO on gender mainstreaming
In line with FAO’s Strategic Objective K, greater consideration should be given as to how best to mainstream gender equity within the farmers’ groups, commodity processing, marketing cooperatives and YFCs. It is considered that there will be particular opportunities for this in the processing and marketing of cheese products, but all opportunities should be explored. This is an area in which the project would benefit from expert advice.
xiii 1 Introduction
1.1 Background to the project
1. The project Development Assistance to Farmers in Remote Areas of Kosovo and Montenegro - GCP/RER/019/LUX (DAFKM)2 was conceived in 2005 based on the experience of implementation of project GCP/FRY/001/NET “Development Assistance to livestock farmers in the mountainous areas of the Sjenica region” which was implemented from 2003 to 2009 in former Serbia and Montenegro. DAFKM replicated a model proved during the first phase of GCP/FRY/001/NET in Sandžak region, Serbia, aiming to facilitate the gradual economic recovery of the agricultural sector by revitalizing and developing livestock production for farmers.
2. Kosovo3 and Montenegro share a common history as part of the former republic of Yugoslavia until its break-up in the early 1990s. Montenegro became an independent country in June 2006, having been first united with Serbia under a renewed Republic of Yugoslavia, and subsequently part of the state of Serbia and Montenegro. Kosovo has had a rather different trajectory; it is administered by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), headed by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG).
3. The Western Balkans region has gone through substantial turmoil during the 20th century and before. The separation into multiple states has resulted in severe disruption of agricultural enterprises in the region and has severely affected the internal market opportunities for livestock commodities within former Yugoslavia. The massive emigration from the states hardest hit by war has denuded rural agricultural activities.
4. In the project regions, agriculture plays a critical role in national development, and within agriculture, livestock is central. In a context reminiscent of many regions of the developing world, livestock provides an important safety net for household vulnerability in rural communities, and the marketing of livestock products an opportunity to improve livelihoods.
5. Most important in this are cattle and sheep, and within these the dairy and wool marketing opportunities. In both Kosovo and Montenegro herd and flock sizes are small and productivity is low4. Moreover, livestock agriculture in the remote rural mountainous areas gives the impression of being in a time warp, a status exacerbated by the weak public sector services to farmers, by the profound weakness in livestock commodity marketing organisations, and by the cultural, ethnic and societal apprehensions left by political disruption.
6. The justification for a project to raise the game of livestock enterprises for the rural communities in the mountainous regions of Kosovo and Montenegro is therefore paramount.
2 From here on referenced as the Project, unless otherwise indicated. 3 All references to Kosovo in this report should be understood to be in the context of United Nations Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) 4 http://www.euroqualityfiles.net/AgriPolicy/Report%202.1/Kosovo%20Agripolicy%20D2-1.pdf
1
7. DAFKM was implemented in two phases, the first between June 2006 and May 2009, and the second between August 2009 and July 2011; a four months no-cost extension was agreed until 3 December 2011. During its two phases, DAFKM’s budget has reached a total of USD 5,139,762, funded entirely by the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (GDLx). An extension of the project for an additional period of 14 months has been requested by the Governments of both Kosovo and Montenegro, and a new proposal has been submitted.
8. During its first phase DAFKM aimed to improve the livelihoods of poor and isolated rural communities in mountainous areas of southern Kosovo and eastern Montenegro. For its second phase, DAFKM’s overall objective was to build and strengthen the skills and capacity of the poorer more isolated rural communities of Montenegro and Kosovo in order to increase household incomes, improve livelihoods and raise living and social conditions in the original regions and with identical aims on behalf of the Kosovo and Montenegro expanded project regions. The geographical coverage expanded in the second phase to include western Kosovo and north-eastern Montenegro, increasing the number of municipalities involved in the project area.
9. DAFKM sought, within its two phases, to increase the productivity of traditional livestock production systems through the introduction of technical innovations. Another important element of DAFKM is its aim to provide feedback to policy makers regarding participatory rural development strategies.
10. The conceptualisation of the project was drawn from a previous project, and comprised a bottom-up approach which included the introduction of innovations in livestock agriculture and the formation of farmer groups. The participatory approach allowed the identification of needs, complemented by tailored training and demonstrative activities along with the formation of farmers’ groups and cooperative.
11. The broad objective of DAFKM was probably overly ambitious, aiming to improve the livelihoods of rural communities, but was consistent with the Organization’s mandate of poverty reduction and food security.
12. DAFKM has achieved important technical, operational and institutional successes. Within the technical achievements are the introduction of ideas and innovations for livestock farming, and the generation of some examples of successful small enterprises and cooperation among famers. This has taken place in the face of economic stagnation following the collapse of state owned enterprises in the aftermath of the dissolution of former Yugoslavia, and of the wars that affected the Balkans in the late nineties of the past century.
1.2 Background to the evaluation
1.1.1 Purpose
2 13. The final evaluation of DAFKM was commissioned by FAO’s Office of Evaluation (OED) in compliance with the FAO policy on evaluation5, as well as in consultation with FAO’s Subregional Office for Central and Eastern Europe (SEU), which is the Budget Holder (BH). The project’s Chief Technical Advisor (CTA) and Task Force were also consulted in the process. Within this consultation, the evaluation was defined to be an assessment of both phases of DAFKM, with the purpose of drawing out lessons which could be taken up during the proposed extension phase. This was to include the provision for recommendations on the further steps necessary to consolidate the achievements of the project in the long term, including the need for any further technical assistance. Lessons learned for FAO corporate usage in future implementation of similar initiatives were also considered to be an important part of the purpose of the evaluation.
1.1.2 Scope
14. The evaluation was to assess progress of the project in implementing its activities as set out in its design documents, work plans and budgets. In particular, the evaluation mission analysed the actions and outcomes under the project’s components and assessed the synergies achieved between them.
15. The evaluation assessed the project by using the internationally accepted evaluation criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability6, and considered gender mainstreaming as a cross-cutting criterion for the assessment. Key evaluation questions7 developed by the Evaluation Team (ET) guided the assessment.
16. The field evaluation was carried out from 26 September to 14 October, 2011, which was followed by the drafting of the evaluation report.
1.3 Evaluation methodology
17. The evaluation was guided by the evaluation criteria and key evaluation questions, and other approaches defined in the ToR.
18. The evaluation adopted a consultative, iterative and transparent approach with SEU, the project’s CTA and Task Force, the governments of both Kosovo and Montenegro, as well as with the office of the GDLx in Kosovo. The ET received administrative and logistical support from the project, but conducted its work independently.
19. The evaluation was undertaken as a forward-looking process, and was shaped by the following processes:
i. Development of key evaluation questions and evaluation framework8
5 According to the Charter of the Office of Evaluation, it is FAO policy that all the work carried out by the Organization is subject to evaluation through: evaluations for the governing bodies, country evaluations and individual programmes and projects evaluations. 6 OECD/DAC and UNEG evaluation criteria. 7 See Appendix 5. 8 See Appendix 6.
3 ii. Desk review of available reports and documentation9 iii. Field mission, comprising an eighteen days visit to Kosovo and Montenegro. During this visit the ET conducted interviews with governmental officials (at the national and municipal level), the project’s donor, CTA, national team leaders, cross border liaison officer and other staff. The ET also interviewed experts from local universities and institutes working for the project as sectoral experts. Additionally, other UN agencies and donors working in agriculture were visited and interviewed. At the core of the mission, field visits were carried on in Decani, Dragash, Gjakova, Istog, Opoja, Peja Sheterpce and Zhupa in Kosovo and Berane, Bijelo Polje, Bor, Kosanica, Krusevo, Ljieska, Piperi, Plevlja and Tomasevo in Montenegro10. During the field visits single farmers, farmer groups and Young Farmer Clubs (YFC) were visited and project’s participants were interviewed.
20. During this process the evaluation used the following evaluation tools: review of project documentation and relevant external reports, semi-structured interviews supported by checklists and/or interview protocols and field direct observation of the techniques transferred to the farmers during field visits.
9 See Appendix 4. 10 See Appendix 2.
4 2 The Project 2.1 Design
21. The project was conceived in 2005 based on experiences from the implementation of a similar project/model in the Sandžak region of Serbia. For its first phase, DAFKM’s design considered the following as its expected results11: a. Groups of farmers elaborate development plans in a participatory way. b. Farmers’ associations provide services to farmers in a sustainable way. c. For selected sub-sectors, production technologies, product quality and marketing is improved. d. Farmers are trained. e. Experience from the project is recorded, analysed and disseminated.
22. An inception mission12 carried out between August and September 2006 contributed to the drafting of a definitive work plan for the first twelve months of the project. As a result of this mission and other background information it was decided to concentrate the project operations on the municipalities of Dragash, Prizren and Strpce in Kosovo, and Bijelo Polje, Berane, Rozaje, Andrijevica and Plav in Montenegro.
23. During its second phase, and under the umbrella of its new overall objective, DAFKM defined the following expected outcomes: a. Highly functional and sustainable farmer groups associations and cooperatives providing services and benefits to members and wider rural communities b. Regional livestock selling centre combined with a permanent regional agricultural showground and serving all rural communities c. Registered farmers unions expanding and developing representation for farmers and the wider rural communities d. Key farmers identified, trained and motivated for self-development e. Farmer groups, associations and cooperatives functional and working in partnership with project specialist personnel f. Farmer groups, associations and cooperatives consolidated sustainable and self-directed g. Project experience results and recommendations widely share.
24. Moreover, for its second phase it was decided to expand the geographical coverage of DAFKM to the municipalities of Gjakova; Decani; Peja and Istok in Kosovo and those of Pljevlja; Mojkovac; Zabljak and Kolasin in Montenegro13.
25. Considering the expected results and outcomes defined in DAFKM’s design during both phases, the following are considered to be the main components of the project:
a. Key farmers and technology needs identified in a participatory manner. This component included activities to raise awareness about and promote the project, as well as the use of participatory approaches to identify needs and to recruit key farmers for the project.
11 Project Document Phase 1, pp. 20 to 25. 12 See Inception report in the list of reviewed documents. 13 Appendix 9 contains the map of the geographic coverage of the project.
5 b. Livestock and agriculture techniques and technologies are transferred to, and adopted by farmers. Within this component the main activities were training workshops, development of demonstration plots and field demonstrations with participating farmers. c. Farmer groups and cooperatives formed, expanding and providing sustained services to their members. This includes the formation of farmer groups and cooperatives, as well as support to their management, expansion of their services, and the formation of farmers’ unions. d. Young farmer clubs formed. This includes various activities to support their formation and functionality, support with computer equipment, and a linkage with Rural Youth Europe. e. Processing and marketing are improved for wool, milk, lamb and cattle value chains. Within this component the main activities were: i) assessment and selection of appropriate technologies, ii) technical support to participants for technology adoption, and iii) establishment of a livestock market centre which also supports agricultural shows and livestock exhibitions. f. Experiences gained are systematically monitored, analysed and disseminated. This component was included in both phases; the design focused mainly in the dissemination of project experiences, and within its first phase included the performance of improved technologies as an activity.
26. During the first phase of DAFKM target beneficiaries were defined as smallholder farmers in selected remote and mountainous areas of Montenegro and Kosovo. For the second phase of the project, target beneficiaries were defined as rural communities in the mountainous areas of Montenegro and Kosovo, farmer groups, farmer associations and young farmer clubs established during the first phase.
27. During the field mission it was clarified that targeting of beneficiaries was defined on a geographical basis, namely the poorer, mountainous regions in Kosovo and Montenegro. Within the targeted area, DAFKM focused on working with “leader farmers” who were identified during participatory meetings with the help of facilitators. Their selection was based on their willingness to collaborate with the project and on the following criteria14:
a. General awareness of the issues involved b. Motivation and participation during the workshop c. Interest in sharing information before, during and after workshops d. Relationship with the other farmers and the respect shown to them by other farmers e. Readiness for work and persistence f. Body language and communication skills g. Attitude towards FAO and basic understanding and commitment to the project objectives h. Approach to project donations i. Personal experience and ability as a farmer
28. DAFKM did not select beneficiaries based on the size or scale of their livestock enterprise.
14 Reports of participatory meetings.
6 2.2 Activities The activities of the project were presented to the ET as being represented by a bottom-up approach, depicted in Box 1. This graphic does not appear in any of the project documents; it was developed retrospectively to portray the project’s activities in a more structured way. Box 1. Scheme of DAFKM’s implementation approach Inception phase
Awareness campaign-Project promotion
Participatory meetings
Winter workshops
Field Demonstrations
Group formation
Transfer to field/farm situation
Development of group activities
Expansion of operations
Source: adapted from presentations provided to the ET by project staff
29. In general terms DAFKM implemented the following activities15:
a. During the inception phase, diagnostic reports were developed. These described the activities for the first twelve months of operation, the initial conditions of livestock farms in the selected areas (in terms of herd/flock composition, health status, livestock management, breeds and the conditions of agricultural machinery). These reports were developed based on a sample of farmers visited in the project’s area at the end of 2006. b. During its first months of operation, the project deployed promotion and awareness campaigns with different stakeholders, such as farmers and government (at the national and municipal level) c. In 34 selected hubs within the municipalities selected for its implementation, DAFKM organised 149 participatory meetings involving 2,894 farmers. Within this group, 587 farmers were identified as potential leader farmers. Following the participatory meetings 392 of 587 (67%) of these farmers were confirmed as participants. Additionally, two reports with a documentation of information collected during the participatory meetings were developed. These reports also contained a proposal for a training programme in winter workshops, with a focus on forage and feed production, animal breeding, agricultural mechanisation and formation of groups. d. DAFKM conducted its first training workshops with selected leader farmers. These expanded in terms of thematic coverage and approaches by providing field demonstrations. In total 51 training sessions and workshops were conducted in the
15 A summary of achievements following these milestones is presented in Appendix 3.
7 project area with the participation of 1,046 farmers, training facilitators and veterinarian technicians. Topics covered ranged from animal breeding, feeding and health, sheep shearing and artificial insemination, agricultural mechanization and farm facilities, forage/silage production, creation of farmers groups, milk production, processing and quality control, cheese production, farm management to group formation, application of subsidies and grants provided by government. e. Additionally, 591 demonstration plots were established by the project for fertilization of natural pastures, ploughing, planting and fertilizing grass mixtures, fertilized artificial meadows, alfalfa, planting of vetch/peas and oats, and certified seed production. f. Parallel to the training activities, the project focused on the formation of farmer groups, cooperatives and YFCs. In total 44 farmer groups were formed with the participation of 334 farmers, with a mean participation of 7 members. The main objective of farmers groups was to share agricultural machinery for the production of hay, silage and forage. Additionally, DAFKM supported the creation of six cooperatives; three of them on wool production, two on cheese production and one on seed production. In terms of YFC the project supported the creation of 30 YFCs comprising 409 members.
2.3 Partnerships 30. General reference to potential partnerships was included in both project documents, cited as a need to ensure project’s achievements sustainability. Governments (at the national and municipal level) of Kosovo and Montenegro and local institutes were also identified as stakeholders. Furthermore, a general identification of donor projects and NGOs working in Kosovo and Montenegro, e.g. CARITAS, and CIMIC (KFOR Civil Military Cooperation), FORS (a local NGO), and USAID, is also included in both phases project documents.
31. In the inception report, partnerships were defined, identifying the need for their development to enhance the project’s capacity to improve the livelihoods of farmers. A generic acknowledgement of the need to work with appropriate agencies and donors was also recognized within this document, in order to strengthen the potential role of agro-tourism and other activities that could be identified during participatory meetings.
32. The project has developed relevant partnerships with local universities in the Balkan region to support the various training activities (workshops, demonstration plots and follow- up consultations). DAFKM has engaged local experts from the Faculty of Agriculture within the University of Pristina in Kosovo, from the Biotechnical Faculty of the University of Podgorica in Montenegro and from the University of Belgrade in Serbia. Local experts from these universities participated in the preparation of technical brochures in local languages, responding to issues raised by farmers during the workshops and training activities.
33. An additional partnership developed by the project was with Rural Youth Europe (RYE), a European umbrella NGO working to activate youth in the countryside to provide training and work. The various YFCs formed by DAFKM are recognized as members of regional group II of RYE. Within this partnership, some members of YFCs have participated in their activities of 2010 and 2011.
8 34. The project has acquired a high degree of visibility and recognition within the spectrum of UN agencies and donors16 working in Kosovo and Montenegro. Project staff members have been invited to participate in the UN interagency coordination efforts, as FAO lacks formal representation in Kosovo and Montenegro. The work load and contractual condition of DAFKM’s staff has perhaps prevented them from participating effectively in such dialogues, potentially constraining broader partnership opportunities.
2.4 Project management 35. DAFKM’s management structure consists of an international project manager, a cross-border liaison officer, two national team leaders (one each in Kosovo and Montenegro), supported by a group of 21 full time consultants. The consultants have served as specialists for group development, forage and feed, farm mechanization and local farmer coordinators. Additionally, 10 local experts on agricultural mechanization, animal feeding, animal health and breeding, dairy, forage and feed and livestock and one international expert on group development were temporarily engaged to support training, demonstration plots and group formation activities. In the same way, 16 consultants were engaged for workshop presentations on animal feeding, breeding and health, animal food control and quality, cattle breeding, dairy and milk production, farm management, forage production, livestock building and equipment, NGO registration advice, plant protection and public speaking. The project is logistically supported by seven full-time and one part-time office assistants.
36. The management of DAFKM is a shared responsibility of the international project manager and the national team leaders in Kosovo and Montenegro. General oversight of the project is the responsibility of the international project manager. The project structure has lacked a Monitoring and Evaluation position in support to this oversight function. Furthermore, DAFKM has not had a Steering Committee or a technical advisory committee.
37. The international project manager is an FAO retiree; he has therefore recently been engaged under a temporary Personal Service Agreement (PSA) (PSA.SBS.retiree17). The two national team leaders are employed under different conditions. The team leader in Montenegro has been engaged as an international consultant since 2009, while the team leader in Kosovo is a full time National Professional Officer (part of the FAO staff in Kosovo). Overall supervision of the project is provided by the Subregional Office for Central and Eastern Europe (SEU).
38. The cross-border liaison officer is also a temporary international consultant, based in Montenegro, with the additional responsibility for oversight of group formation for seed production activities in Montenegro. The role of facilitator and liaison between Kosovo and Montenegro activities has been limited.
39. Regarding the national consultants, DAFKM has recruited staff with skills to communicate and understand the local multicultural context in which the project has operated (language, ethnics and religion).
16 See list of meetings conducted during field missions. 17 According to FAO, regulations retired staff from FAO or other UN agencies may not be employed under PSA for more than six months in any twelve month period.
9 2.5 Technical and operational backstopping 40. According to the project document, technical backstopping was to be provided by the Animal Production Service (AGAP), now the animal production and health division (AGA), in FAO HQ. In September 2009, the livestock officer in the Subregional office for Central and Eastern Europe (SEU) was assigned the responsibility for technical backstopping.
41. The project supervision was to be the responsibility of FAO’s Sub-regional Representative for Central and Eastern Europe (SEU); SEU was also assigned the role of Budget Holder (BH) in 2006 and confirmed in this role in 2007.
2.6 Project budget and expenditure
42. According to the information provided by the BH and reported in FPMIS, DAFKM’s budget totalled USD 5,139,762 for both phases (comprising USD 2,608,116 for the first phase and USD 2,531,646 for the second phase). The budget lines of: payment of consultants (31.1%), non-expendable procurement (15.5%), general operating expenses (12.6%), support costs (11.5%) and training (8.3%) represent 79% of the total budget. These proportions are almost constant in both phases of the project18.
43. DAFKM has had three budget revisions. The first revision, in June 2009, was to allocate earned interest to the project, as a result of a one month no-cost extension requested at the end of the first phase; this increased the original budget by 1.2%. Reallocation between budget lines was also conducted during this budget revision, increasing the amounts allocated to general operating expenses, locally contracted labour, training and consultants. The budgets of salaries, contracts and technical support services were decreased. The second budget revision, in September 2009, was to allocate new funds received as a result of the extension of the second phase of DAFKM. In the most recent revision of July 2011, there was some reallocation of budget lines from the approval of a three month no-cost extension of the project. Increases were made in professional salaries, locally contracted labour, training and travel, while contracts and technical support services decreased.
44. According to data from FPMIS, as of 8 December 2011 the commitments reached USD 5,052,519 which represents 98.3% of the total budget. Reports from SEU indicate that actual expenditures, excluding commitments, are USD 4,943,045, representing 96.2% of the total budget. According to this information, salaries general service, general operating expenses and consultants have a slight over-expenditure of 3.8%, 3.3% and 0.01% respectively. Technical support services budget line was not used (0%).
18 See Appendix 8 for further detail on Project’s budget and expenditures.
10 3 Evaluation synthesis
3.1 Relevance 45. Both Kosovo and Montenegro have experienced substantial trauma and dramatic change in their societal stability and wellbeing. This trauma has eroded confidence in public service systems, upset agricultural market opportunities and shattered productivity performance in agriculture. As a result, the inhabitants of the mountainous regions of Kosovo and Montenegro have fallen back into their traditional comfort zone of livestock keeping as a subsistence activity, but also as a livelihood enterprise; but without the efficiencies necessary to access markets properly and, indeed, without the necessary markets themselves. Many projects from diverse agencies have attempted to respond to this dilemma. Some, including one supported by the same donor as is supporting this project, have foundered badly. In the case of that particular project designed to establish a dairy processing facility in Berane, Montenegro, the reason appears to have been due in part to inadequate consideration of the scale of milk market activities appropriate for these rural areas with depleted human populations. Scale is critical in building marketing institutions progressively and viably, as well as is the need for a bottom-up approach to the engagement of producers themselves in the agricultural recovery programme. For these reasons, the project under review is considered to have a high relevance to addressing the opportunities for livelihood improvement through livestock agriculture by engaging with a sample of farmers, and focussing on re-establishing certain agricultural extension service functions.
46. Given the acknowledged relevance of the project to the need for farmer focus, for tackling issues on a small scale, and for service provision to livestock enterprises, how relevant has the project been to developing livestock enterprises in the project regions, and to broader processes of poverty reduction?
47. Firstly, the relevance has been more at instituting processes of change rather than at having widespread impact on agricultural practices. The selection process of farmers has been through identifying those who are leaders, which infers those who demonstrate greater entrepreneurial skills and as such are more likely to be advocates and disciples of change and innovation19. This is seen by the ET as a very positive aspect of this project; it means that the project has been able to gather substantial momentum for change. Nevertheless, given the relatively small number of participant farmers as a proportion of the total population of livestock farmers in the municipalities involved, the relevance to overall change in productivity performance is likely to be low at this stage (and furthermore is very difficult to measure; see later).
48. The project ostensibly has some poverty reduction ideals (it aims to “build and strengthen the skills and capacity of the poorer, more isolated communities of the mountainous areas of Montenegro and Kosovo”….. “to serve as an operational model elsewhere and for the Western Balkans as a whole20”). This perhaps conveys the impression that poorer communities were to have been selected from within the project area, but that was not the case; rather, the poorer community focus was based on “geographical
19 See criteria for selection mentioned in paragraph 27 which was extracted from reports of participatory meetings. 20 Taken from the Executive Summary, Phase 2 project document.
11 considerations21”, meaning that the project selected those municipalities which contain and/or border the mountainous regions, and which are recognised as being poorer than other municipalities in Kosovo and Montenegro. Indeed, in Montenegro the majority of poor people live in the north of the country in the municipalities selected by the project, where they are confronted with severe and multi-faceted vulnerabilities (low education, low employment, limited access to health services, poor housing conditions, etc.).
49. Regarding poverty reduction impacts, the relevance to FAO’s corporate objectives and the MDGs is considered. The project document claimed contribution to various objectives and programmes within FAO’s Strategic Framework 2000-2015 and Medium Term Plan 2006-201122. Indeed the project is relevant to some of these objectives and programmes. Specifically, it contributes to Objective C2 within FAO’s Strategic Framework 2000-2015 and programmes 213B5: Livestock Development; 253A6: Enhanced Rural Institutions, Extension and Participatory Processes for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD); and Advice, Support and Training in Agricultural Policies.
50. What is the relevance of the project to the needs of livestock enterprises and agricultural development in Kosovo and Montenegro? In theory, one could argue that the weight of relevance is obscured by the biases inherent in the diagnostic process undertaken by the project, but for all practical purposes it is likely that most of the needs that can be tackled through relatively short-term project intervention have indeed been covered. The diagnostic process involved an open invitation to a wide range of farmers in the target municipalities, complemented by selected visits during the inception phase of the project to analyse livestock and agricultural machinery conditions. For a more comprehensive assessment of needs, a broader process which engages not only producers, but also representatives of marketing organisations, local and national government and authorities, development agencies, among other actors, would normally be considered appropriate.
51. The target beneficiaries of this project were designated23 as: the rural communities in the mountainous areas of Montenegro and Kosovo farmer groups farmer associations young farmer clubs established during the Phase I of the project.
52. Notably absent from this list are the extension services of Kosovo and Montenegro. While extension services (both the national and municipality levels) have been involved to a degree in the project, the project could arguably have achieved greater relevance if these groups had received stronger recognition as project beneficiaries. The ET understands the weakness and financial constraints under which the extension services operate, but in the interests of sustainability their closer engagement as beneficiaries of the capacity building skills of the project staff was probably desirable and achievable.
53. What is the relevance of the project in relation to national strategies for agricultural development? In this regard, the project aligned itself with the national strategies of Kosovo
21 James Airey, 10th October 2011. 22 The project document states contribution to Objectives A1, A2, B2, C1 and C2 as well as Programme areas 2.1.3; 2.5.3 and 3.1.2. 23 Page 14, project document, phase 2.
12 and Montenegro24. This included the government of Kosovo’s measures to restructure the potential of agriculture in the rural sector (measure 2), and support local community development (measure 8). Additionally, the project is in line with measure 2 of the Rural Development Policy of the government of Montenegro for investment in livestock farms, which was developed as part of a group of measures designed to assist eventual accession to the EU. The project was requested by both governments to provide direct technical assistance to farmers in the context of the weak governmental extension services.
54. What is the relevance of the project to the FAO regional strategic framework, or other global or regional initiatives of FAO? The project was considered relevant to regional and sub-regional priorities at the time of its design25. Given FAO’s comparative advantage, the regional conference for Europe defined knowledge exchange and capacity building as central priorities for the European region. The project is indeed relevant to this priority, by contributing to enhancing the productivity and collaborative capacity of livestock farmers, providing direct technical assistance for new agricultural-livestock techniques, as well as with the promotion of the group formation. Additionally, the regional conference proposed that REU should take a leading role by enhancing the cooperation of regional universities and research institutions as well as in facilitating and improving the work of the extension service staff in the member countries. As discussed below, the project has developed linkages with local experts and institutes within Kosovo and Montenegro.
55. Kosovo and Montenegro appear to fall under the mandate of the FAO project for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in Mountain Regions26 (SARD–M). While this policy-dominated project appears to be highly relevant for Kosovo and Montenegro, and has undertaken diagnostic work in neighbouring Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia (see Assessment of strengths and weaknesses of mountain policies in South-Eastern Europe (SEE)27), there does not appear to have been any link between SARD-M and the project under evaluation.
56. And what is the comparative advantage of FAO to undertake such a field-based and farmer-focussed project? At first glance, given the trend within FAO for more in the way of “normative” activities, and playing the role of facilitator and convenor in thematic programmes conducted at the national level, this project has many of the hallmarks of those conducted by an NGO. Indeed, even within FAO headquarters this project is viewed by some as one which is characteristic of former FAO field activities. However, this observation does not adequately take into consideration the unique comparative advantage of FAO as a UN body in the highly sensitive Western Balkans environment, nor the substantial, and widely recognised, reputation which FAO has gained in the region from its earlier phase of the project model in Serbia.
57. As far as Kosovo is concerned, FAO has a recent history of facilitating and managing emergency assistance, which further illustrates the comparative advantage in the region. In collaboration with donors, NGOs and UN bodies, FAO’s Special Relief Operations
24 References were made to Kosovo’s Agricultural and Rural Development Plan 2009-13 and Montenegro’s strategies and national programme for Food Production and Rural Development. 25 25th FAO Regional Conference for Europe, June 2006 (ftp://ftp.fao.org/unfao/bodies/erc/erc25/J7623e.pdf) and 26th Regional Conference for Europe (ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/013/k2854e.pdf) 26 http://www.fao.org/sard/en/sardm/home/index.html 27 http://www.fao.org/sard/common/ecg/3172/en/BFSDEngNov08Regional.pdf
13 Service established an Emergency Coordination Unit (FAO-ECU) in Kosovo to promote emergency agricultural interventions aimed at restoring rural livelihoods and the increased self-reliance of the rural communities. The main focus of FAO multi-donor and multi- sectoral activities in Kosovo were on: ensuring the coordination of emergency agricultural relief activities with an increased attention on appropriate seed varieties, seed type diversification and selective targeting of vulnerable groups; conducting need assessments, beneficiary selection and priority definition; emergency agricultural input distribution, and support to rehabilitation of the mechanization, livestock and forestry sectors; guiding, through technical co-ordination of agricultural interventions, the food production and revitalization of the agricultural sector.
This activity was evaluated very positively28.
58. Moreover, the project is relevant within the recognized comparative advantage of FAO in the European region; this is FAO’s specialization in agriculture and rural development and its independence based on neutrality. What remains a challenge for the project is to take advantage of this recognized comparative advantage of FAO, as well as its own reputation, to provide policy advisory within the sphere of knowledge and capacity building, which was considered to be FAO’s priority at the regional and sub-regional levels.
3.2 Effectiveness 59. The project has effectively promoted enterprise in livestock agriculture in a slowly recovering political environment still characterised by economic stagnation. While it has done this on a relatively small scale in the project regions, with the high public profile the project has projected it has been effective in influencing attitudes and practices. As part of this it has supported the development of pilot cooperatives and farmer groups with renewed market orientation (particularly in the commodities of cheese and wool), and for those engaged with the project it has promoted the generation of economic activity through products not previously (or recently) commercialized (such as wool).
60. The assessment of effectiveness hinges on an evaluation of changes induced by the project at various levels. The ET first provides an overview commentary of project effectiveness under the headings of technical, institutional and operational effectiveness. This is followed by an assessment of the stated outcomes and outputs presented in the project document, and then by an assessment of the broader outcomes deemed relevant to the project as undertaken by FAO.
3.2.1 General
61. The evaluation of effectiveness at a broad level has been constrained by the weakness of the project logical framework, in which there are inconsistencies between the stated objective and the key performance indicators, as well as inappropriate performance
28 The Joint Multi-donor Evaluation of the FAO Kosovo Emergency Agriculture Programme, 25 October - 20 November 2000.
14 indicators. These are improved farm productivity, decreased vulnerability, improved rural socioeconomic conditions and farmer empowerment. While there have been two assessments of farm profitability (a cost-benefit analysis was undertaken each in Kosovo and Montenegro, see later), these are not representative of the broader populations in municipalities selected for the project; there have been no empirical assessments of vulnerability, socioeconomic conditions or farmer empowerment.
62. This weakness is due to a lack of clear performance targets and a frame of reference (or denominator population) of the sample of farmers selected. This issue will also be discussed below under impacts and sustainability.
63. There are two other factors complicating the attribution of effectiveness to the project. The first is that, particularly in Kosovo, there have been so many different projects emerging that the last five years have seen substantial changes in livestock production, and in the growth of livestock enterprises; a recent report on the dynamics of the dairy industry in Kosovo illustrates this29. The second factor is that certain of the project activities in participating farms have also been influenced by government subsidies for milk, for the cultivation of cereals, and government financial incentives for increases in herd and flock sizes30.
64. These general comments on effectiveness do not, of course, mean that the project has not been effective; indeed it has had many successes which we review below. However it does mean that the effectiveness is difficult to measure on the basis of the criteria set out in the project document.
3.2.2 Technical effectiveness
65. The project has been responsible for the introduction of innovations and ideas in livestock agriculture, at a time when the mountainous regions of Kosovo and Montenegro have gone through a period of neglect. The concept of engaging with farmers through the participatory diagnostic phases, identifying key priorities, and engaging with participating farmers through a variety of techniques and procedures has indeed been very effective. With this approach 2,894 farmers participated in 149 meetings, where 587 farmers were identified as key farmers and then 392 of them confirmed as such. During the lifetime of the project 45 workshops and training sessions were conducted with the participation of 977 farmers31.
66. As with much of the effectiveness, it has been primarily limited to those producers who had signed up to participate in the project, and to those who had decided to engage with the project subsequently. There has been some spill-over to other producers who are neighbours or who have heard through various means about achievements of participating farmers within project activities, particularly on forage and silage production through demonstration plots. There have also been communications on project achievements through the broadcast media. The ET found scattered information on new cultivated land for forage
29 http://www.euroqualityfiles.net/AgriPolicy/Report%202.1/Kosovo%20Agripolicy%20D2-1.pdf. 30 See Appendix 10. 31 This excludes 3 training sessions to 13 facilitators during the inception phase of the project, 1 training session for 50 young farmers on YFC and American farm school conducted in Kosovo and 2 training sessions on Artificial Insemination for 6 veterinary technicians.
15 and silage production that suggests replication of the project activities at a small scale32. However, a systematic and rigorous quantification of this spill over effect does not appear to have been undertaken.
67. Livestock feeding technologies. With its participating farmers, having identified feeding (particularly winter feeding) to be a major constraint in both cattle and sheep, the project has focussed on enhancing the quality of feed in a variety of ways. These have been through more efficient harvesting of hay through the use of mechanised cutting tools, demonstration of the potential to improve the quality of pastures through 591 demonstration plots and consultancy advice from forage crop expertise in Serbia, and through the preparation and storage of silage. The latter, introduced into Serbia in the early 1980s33, has probably been the greatest technological change introduced by the project, and has probably had the greatest impact on both dairy cow productivity and on dairy enterprise profitability. Clearly the introduction of specialised machinery by the project played an important role. As a footnote, it is important to emphasise that as far as the evaluation can see, the effectiveness in this case has been in introducing the ideas and techniques and piloting them among the selected participating farmers, rather than in changing practices on a large scale. Furthermore there has not been a rigorous quantification of the replication and adoption of techniques by other farmers outside those who are participants of the project.
68. The introduction of certain wool processing technologies. Two wool processing facilities of the three wool cooperatives formed with project support were visited by the evaluation team, one in Kosovo (in Dragash, where the project has one of its two offices in Kosovo) and one in Montenegro (in Berane, where the project has one of its two offices in the country). Through the introduction by the project of expertise in shearing sheep, and equipment for compressing and packing wool for transportation (and through the negotiation for an international market by the project; see below), the project has changed an apparent collapse of wool trading from Kosovo and Montenegro (with no wool reportedly marketed for the past 10 years) into an established enterprise for sheep farmers , with the export to United Kingdom and Macedonia of 252 tonnes of packed wool by the cooperatives in 2011.
69. Cheese processing initiatives. The evaluation team visited two cheese processing facilities out of four such enterprises formed with the support of the project, one in Kosovo (a recently established rural cooperative in Opoja) and one in Montenegro (a recently established cooperative in Berane, which also engages in seed production for fodder crops; see below). The project had played a critical role in establishing these two enterprises, including the sourcing and provision of equipment. Both now produce pasteurised cheese, bringing the cooperatives up to health and safety requirements which will become increasingly important in the run up to greater compliance with EU regulations. Both cooperatives formed in Kosovo reached an average production of 15,775 kg/year of cheese between 2009 and 2011. The project has also played a role in the type of processing for the Berane cooperative (drawing on the Pirot cheese brand), providing training and seeking markets for the emerging product in Podgorica. The project had apparently undergone some difficulty in obtaining veterinary certification for cheese quality and safety, but this problem had reportedly been resolved. Cheese enterprises in Kosovo and Montenegro have been selling their production to supermarket chains.
32 It is difficult, however, to attribute this spillover effect only to the project, in the presence of governmental direct payments for crop, livestock and milk production. 33 http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/serbia/serbia.htm#5pasture
16
70. Wool marketing opportunities. Through the good offices of the project leader, a marketing partnership has been established with H. Dawson, Sons & Co (Wool) Ltd., a UK company involved in global wool marketing34. A market has also been found in Macedonia in 2011. In total some 135 tonnes from Montenegro and 117 tonnes from Kosovo have been shipped in 2011, while 80 of the 117 tonnes sold by Kosovo’s cooperatives have been shipped to Macedonia. The evaluation was informed by the project leader that the UK market is likely to be sustained. Nevertheless, the evaluation is of the opinion that for the sustainability of this market and comfort of mind of the cooperatives and farmers, more empirical evidence of the medium to long-term viability of wool markets would be of benefit.
71. Seed production for forage crops. Only in Montenegro did the project take an initiative to develop the capacity to generate forage crop seed for sale locally. The justification was apparently to build local capacity, and to have a local source of certified seed. The vast majority of forage crop seed is imported from Serbia (mostly), Slovenia and Austria, and some producers were reportedly sceptical about the quality of some of the seed imported. As a result, a pilot facility within the Berane cooperative of Agrosjever was established, which produced and sold to farmers some 11,730 kg of oats certified by the Biotechnical Institute in 2011.
3.2.3 Institutional effectiveness
72. Farmer group partnerships. Considerable effort has been made by the project to establish farmers groups which are formally registered. It is understood that the level of registration used by the project provides formal acknowledgement of the official status of the group or society, but does not permit the group to engage in profit making activities35. The ET understands that the project sought the registration of farmer groups to facilitate the access to governmental support and to promote better accountability among members. However, facilitation of machine sharing with clear rules seems to be the main rationale behind the formation of registered and unregistered groups36.
73. The primary function of the groups is the sharing of machinery purchased by the project for pasture management and forage preparation. In some groups, this function has been supplemented by machinery purchases made by individuals in the group, or, on occasion, by the group as a whole. This mechanism has been an effective way of mobilising groups of motivated farmers into improving their productivity by enhancing winter feeding quality and quantity, as well as for reducing costs in the production of inputs for their main activity which is generally livestock and dairy production.
74. Pasteurised cheese processing in Kosovo and Montenegro. The technical expertise and marketing opportunities of these small groups has been effectively supported by the project. Additionally to marketing support and accompanying its operation, cheese production groups have benefited from 2 training session on semi-hard cheese. The institutional effectiveness is rather more tenuous; in both cases the evaluation team was
34 http://www.hdawson.co.uk/en/index.htm. 35 This includes only farmer groups which were registered as non-profit entities and excludes the wool and cheese cooperatives. 36 Martinov and Dedic (2009, 2010 and 2011).
17 impressed by the enthusiasm of those involved within cheese production units, but in the case of Montenegro, despite having trained about nine farmers in semi-hard cheese production, the institutional durability is dependent upon the current activities of one person; the demand for expansion, in terms of volumes of milk available for cheese processing, will have to be met by a greater human resource capacity in the facility. For the Kosovo facility visited, the soft cheese producing cooperative appears strong, and with a growing participation in the cooperative, the prospects for durability after the FAO project seem strong. But the cameo nature of the four cheese enterprises raises the question as to how such enterprises can be cloned in other municipalities and communities.
75. Wool processing initiatives in Kosovo and Montenegro. These processing initiatives centre on three types of technologies: shearing, sorting and packing. All require training, which is now readily available through the partnerships developed by the project and concentrated mainly on sheep shearing by conducting eight training demonstrative sessions (four each in Kosovo and Montenegro) with 26 participants. The sorting and particularly the packing (pressing), however, require machinery. In the Kosovo cooperative visited, this was a hand-operated wool press, but in Montenegro was a hydraulic press, which greatly increases the efficiency of transport to overseas markets.
76. Seed production in Montenegro. It would appear that this initiative has established capacity in forage seed production which was not previously present, and engaged with Dr. Zoran Jovovic of the Biotechnical Faculty of the University of Montenegro, who is responsible for all seed certification for the government. This is highly laudable in terms of building national capacity, and in responding to the government subsidy incentives now being given to sown and cultivated cereal and forage using certified seeds. This initiative reportedly provides about 1% of forage seed requirements of the country, and while it is understood that it is pilot in nature, it raises the question of the merit of establishing such a unit versus the option of building stronger collaborative links with neighbouring country suppliers in the interests of institutional effectiveness and sustainability.
77. Young farmers clubs. The project has established 30 YFCs. Eight of these were formed in Montenegro (Berane, Roszaje and Bijelo Polje), and the remaining 22 YFC were formed in Kosovo (Dragash and Decani). The project has certainly been effective in promoting the concept and formation of YFC and it is seen by the evaluation team to be a valuable institutional strengthening mechanism in the rural environments in which livestock agriculture is central, employment possibilities are virtually zero, pressure for emigration is high and social networking institutions are either absent or very weak. How effective the YFCs are is more difficult to evaluate. Some YFCs have only recently been established, and the variation in approaches and activities undertaken by different groups seen during the evaluation was wide. While many of the activities are social and recreational, it appears that YFCs make an important contribution to societal strengthening through livestock enterprise endorsement as well as to enhance the confidence of farmers in the project. It also appeared that the YFCs helped raise the esteem of the rural youth, and illustrate to them rewards from engaging in livestock agriculture. The recognition of YFC groups by Rural Youth Europe was an important milestone.
3.2.4 Operational effectiveness
18 78. The project is complex, it runs in Kosovo and Montenegro, and it has multiple activities all focussed at farm and small enterprise level. The evaluation team recognises the challenges in managing such an activity in countries anywhere, and particularly those recovering from recent societal traumas.
79. The evaluation recognises and lauds the strong commitment to the project by all engaged, and the palpable team spirit among project staff. There is an overwhelming belief among project personnel that the project is worthwhile, and that it is inducing change for the better.
80. The operational aspects have benefitted from the focus, from the onset, on rural farmers, and the encouragement of a “bottom-up” approach. This has inevitably tilted the scales in favour of efficacious partnerships with producers, given the weakness of government extension systems, and the profound scepticism among farmers of the value of extension services. This approach could arguably be at the cost of the long-term sustainability of the technologies, innovations and partnership-building advocated by the project, if the engagement of extension services as effective partners has not been strong enough or functional enough.
81. Another factor favouring the successful partnership with the selected producers has been a result of the priority given in farmer selection to “leader farmers”, which when reviewing the criteria for identifying leader farmers implies those showing entrepreneurship. While this selection approach flies in the face of many development projects which specifically target the poorer, more disadvantaged members of society (although the project argues that such members have every opportunity to participate), the evaluation team recognises that identifying leader farmers was extremely valuable in “igniting activities”, the term used by the project manager, in a societal environment (particularly in Kosovo) in which collaborations and partnerships between farmers had reportedly become uncommon because of the ethnically-charged environment present in parts of the project areas. This has indeed enhanced the effectiveness of the project in terms of the establishment of farmer groups and the adoption of the promoted techniques by participants.
82. The evaluation team also found that the decision to devolve project coordination offices to key municipalities within the project area promoted operational efficiency, providing direct day-to-day engagement, rather than having the project run from a large city. Through this, the weak governmental infrastructure for services to livestock agriculture has been complemented.
83. Operational effectiveness might have benefited from greater technical backstopping from both SEU and greater engagement by AGAP within FAO HQ. Technical backstopping from SEU has been limited to just two missions by the Lead Technical Officer (LTO) which took place at the end of the first phase and the beginning of the second phase of the project37. The restriction to two missions was probably affected by changes in the LTO during the project and to changes of the responsibility within SEU in 2009. Additionally, the multiple facets and support activities of the project (which range from the strategic allocation of agricultural machinery, livestock production, health and breed support to marketing activities) would have demanded a multidisciplinary technical backstopping from SEU and
37 According to BTORs, uploaded in FPMIS from February and October 2009.
19 FAO HQ (e.g. AGS for machinery). SEU, in its role of BH, has been supporting the project in terms of its supervision and procurement. There is no evidence of any technical backstopping missions from FAO HQ. Importantly, the weaknesses in technical backstopping from FAO HQ and SEU were balanced by the development of strong and effective linkages by the project with local and regional agricultural institutes, a commendable endeavour as mentioned in section 3.3. A notable example of this was the long-term training, support and backstopping received from Professor Milorad Stosic at the Institute for Forage Crops in Kruševac, Serbia. It is likely that the operational effectiveness might have been further enhanced through other partnerships, particularly with actors within Kosovo and Montenegro.
3.2.5 Effectiveness based on project document outcomes and outputs
84. Below are presented the seven outcomes and related outputs documented in the project description, three of which refer to the original Municipalities selected, and four to the expanded project regions. Under each outcome, comments are made on the effectiveness.
85. Outcome 1- Highly Functional and Sustainable Farmer Groups Associations and Cooperatives providing Services and Benefits to Members and Wider Rural Communities
Output 1.1 Group Management Capability and Services Increased and enjoying Ongoing Sustainable Development Output 1.2 Cooperatives Functioning efficiently providing fully Fledged Input and Output Services with backup Extension and Technical Advice to Farmers Output 1.3 Sheep Breeders Association and Project-Enabled AI Services Providing Significant Benefits to Livestock Producers Output 1.4 Young Farmers Club Development Program Implemented and with Clubs Functional and linked locally and regionally under YFC Umbrellas
86. Evaluation team comments: While the ET acknowledged the formation of 44 farmers groups with the participation of 334 farmers in Kosovo and Montenegro, it is not of the opinion that they are all highly functional and sustainable. Within these few groups, two thirds (26 out of 44) have developed the capacity to share agricultural machinery for the production of animal feed as their main group management capability. During the field visits, there was little indication on cooperation beyond this for the service to livestock enterprises, nor for the commercialization of livestock products emerging. Indeed even in those that have been established, sustainability does not appear to be guaranteed. Furthermore, very few are providing any services and benefits to wider rural communities.
87. Regarding the eight cheese enterprises and wool cooperatives formed with project support, the ET found that they are not providing fully fledged input and output services, nor backup extension and technical advice to their members as designated in Output 1.2.
88. One sheep breeders’ association was formed in Montenegro and four animal breeding groups in Kosovo, but there is little indication of the benefits emerging from their existence. The ET acknowledges the complementary endeavours undertaken by the project in this regard, such as the organization of eight demonstration-training sessions on sheep shearing with the participation of 26 farmers, and two training sessions on artificial insemination (AI) that benefited six veterinary technicians in Kosovo and Montenegro;
20 however, there are few indications of the development of a sustained network for the provision of these services, as designated in Output 1.3, nor a sustainable connection of these veterinary technicians with the groups formed.
89. The project supported the formation of 30 YFCs with 309 members. Their participation within RYE allowed the participation by a few members in international events. However, local and regional linkages were not visible in the field.
90. Outcome 2 – Regional Livestock Selling Centre combined with a Permanent Regional Agricultural Showground and serving All Rural Communities
Output 2.1 Developed Facilities under Municipal Ownership with Trained Management and Operational Staff drawn from Farmers Groups and YFC Memberships
91. Evaluation comment: This is still a planned output, which, if governmental support is achieved, will take place near Peje in north-western Kosovo. It is understood that a plot had been offered in another site earlier, but the offer was withdrawn as the plot was assigned to another use. Complementary activities related to this output include the organization of two agricultural shows held in Montenegro in 2008 and 2009, with the purpose of exhibiting different sheep and cattle breeds, cheese produced by cooperatives and farm machinery. In Kosovo, five annual livestock shows in Sharri and Peja regions were held since 2008 and 2010 respectively, with the aim of promoting certain breeds of livestock and project activities.
92. Outcome 3 – Registered Farmers Unions expanding and developing Representation for Farmers and the wider Rural Communities
Output 3.1 Farmers Unions Registered and Active
93. Evaluation comment: A farmers union and a YFC union have apparently been registered in Kosovo. There is no registered farmers union in Montenegro, and project staff indicated that this was not something they are pursuing at the moment because of lack of appropriate conditions to develop such an organization.
Outcomes and outputs – Montenegro and Kosovo expanded Project Regions
94. Outcome 1 – Key Farmers Identified Trained and Motivated for Self- Development
Output 1.1 Project Areas Evaluated, Farmers Participatory Meetings concluded, Key Farmers Identified and Inducted into Project Activities
95. Evaluation comment: This appears to have been completed during the participatory meetings held in the new areas. However, the ET could not find evidence of a comparable summary of statistics for the newly covered areas such as was undertaken during the inception phase of the project in the report of the participatory meetings.
96. Outcome 2 – Farmer Groups, Associations and Cooperatives Functional and Working in Partnership with Project Specialist Personnel
21
Output 2.1 Formation of Farmers Groups and Associations Output 2.2 Field Demonstrations – Established; Delivered; or Ongoing Output 2.3 Transfer of Demonstration Examples onto Farms and into Farm Practice
97. Evaluation comment: These activities appear to be well underway.
98. Outcome 3 – Farmer Groups, Associations and Cooperatives Consolidated Sustainable and Self-Directed
Output 3.1 Farmers Groups and Associations Strengthened, Enlarged and Empowered Output 3.2 Farmers Unions Registered and Active
99. Evaluation comments: An assessment of the formation of groups within expected outcome 1 of the previous phase was made, including those groups formed during the second phase of the project. Nonetheless, specifically to this particular outcome, the ET found from field visits no indication to conclude that there had been an effective establishment, enlargement and/or empowerment of those newly formed farmer groups. Within this outcome, only the formation of 23 groups with the participation of 178 farmers could be acknowledged as part of this stage of the project. The concerns of the ET over the sustainability of the newly formed groups were shared by project staff in Montenegro, as some of these groups had less than one year of existence.
100. Outcome 4 – Project Experience Results and Recommendations widely shared
Output 4.1 Local and Regional Farming Communities in Possession of Technical material and Knowledge Output 4.2 Well Organized Regional Agricultural Shows and Livestock Exhibitions Output 4.3 Project Approach and Results Well Known throughout the Western Balkans and Beyond
101. Evaluation comments: It is noted that much technical material has been published and distributed on the various production parameters raised by farmers in the diagnostic process, including forage crop management, etc. The agricultural show in Peje was cited by many as an important milestone in community awareness on a variety of livestock issues. However, effective achievement of Output 4.3 depends on interpretation. The project is known of in other areas of the Western Balkans, but the results have not been properly catalogued, synthesised and assembled (see later). Furthermore, there has been inadequate sharing, feedback, synthesis and exploitation of the regional lessons learnt from emerging results during implementation; this will be discussed further under sustainability.
3.3 Efficiency 3.3.1 General
102. The administrative aspects of the project are handled through SEU in its role as Budget Holder. The Montenegro expenditure requests pass through the national coordinator in Kosovo, then on to SEU. There is a large group of people involved in the project (some 28 National Consultants (NC), one full time National Professional Officer (NPO), two part time
22 NCs and 14 international consultants recruited periodically38), and as a result monthly payments alone take at least one day of time per month of the administrative staff in Budapest plus the time required for approval by the Field Programme Officer. It would seem beneficial if these could be made automatically. There is a proposal in for a further 14 months of the project, and it is understood that no reduction in staff numbers are envisaged.
103. For the programme clerk handling the project within SEU it is understood this is one of about 12 projects he is supporting, with the coordination of a Field Programme Officer, taking approximately 20% of their time. This has not been constant, and the load was highest during the period of equipment and machinery acquisition.
104. There were some delays experienced in the ordering of farm machinery. This was due to some changes in the approval process. As a result, the machinery was delivered slightly late (it was required at a particular time for seasonal forage harvesting activities), but with the successful movement of existing equipment already in Kosovo the programme was reportedly not disrupted substantially.
3.3.2 Project management and operation
105. As mentioned earlier, there is evidence of strong teamwork, dedication and commitment by all, including the project manager, the FAO staff, the country team leaders in Kosovo and Montenegro and the cross-border project liaison consultant. This gives the impression that the project is well run, and that communications between staff members are good.
106. Parts of this is an enthusiasm and drive to replicate the project model developed earlier in Serbia, and the aspiration, certainly by the team leader, to extend this model to other countries of the Western Balkans and beyond.
107. International Project Manager. In the phase 2 project document it states that “In the first year he will have a five month assignment in order to initiate the expansion in Montenegro and Kosovo. This will be through several missions. In the second year he/she will provide similar support for six months but with missions more widely spaced until project completion”. Currently the international team leader is in duty station only on short assignments of a few weeks at a time. This is not considered appropriate given the terms of reference of the team leader39, and particularly given the demands of synthesising and reporting on project achievements during the proposed 14-month project extension. The evaluation mission understands that this is largely out of the control of the international project manager, and FAO’s employment regulations have rendered it difficult for him to manage the project. The international project manager has kept in regular contact with project
38 The project manager, the national team leader for Montenegro and the cross-border liaison officer are considered in this group of international consultants. The National team leader for Kosovo is a National Programme Officer. 39 International Project Manager: He or she will act as the team leader and will be responsible for preparing and implementing a detailed project work plan, giving overall leadership, providing technical assistance and supervising all project activities. He or she will also be responsible for reporting to FAO Headquarters and liaising with the donor/s and international organizations. In addition, the project manager will back-up one or more of the technical fields listed below, according to his/her particular professional background and experience.
23 staff through email and telephone, but this is not considered adequate for the final stage of the project, in which close management of the project should be supplemented by the consolidation of the formed groups, the up-scaling of the model and the development of partnerships. The evaluation mission endorses the need for the current international project manager to continue in this post for the proposed extension if the project is to achieve the products, impacts and outcomes it seeks.
108. There is also an apparent lack of continuity with the short-term consultants in Montenegro, who are not continuously in post, and a disparity with Kosovo where the team leader is in post full time due to his position as National Programme Officer. In general, the evaluation mission is of the opinion that at the local level national team leaders should both be in post full time (it is acknowledged that the Montenegro situation is due to a change in status of the team leader from local to international), but that during the proposed 14-month extension, it will be the responsibility of team leaders to ensure continuity and sustainability by devolving responsibilities to national staff in the municipalities and to the cooperatives and farmers’ groups formed, as appropriate.
109. The project has benefited from the engagement of a group of NCs, capitalising on their regional knowledge. This has, indeed, enhanced the efficiency in terms of the implementation of the project activities in a multicultural environment. The ET finds the combination of national and international consultants and local experts in agricultural and livestock disciplines to be efficient. However, the project’s operation might have benefited from greater involvement of FAO technical expertise, both from HQ and SEU, in terms of their support in: i) broader aspects of a value chain approach, to support policy analysis, and to advise on regional and international partnerships; and ii) operational aspects such as the establishment of an M&E system and the development of a balanced implementation strategy for the second phase of the project.
110. Evaluation of the implementation of the project’s activities indicates that most of the activities were conducted in a timely manner. Despite a slight delay in the start-up of the project, programmed activities were undertaken efficiently. A timetable with the principal milestones is shown in table 1. The project became operational in August 2006. The inception phase40, initially planned to be completed by the second quarter of 2006, was only initiated during the last quarter of 2006 (and concluded by the first quarter of 2007). Planning and implementation of the participatory meetings with farmers were held in the last quarter of 2006. The rest of the project’s activities, during both phases, were conducted in a timely manner, completing the group formation, selection of technologies, training and demonstration of techniques. There is an indication of delays in the acquisition of agricultural machinery, due to reasons previously explained. There has also been some detention of exported wool by the Italian customs in 2010, due to reasons out of the control of the project41.
40 This includes the analysis of the conditions of livestock activities in terms of flocks, feed, forage and the analysis of farmers needs based on participatory meetings. 41 Problems were attributed to errors in the management of the export process and documentation by Italian Ports Forwarding Company, which was responsible for handling and processing Kosovo’s cooperatives wool consignment. As a consequence, a 19 tonne consignment of wool was returned from Bristol to Bari in Italy in November 2010, where the consignment remained while the Italian Forwarding Agent was sued by the Italian Veterinary Authorities. Source: Six months reports (July-December 2010 and January-June 2011)
24 111. Despite the efficient implementation, the ET found no record of the implementation of the following activities: i) participatory evaluation of introduced techniques, considered as an activity under event 3 and 5 of the first phase; ii) monitoring of performance of improved technologies and products, considered under event 5 of the first phase (See table 1).
Table 1 Milestones during the implementation of DAFKM Phase Event/Milestone Date I. Formulation of project document End of 2005 II. Inception phase: 4th quarter of 2006 and 1st 1. Groups of farmers elaborated in a participatory way quarter of 2007 III. Operation first phase 2. Farmer association provide services to farmers in a From 1st quarter of 2007 to sustainable way 4th quarter of 2008 3. For selected subsectors production technology and From 2nd to 3rd quarter of 1st Phase product quality and marketing is improved 2008 4. Farmers are trained From 1st quarter 2006 to 4th quarter of 2008 5. Experience recorded, analysed and disseminated Expected to be continuous from 2nd quarter of 2006 to 4th quarter of 2008 III. Three month extension phase June to July 2009 Second Phase document preparation August 2009 2nd phase approval September 2009 1. Farmer Group Association and Cooperative Support From 3rd quarter of 2009 to 4th quarter of 2011 2. Livestock Marketing and Exhibition Centres 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2010 3. Young Farmers Clubs facilitation and support From 3rd quarter of 2009 to activities 4th quarter of 2011 4. Regional Farmers Union formed and registered From 1st quarter of 2010 to 4th quarter of 2011 2nd phase 5. Promotion and Sharing of Project Experience Expected to be continuous during second phase 6. New Groups formation 7. Field Demonstrations and on-farm Training for new From 1st quarter of 2010 to groups 4th quarter of 2010 8. New group expansion activities From 1st quarter of 2011 to 9. Farmer Union registration 4th quarter of 2011 10. YFC formation and participation in RYE Four months no cost extension of the project June/October 2011 Preparation of the Extension phase of the project July-October 2011 Source: ET with adaptation of project’s working plans
112. Project steering committee. The project has not had a steering committee. This is perhaps unfortunate, as with the relatively weak technical backstopping from the regional and HQ offices of FAO, the balance between the on-farm and strategic aspects of the project have not been ideal.
113. In evaluating project efficiency, the ET considers that while the farmer-focused and action-orientated team has managed the field activities well, this has contrasted with a weak strategic overview of project impacts and outcomes, and a weak assessment of the broader implications of the project in contributions to national strategy and policy implications. At the level of project leadership, the zealous commitment to the farm-level activities has not been appropriately balanced by adequate interest, understanding and commitment to broader issues.
25
114. Reporting. The evaluation mission notes a discrepancy between the reporting responsibilities in the terms of reference for the international project manager (project document Annex 4), and those described in the oversight monitoring, management information and reporting section of the same document (section 5.4, page 35). In the former, reporting responsibilities are restricted to three categories: an inception report, six-monthly progress reports and a project final report. However in section 5.4 much greater detail is given for the six monthly reporting requirements and a category of technical reports is also included. In section 5.4 the requirements for the six-monthly reports are specified. The project lacked an M&E consultant a position which should be established for the extension phase (at least on a part-time basis), the responsibility for which was assigned primarily to the project manager, rather than engaging consultant services for this.
115. The ET finds that given the rather limited amount of carefully analysed and synthesised results emerging from the project, the project’s six-monthly reports are inadequate. Firstly, they are largely narrative, and secondly there is a need for greater objectivity, more balance and less use of them as a positive public relations perspective. In discussions during the debriefing held in Budapest, the point was made that some consider these reports to be primarily targeted at the donor. While acknowledging the importance of keeping the donor briefed in a positive way, it is important to recognise that FAO prides itself on being a science-based and evidence-based organisation, and this requires openness, transparency and objectivity.
116. Given the weakness of the six-monthly reports, the evaluation mission considers that in addition to the proposed final report due at the end of the project, there will also be a need for some selected thematic synthesis reports on some of the key issues addressed by the project dealing with issues of relevance for Kosovo and Montenegro. These should include consideration of forage crop development, farmers’ group development, for example, among others.
3.3.3 Project expenditures
117. The project was also efficient in terms of the rate of actual expenditures which as at 8 December 2011 reached USD 5,052,519 representing 98.3% of the total budget. Although there is reference to a possible over-expenditure recorded in FPMIS, it was clarified by SEU that this was due to the commitments made by the project while expecting the last tranche of instalments by the donor. Table 2 shows - in summary - the main expenditures incurred by the project. Table 2 Expenditures of DAFKM Total % of Expenses Balance Budget line Budget % % expenditure (B) (A-B) (A) (B/A) 5300 Salaries Professional (5011 - Expense Parent) 87,463 1.7% 86,047 1.7% 1,417 98.4% 5500 Salaries General Service (5012 - Expense Parent) 253,079 4.9% 262,661 5.3% <9,582> 103.8% 5570 Consultants (5013 - Expense Parent) 1,596,245 31.1% 1,596,451 32.3% <206> 100.0% 5650 Contracts (5014 - Expense Parent) 1,236 0.0% 1,236 0.0% 0 100.0% 5660 Locally Contracted Labour (5020 - Expense 194,939 3.8% 168,532 3.4% 26,408 86.5% Parent) 5900 Travel (5021 - Expense Parent) 397,942 7.7% 390,387 7.9% 7,555 98.1% 5920 Training (5023 - Expense Parent) 428,170 8.3% 359,019 7.3% 69,152 83.8%
26 Total % of Expenses Balance Budget line Budget % % expenditure (B) (A-B) (A) (B/A) 6000 Expendable Procurement (5024 - Expense Parent) 83,085 1.6% 83,042 1.7% 44 99.9% 6100 Non Expendable Procurement (5025 - Expense 795,201 15.5% 767,741 15.5% 27,460 96.5% Parent) 6150 Technical Support Services (5027 - Expense 61,700 1.2% 0 0.0% 61,700 0.0% Parent) 6300 General Operating Expenses (5028 - Expense 649,378 12.6% 671,118 13.6% <21,740> 103.3% Parent) 6130 Support Costs (5029 - Expense Parent) 591,300 11.5% 556,790 11.3% 34,510 94.2% 6400 General Overhead Expenses (5040 - Expense 22 0.0% 22 0.0% 0 100.0% Parent) TOTAL 5,139,762 100% 4,943,045 100% 196,717 96% Source: ET, with information provided by BH (1) Budget correspondent to the first phase, as per Budget Revision A (May 2009). 3.4 Impact 3.4.1 General 118. The inception phase questionnaires and participatory meetings provided a sound characterisation of the farming enterprises engaged with that phase of the project. Firstly, the characteristics of those attending workshops was tabulated, and then, through the questionnaires, the various attributes including land, livestock, machinery, incomes, products (such as cheese) were tabulated in the workshop reports. This provided the project with very useful baseline data. However, it would seem that nothing further has been done with this data, in terms of synthesis and analysis in characterising the production systems prevalent.
119. Furthermore, there does not seem to have been any attempt to explore the representativeness of these farm attributes with those of the broader population; how well did the participating farmers reflect the municipalities as a whole? This means that there is a lack of a relevant reference population, and the weakness of context to the denominator populations and practices.
3.4.2 Cost-benefit analyses
120. The project undertook two cost-benefit analyses, one each for Kosovo and Montenegro. That of Montenegro was carried out by Dr Vlade Zaric as a consultancy and is available in an undated report, that of Kosovo by local staff member Emrullah Spahiu, the Group Development Specialist for Kosovo, also available in (undated) report form.
121. Both these cost-benefit analyses provide approximate estimates of some of the potential for change in productivity and profitability resulting from different project activities. They focus on forage production, the use of fertilizer, the benefits from farm mechanisation undertaken by groups of farmers (so-called “machinery rings”), and changes in milk production from silage use. The calculations for forage production and fertilizer use were based on results emerging from a few selected demonstration plots. Those of farm mechanization were from a selected “machinery rings” (for example in Montenegro the calculation was based on a single “typical” ring with five members cultivating a total of 57 hectares. It was shown that this group was able to cultivate an additional 20 ha by renting agricultural land from neighbouring farmers). For the calculations of increases in milk yield through the use of silage, Dr Zaric notes that there were no written records on milk yield in the past, and to gather the necessary data for the analysis, interviews were carried out with
27 farmers and data estimates were obtained. The 10 farmers so selected (of which three used silage and the remaining seven did not) were taken to be representative of the project area. Dr Zaric also notes that the selected farms differ in the number of cattle, feeding practices, quality of stables and the management behaviour of farmers, which limits the comparative study.
122. The cost-benefit analyses conducted provide one of two attempts by the project to analyse the impacts of the measures being undertaken. While this is of course highly commendable, these analyses, as well recognised by the author of the Montenegro study, are very preliminary, and primarily based on demonstration plot data rather than on longitudinal data collected from farms. They represent more a demonstration of the potential for improvements in productivity and profitability than a watertight demonstration of change induced by the project. This accentuates the overall impression that the project is characterised by a weak data synthesis and presentation record, coupled with the virtual absence of a systematic documentation of the performance changes due to project activities.
3.4.3 Forage and feed analysis
123. In addition to the cost-benefit analyses, the project attempted to measure the impacts of techniques for increasing forage production. This considered the effects of applications of fertilizer on forage production over two seasons (2007 and 2008) during the first phase of the project. It was conducted by Milorad Stosic, a forage consultant; results were reported in 200942. The analysis combines demonstration plot data with data from the inception phase and farmer participatory meetings.
124. Results demonstrate changes in productivity of forage production and experiences of farmers in following management practices proposed and sharing machinery. Anecdotal opinions and comments are presented from a “cross-section” of 8 farmers on the effects of changes in their milk yield (4 farmers), increase in flock size (one farmer), reduction of costs (2 farmers) and capacity-building (1 farmer).
125. This report, along with field visits made, give indications of increases in milk yield and reduction of costs which are improving incomes derived from livestock. However, there has been inadequate exploitation of emerging data to build an effective system for monitoring and assessing the project performance.
126. The project has been gathering some information at the farm level, mostly at the level of activities. For instance, the ET found information on the number of groups formed, the number of workshops conducted, the number of participatory meetings, the training sessions conducted, as well as the numbers of participants in these activities. The project has also made attempts to keep a register of changes in the production of crops for forage and silage production, based on the demonstration plots and beneficiary-derived information. The project might have benefited further from greater exploitation of this information to build a well-defined monitoring and assessment system to measure the project performance.
42 Stosic (March 2009) “Report on Forage and Feed”.
28 3.4.4 Value chain approach
127. The project has, understandably, concentrated its efforts at the producer level, attempting to influence productivity, profitability and livelihoods (even though there has been no rigorous attempt to measure changes in livelihoods). However, the potential to influence livelihoods in the selected municipalities extends beyond producers to others engaged in the value chains of the key commodities in which the project has specialised, namely milk, cheese, wool (and, to a lesser extent, lamb). The adoption of a stronger value chain framework in the future, coupled with greater engagement with, and documentation of the roles of, other actors is likely to widen the prospects for raising rural livelihoods.
3.4.5 The project model
128. The project has adopted a particular model of approach to stimulating livestock agriculture, built on the former project in Serbia. This model appears to be based on a checklist of activities. For its impact to be better measured and better understood, and to be able to provide a framework for similar initiatives in other countries of the region and beyond, it will be important to provide a much stronger and more cohesive connection between the checklist of activities, and designated target outcomes and impacts (such as household income, profitability, measurable livelihood changes).
129. It is considered by the evaluation mission that many of the ingredients to strengthen the connection between the checklist of activities and designated target outcomes and impacts are already there. Without addressing this issue of disconnect, it is difficult to assess the extent of the replication of the model and the effective adoption of technologies by other farmers, both within the current project areas and in other environments (which is an aspiration of the project itself). Furthermore, not overcoming this disconnect could also undermine the likelihood of the project being up-scaled effectively to the strategy and policy levels.
3.4.6 Gender considerations
130. Gender issues do not appear to have received prominence in the project’s activities, either from the point of view of beneficiaries43 or project staffing44. However, in a strongly patriarchal society it is recognized how difficult it is to achieve high levels of involvement of women in project activities. The project has had some successes. It created two women’s’ associations, one in each project phase, and 21 women participated in the winter training workshop; of the Local Farmer Coordinators, three of seven are women. Very few women complete courses at the agriculture faculty and those who do are rapidly brought in to municipality offices or central Government. The project might perhaps have benefited from expert advice on how to mainstream a gender perspective in the various participatory meetings, training workshops and group formation. Nonetheless, the level of involvement of
43 According to summary reports of participatory meetings (Vlade Zaric, 2006), only 4% of the key identified farmers and 2% of total participants were women. Similarly, only 4% of the workshop participants were women (source: List of workshops and participatory meetings, sent as background information). 44 Five of 24 full time consultants (17%) and five of 11 temporary consultants (including international consultants) were women (Source: List of consultants engaged by the project).
29 young women in YFCs45 in some of the communities is recognized as an achievement, and although still low, is higher than the involvement of women in other activities; one YFC in Montenegro was led by a female member.
3.5 Sustainability 131. The sustainability of the project’s initiatives deserves considerable attention. This is due to the weakness of government extension institutions in Kosovo and Montenegro (particularly at the municipality level), the low level of their direct engagement with on-farm, product processing and marketing interventions of the project so far, and the infancy and weakness of service provision of the farmers groups. On raising this issue during the de- briefing, the evaluation mission was told by the team leader that all activities and farmer group functionality had been successfully sustained following the FAO withdrawal in the Serbia project municipalities. The mission was not able to substantiate this, and believes that the planned 14-month project extension should pay particular attention to mechanisms for long-term sustainability in both Montenegro and Kosovo.
132. For sustainability, there will need to be consideration of both strengthening the capacity of farmers’ groups on the one hand, while progressively strengthening the engagement and commitment of government extension services, on the other. Both present different challenges.
133. For the farmers’ groups, this will require an expansion from the current focus on machinery sharing to one of facilitation of service provision, as originally planned in the design of the project. This is operational at a low level in some of the groups visited, particularly with respect to forage crop production and management, and is weak on some of the broader issues such as livestock breeding and health. Farmers’ groups might have benefited from a clearer strategy from the project of connecting them with the veterinary technicians trained and supported by the project to provide services of Artificial Insemination (AI). The apparent disconnect between farmer groups and the trained veterinarian technicians in the provision of AI represents a lesson learned from the project experience. Supporting the private suppliers of AI services in this way did not appear to be appropriate; they did not (and in all likelihood will not) train others, as their AI skills represent their principle asset and livelihood. Furthermore, this approach is unlikely to support the expansion of health services required in farmer groups without the guidance, support and orientation of the project.
134. Furthermore, the sustainability of farmers’ groups might have been enhanced if stronger linkages and cooperation among participants for marketing access had been promoted. Collaboration on production of forage was evident during field visits, but collaboration in marketing of milk or livestock was absent46.
135. To this end, in both Kosovo and Montenegro there are initiatives supported by the World Bank through governments to strengthen agricultural extension systems. These are the Agricultural and Development Project (ARDK)47 in Kosovo and the Institutional
45 In general, 18% and, in Montenegro, 28% of YFC participants. 46 One classic example was seen with a large group of farmers visited who all had their own individual market access for cheese, despite sharing machinery. 47 This initiative considers as its first component “Transferring Technology to the Rural Sector” and envisages within its activities strengthening Municipal and Rural Advisory Centres. This is combined with the
30 Development and Agricultural Strengthening (MIDAS) in Montenegro48. The team leader was not aware of the initiative promoted in Kosovo, and the national project team in Kosovo did not appear to have had any contact with the World Bank on the potential for this initiative (through both its capacity building components and its credit component to support processing initiatives (including dairy)). Clearly, these present partnership opportunities for strengthening and building on progress made by the project in terms of the provision of extension services and the introduction of technologies for livestock value chains, such as milk, cheese and livestock production.
136. The evaluation mission recognises some key collaboration and in some cases partnerships that have been made by the project, and which with further development could improve the chances for sustainability of the project initiatives. These include:
• Biotechnical Faculty of the University of Montenegro in Podgorica, and its animal selection and seed certification services • Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary of the University of Prishtina in Kosovo • University of Belgrade in Serbia • Rural Youth Europe (RYE).
137. In addition there had been some contact between the FAO project and project “Preparatory Assistance to Sustainable Development in Dragash” run by UNDP in Kosovo, but this had not extended into collaboration.
138. The support of the project to the YFC groups is a valuable supplementary mechanism to engage the next generation in livestock agriculture, as well as to strengthen the sometimes fragile rural societies. Many of these are very new, and the challenge will be to sustain the initiative and drive, and to meet the expectations that have been raised in each of these groups. A broader spectrum of support activities might be called for, not only to meet the expectation but also to deal better with the societal issue of unemployment and lack of opportunity faced by the rural youth of Kosovo and Montenegro. This may call for the project to complement its efforts on livestock enterprises with those of other organisations who may be able to advise on and support other domains of rural youth development.
139. For the sustainability of the project when FAO does withdraw, it will be important to review and perhaps re-evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different partners, either current or new, to complement and continue the different activities and initiatives of the project. It will be important to develop such an assessment during the proposed 14 month extension of the project, which could include (but not be limited to) an analysis of the partners by type of complementary actions. For example, below are presented some potential partnership opportunities which while unlikely to pick up the mantle of the project, could potentially play roles in certain project aspects in the future:
implementation of a development grant programme that will support investments in value chains such as milk and dairy production. 48 This project has considered as one of its intended outcomes “Improved capacity of extension and advisory services to introduce agro-environmental measures”. As well as ARDK, this project combines its policy and governmental support components with the provision of grants to farmers. The approach is contextualized in order to improve governmental support to the rural sector in consistent manner to pre-accession requirements for Montenegro to become member of EU.
31 • Municipality extension services. These are currently weak in Kosovo and Montenegro, but provide the only on-the-spot services, although extremely limited in both technical capacity (particularly the diverse portfolio of services set up by the project) and in financial resources. Despite their weaknesses they represent a window of opportunity to institutionalise the model of technical assistance promoted by the project. • Farmers groups, emerging cooperatives, associations and national farmers’ organisations, where applicable. How can those that are now well established and offering limited services be strengthened and made more functional, both to current members and beyond? Can the project help to seek World Bank development grants under component 2 of the ARDK, for example? • UNDP (Montenegro: rural enterprise development; business development). • SNV, the Netherlands Development Organisation, is starting a new project in Montenegro entitled “Strengthening the competitiveness of the livestock sector of Montenegro”, which includes training of extension services for livestock, and the analysis of cheese value chains in the country.
140. Funding and up-scaling :
• World Bank (WB) projects49 represent a window of opportunity: • To institutionalise and up-scale the model of technical assistance promoted by the project. WB projects in Kosovo and Montenegro are working on strengthening the municipal extension services, which will be supporting, among other activities, livestock and dairy activities as national priorities to promote rural sector development. The project could capitalise on the lessons learned and the model developed from the experience of providing direct technical assistance to farmers in mountainous areas of Kosovo and Montenegro; however, to achieve this it will need to improve the documentation and synthesis of the model and its outcomes. • Within both WB projects, a scheme of grants is being offered to fund investments in those value chains within a designated spectrum of activities supported by the project. Farmers’ groups and enterprises in mountainous regions could benefit from the funding of WB to complement the current investment.
• European Commission (EC) Instrument for Pre‐Accession in Agriculture and Rural Development (IPARD). Montenegro, in its condition for pre-accession to the EU, will have access to sources of resources to promote the rural sector50. Other UN agencies, such as UNDP in Montenegro, have already considered ways to capitalise on these resources with an approach to promote economic activities in rural sector. They have defined an Action Plan with a strategy to promote business clusters up to 2016. The project could benefit substantially from these resources to complement the investments that have already been made by farmer groups and enterprises in Montenegro, and to help promote their replication.
141. Lessons learned from similar experiences:
49 ARD in Kosovo and MIDAS in Montenegro are initiatives of US$ 20.1 million and US$ 15.7 million dollars respectively. 50 EU IPARD 2007-2013 will be funding € 10.9 million to Montenegro.
32
• Intercoop (Swiss cooperation in Kosovo). This organisation has been working for several years on horticulture enterprises in Kosovo, where they have three sub- sectors (vegetables, fruits, and non-wood forest products). They have been struggling with the concept of how to scale up pilot initiatives put in place (very much the same as this project), and have changed from a producer-focussed approach to one of commodity value chains, seeking and developing diverse markets and promoting collection centres and other approaches for small-scale farmers to access them. Initially these have been informal markets, and once more formal markets are established, these have provided models for new initiatives. There are many generic lessons to be learnt by the project from the Intercoop approach.
142. Address youth and other rural livelihood issues
• UNDP in Kosovo has two interesting initiatives of relevance, with which the project has already had some interaction. The most relevant is the community development project in Dragash; are their opportunities for greater synergy? • SNV has a programme in Montenegro looking at expanding tourism opportunities in the northern Municipalities as a livelihood option.
4 Conclusions and recommendations
4.1 Conclusions
143. The project has provoked a successful groundswell of innovation in livestock agriculture among two of Europe’s poorest and most neglected rural communities. Its success is due to the focus on livestock producers themselves rather than on government extension systems; to the importance allocated to the selection of lead farmers; to the commitment and practical approach adopted by the dedicated team; and to the weaknesses in services and farmer institutions when it started. As a result of the project, examples of improved livestock management, increased productivity and profitability of livestock, and growth in farmer cooperation have emerged, and these have been complemented by a few new enterprises in the processing and marketing of commodities emerging from livestock agriculture, particularly cheese and wool.
144. While focussing on the participating producers, the project has paid inadequate attention to developing a structured and quantitative synthesis and presentation of the project outputs, and to developing a contextual analysis of the lessons learnt, necessary to promote the wider application of its successes within the regions and beyond. There is an urgent need to scale-up key elements of the project (in particular, forage conservation), and to ensure that the innovations achieved contribute to the respective national livestock development strategies, where appropriate. To be successful in this, there is an urgent need for a structured monitoring and evaluation system which a) quantifies project achievements, and b) places them in the broader context of future livestock development opportunities in the project regions.
145. The challenge now is to ensure that these models of success are not short-lived, and that they are extended beyond the participants involved in the FAO project.
33
146. The project has developed a highly commendable rapport with rural livestock enterprises; many of the lessons learnt have substantial potential for up-scaling within Kosovo and Montenegro and the region. The proposed extension of the project for 14 months is, therefore, fully justified. There is even justification for further extension of the project model, in Kosovo, Montenegro and beyond, if the desired impacts and institutional changes aspired to are to be achieved. The project has an excellent reputation; it should capitalise more on this through developing appropriate partnerships which offer new funding opportunities.
147. There is a need for a stronger focus on the widest possible range of market options for the key products emerging, and the adoption of a value chain approach to understand the potential for wider benefit distribution.
148. The mainstreaming of gender equity in the different processes, group formation and other activities of the project has been a challenge in the strongly patriarchal societies of the region. While the project has made certain advances, it is an area which deserves still greater attention in the future.
4.2 Recommendations
Recommendation 1: To FAO on applications of recommendations
FAO should ensure that the recommendations made in this evaluation are taken into consideration for the proposed 14 month extension of the project. A proposal for extension of the project was submitted prior to this evaluation, and it is understood that approval by the donor, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, is independent of this evaluation. Nevertheless, it is in the interests of the sustainability of the technologies and innovations introduced by the project, and the broader application of the approaches taken to future strategies within Montenegro and Kosovo, that the recommendations made below are incorporated into the planning and execution of the extension phase.
Recommendation 2: To FAO on project impact and up-scaling
Rationalise the key products of the project. This project is characterised by practical on- the-ground interventions at farmer level aimed at the feeding, health and breeding of livestock, and the marketing of emerging commodities. During the 14 month extension phase it is recommended that a series of strategic thematic synthesis reports be developed which provide overviews and assessments of key successes of the project, presented in a balanced and objective manner and supported by empirical evidence. These are considered an essential legacy of the project, and also a valuable tool for widening the impacts of the project’s achievements. These can be used for the strategic scaling-up of impacts to other municipalities and communities in Montenegro and Kosovo. Examples include, but are not limited to, forage crop production for winter feeding of dairy cows; silage production; incentives for the formation and durability of livestock farmers’ groups, etc.
34 Recommendation 3: To FAO on project monitoring and evaluation systems
Develop an internal monitoring and evaluation system. The project, its extension, and indeed any future application of this model, require an effective monitoring and evaluation system to document the relationship between project inputs, productivity changes (at the animal, feed, health, breeding and marketing levels) and the broader outputs and outcomes of its activities. An effective monitoring and evaluation system requires a project design with clear objectives, sound performance indicators and measurable targets. The recruitment of a specialist on M&E would be beneficial to support the development of such a system.
Recommendation 4: Recommendation 4: To FAO, the respective Governments/authorities and donors on partnership development and sustainability
Widen the portfolio of partnerships. The project has promoted livestock development through a direct engagement with selected farmers, providing them with certain services. Given that public services to farmers are weak, the project will be sorely missed, as government/ authorities and other extension services will not effectively fill the gap on the departure of FAO. It is therefore recommended that during the proposed 14 month extension the project explores aggressively the potential for strengthening the cooperative and farmers’ group institutions it has created, and for widening the range of services they offer to their members. It is also recommended that the project explores the potential for other government, donor and NGO initiatives, both current and planned, to contribute both philosophically and practically to the farmer and market-focussed ideals of the project in different ways.
Recommendation 5: To FAO on the value chain approach
Strengthen the market access drivers of the project. The project has sought to support the development of market opportunities for emerging commodities. It is recommended that during the proposed 14 month extension, much more effort is placed on exploring wider market opportunities for emerging commodities, in particular cheese (both local soft cheese and semi-hard Pirot), wool, and lamb. This is likely best undertaken through consultancies, potentially building on the project model of engaging regional expertise with an understanding of both informal market strengthening (predominant in the cheese markets), as well as the demands and opportunities of new EU markets. This initiative should adopt a value chain approach to explore widening the livelihood benefits to other actors in the chain.
Recommendation 6: To FAO on credit
Facilitating access to credit for producer and processing enterprises. While it is acknowledged that the project staff has provided support to several individual farmers in their application for credit facilities, it is recommended that a much broader and more
35 strategic approach be taken to this role. In particular, it is particularly recommended that direct engagement is made with the World Bank initiatives in Kosovo and Montenegro on support to agriculture to explore how the sustainability of processing and marketing initiatives established by the project can be strengthened and enhanced through successful credit applications to these important funding opportunity initiatives.
Recommendation 7: To FAO on sustainability
Developing closer and more functional partnerships with extension services. It is recommended that during the proposed 14 month extension, a much closer and more practical partnership is developed between project staff and the municipal extension services. It is recognised that funds may need to be assigned to ensure this takes place. This is to ensure that the capacity of extension services is enhanced in all the techniques, procedures and initiatives being undertaken by the project in the interests of sustainability and institutionalization of the project’s model.
Recommendation 8: To FAO on gender mainstreaming
In line with FAO’s Strategic Objective K, greater consideration should be given as to how best to mainstream gender equity within the farmers’ groups, commodity processing, marketing cooperatives and YFCs. It is considered that there will be particular opportunities for this in the processing and marketing of cheese products, but all opportunities should be explored. This is an area in which the project would benefit from expert advice.
36
Appendix 1. Evaluation terms of reference
Evaluation of “Development Assistance to Farmers in Remote Areas of Kosovo and Montenegro” (GCP/RER/019/LUX) Phases I and II (2006-2011)
1. Background
1. In the former Republic of Yugoslavia, the project area was characterized by the coexistence of large-scale, state-owned farms, and subsistence farms. During the transition to a market- oriented economy, state owned farms and related industries collapsed; consequently, the importance of subsistence farming as a source of employment and as a livelihood increased. However, the majority of these subsistence and semi-subsistence farms continued to suffer from a lack of resources, technical capability and constrained access to market. Additionally, the social context characterized by advanced age of farmers and a strongly patriarchal traditional society limited the possibilities to increase productivity of this type of farms in the mountainous rural areas.
2. The project aimed to improve the livelihoods of poor and isolated rural communities in mountain areas of Kosovo and North East Montenegro. This was to be achieved through increased productivity of the traditional production systems, the introduction of technical innovations, and the achievement of better product quality. Improved farmer access to markets, and instilling a market orientation in farmers, were important components of the project approach. Lessons learned from this project were intended to help policy makers with the development of additional rural and agricultural development projects.
3. The project’s two phases were aimed at enhancing and strengthening farmers’ capacities to take action and responsibility for their individual and collective development. The following is a non exhaustive list of the project’s outputs and activities:
Formation of farmers groups and associations. This allowed farm mechanisation, the cultivation and conservation of improved forage crops, cereals and grasslands which served as inputs to improve livestock nutrition and health, leading to increases in productivity and incomes derived from this activity. Group formation was also essential to facilitate small-holders’ access to training and technical assistance, and there is a sustainable two-way relation between farmers, regional research institutes and other service providers. Results achieved by group members have provided examples to neighbours for the adoption of innovations: a process in which the project’s dissemination of training-session material and technical support was an important complementary action.
The formation of individual Marketing Cooperatives and Enterprises has produced some unique results. Wool trade with the UK is well established and machine shearing, promoted and enabled by the project, is now well established; wool marketing services give the Cooperatives and project contact with virtually all sheep owners in the regions. Grass and cereal seed imports and sales have latterly been joined by cooperative production of certified seed in Montenegro, a venture which is now being geared up to provide seed-cleaning services commercially. Farmers Cheese Units are producing quality products, both soft and semi-hard, and selling to buoyant demand. Fully matured semi- hard cheese from a unit in Montenegro has enjoyed outstanding exhibition success – including Gold at the Novi Sad International Show.
The project’s preferred method of promoting and rewarding excellence in animal breeding, livestock management and home-produced food products is through organizing agricultural shows in association with Municipal Authorities. It is also a means to celebrate regional diversity and to showcase and link the rural with the urban sector. Inspection and pre-selection of animals is used by project specialists to provide widespread health and management advice to farmers, help select replacements for herd and flock and to promote Bovine Artificial Insemination – the latter service was supported by staff training and equipment.
Introducing Young Farmers Club (YFC) has been a project priority in order to attract and retain young people’s interest in farming. Clubs and their members are now not only linked locally and regionally but internationally as well, partly as a result of the project’s approach and efforts to foster regional cooperation.
4. The project’s approach consisted of participatory planning methods, technical training of farmers, joint identification of sustainable improvements and assistance with the practical application of recommendations at the farm and farmer group levels. The project provided technical assistance and funds for demonstrations which included the purchase the equipment required for such demonstrations. These inputs, delivered through Farmer Groups, facilitated the adoption and replication of technical assistance provided by the project such as the introduction of improved grass and forage crops mixtures for better animal nutrition and production, and the adoption of appropriate mechanization and conservation methods improved fodder production. As a result, milk supply was increased and small scale processing added value to farmer-owned cheese production units.
5. The project’s implementing counterpart are the respective Ministries of Agriculture in Kosovo and Montenegro. The project also worked closely with other governmental agencies, municipal authorities, agricultural and livestock teaching and research institutions, the private sector and international rural youth organizations.
6. The two immediate objectives were: 1. Improve livestock farmers’ livelihoods from animal production through enhanced livestock productivity, diversified and better quality products and improved market access.
This objective refers to the project’s intention to increase the overall economic output of agricultural production in quantity and quality of targeted beneficiaries, which were not integrated into the markets and limited to subsistence production. Within this objective, the project aimed at improving production and integrating even small and remote farms into the markets, thus giving farmers’ families the possibility to increase their incomes.
2. Project experience will be made available to policy makers to further devise and implement participatory rural development strategies
Within this objective, the project aimed to facilitate the implementation of policies and strategies for sustainable rural development at grass-roots level through piloting and upscaling of successful initiatives (e.g. certified seed production in Montenegro and government support to YFC development in Kosovo) to other rural areas of Kosovo and Montenegro. The project
38 also promoted the project interventions through dissemination of it experiences by developing presentations, regional missions and draft project proposals.
7. The main objective of the second phase was to build and strengthen the skills and capacity of the poorer, more isolated rural communities of Montenegro and Kosovo in order to increase household incomes, improve livelihoods and raise living and social conditions in the original and expanded project areas.
8. During the second phase, the project expanded into adjoining regions in Montenegro and Kosovo in order to double the original geographical area covered by the project and increase the number of farmers and rural communities directly involved and benefiting from project activities and opportunities.
9. An extension/new phase of the project, for an additional period of 14 months, has been requested by both Kosovo and Montenegro Governments, and a new proposal has already been drafted. The extension aims at consolidating and expanding the coverage of the Marketing Cooperative, and further YFC development. The extension phase also places particular emphasis on increasing the involvement of central and local governments in order to secure the adoption and sustainability of project’s achievements (e.g. farmers groups and associations, the marketing cooperatives and the Young Farmers Club networks).
5 Purpose of the Evaluation
10. The evaluation will be an assessment of Phase I and II of the project with particular emphasis on Phase II. Its main purpose is to draw lessons from the project’s interventions which could be taken up in the implementation approach for an extension phase. This will include providing recommendations on the further steps necessary to consolidate the achievements of the project in the long term, including the need for further technical assistance.
6 Scope of the Evaluation
11. In general, the evaluation mission will assess the project’s progress in implementing its activities as envisaged in the original project document and the 2009 and 2010 Project Work Plans and Budgets. In particular, the evaluation mission will analyse the actions and outcomes under the two project components (improve the productivity and competitiveness of select value chains; evidence-based policy processes at regional and national levels), and assess the synergies achieved between the two components.
A) The evaluation will assess critically the project through the internationally accepted evaluation criteria, i.e. relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. In addition, mainstreaming of gender issues will also be a criterion for assessment.
B) Within these criteria, the evaluation will analyse the following features of the project, as appropriate.
a. Relevance of the initiative to: national development priorities and needs, FAO Country Programming Framework and regional priorities, FAO Global Goals, relevant Strategic
39 Objective and Organization Result/s and Core Functions51, Millennium Development Goals 1,3 and 752;
b. Quality and realism of the theory of change and/or logical framework, including: i. Theory of change underpinning the intervention. ii. Quality of causal relationship between inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact (specific and development objectives) in the logical framework; iii. Validity of indicators, assumptions and risks;
c. Quality and realism of the initiative’s design, including: iv. Institutional set-up; v. Management arrangements; vi. Approach, methodology and adequacy of project duration; vii. Stakeholder and beneficiary identification and targeting; viii. The flexibility and adaptability of the project design, especially with regard to the transition from Phase I to Phase II;
d. Financial resources and financial management, including: ix. Adequacy of budget allocations to achieve outputs and promote outcomes; x. Coherence and soundness of budget revisions in matching necessary adjustments in project implementation; xi. Rate of delivery and budget balance at the time of the evaluation.
e. Management and implementation, including: xii. Effectiveness of strategic management, including quality and realism of work plans; xiii. Efficiency and effectiveness of project management; xiv. Implementation gaps and delays (if any) between planned and achieved outputs, the causes and consequences of delays and assessment of any remedial measures taken; xv. Implementation, efficiency and effectiveness of internal monitoring and review processes; xvi. Efficiency and effectiveness of coordination and steering bodies; xvii. Quality and quantity of administrative and technical support by FAO; and xviii. Timeliness, quality and quantity of inputs and support by governments and donor.
f. Project outputs and results: the key outputs and outcomes for the evaluation to assess are the ones stated in the logical framework of the project (see annex 1)53; however, the evaluation team should feel free to explore in detail other specific outputs and outcomes.
g. Actual and potential contribution of outputs and outcomes to FAO’s normative work and Core Functions.
h. Assessment of gender mainstreaming in the initiative. This will cover: xix. Analysis of how gender issues were reflected in project objectives, design, identification of beneficiaries and implementation;
51 See Annex 3 of the TOR. 52 MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; MDG 3: Promote gender equality and empower women; MDG 7: Ensure environmental sustainability. 53 While all outcomes, outputs and activities will be assessed, “the empowerment of farmers to be able to act in their own individual and collective development interests, and that of their rural communities”, will receive special attention as it was identified by the Project Team as a cardinal accomplishment.
40 xx. Extent and quality of women’s participation in the initiative, including women’s access to resources and benefits; xxi. Analysis of how gender relations, gender equality and processes of women’s inclusion were and are likely to be affected by the initiative; xxii. Contribution to women’s visibility, participation in local development processes and empowerment; and xxiii. Extent to which gender issues were taken into account in project management.
i. 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: xxiv. Institutional, technical, political, economic and social sustainability of proposed technologies, innovations and/or processes; xxv. Environmental sustainability: the initiative’s contribution to sustainable natural resource management, in terms of maintenance and/or regeneration of the natural resource base.
j. Overall effectiveness of the intervention: extent to which the initiative has attained, or is expected to attain, its intermediate/specific objectives. k. The observable or likely positive and negative impacts produced by the initiative, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. l. The actual or potential contribution of the initiative to the planned development objective/s and FAO Organizational Result/s, and hence, to the relevant corporate Strategic Objective and Core Functions.
C) Based on the above analysis, the evaluation will draw specific conclusions and formulate recommendations for any necessary further action by Governments, FAO and/or other parties to ensure sustainable development, including any need for follow-up action. The evaluation will draw attention to specific lessons of interest to other similar activities. Any proposal for further assistance should include specification of major objectives and outputs and indicative inputs required.
7 Evaluation Methodology
12. The evaluation will include the following:
D) The evaluation will adhere to the UNEG Norms & Standards. E) The evaluation will adopt a consultative, iterative and transparent approach with internal and external stakeholders throughout the whole process. Triangulation of evidence and information gathered will underpin the validation of evidence collected and its analysis, and will support conclusions and recommendations. F) The evaluation will make use of the following tools: review of project documentation (see list in Annex 4) and relevant external reports, semi-structured interviews with key informants, stakeholders and participants, supported by checklists and/or interview protocols; SWOT sessions54 with project staff and key stakeholders, direct interaction with stakeholders during workshops, etc.
54 SWOT is a widely used strategic planning tool, useful also in the assessment of development interventions, to canvass their strengths and weaknesses, as well as future perspectives. It is particularly used in focus groups, but it can be adapted to individual interviews as well.
41 G) The team will decide which outputs and outcomes to assess in detail, within the available resources, in consultation with project management.
7.1 Roles and Responsibilities
13. The roles and responsibilities in the evaluation process are distributed as follows:
H) The Evaluation Team is responsible for conducting the evaluation, applying the methodology and for producing the evaluation report. Team members, including the Team Leader, will participate in briefing and debriefing meetings, discussions, field visits, and will contribute to the evaluation with written inputs. I) The Team Leader guides and coordinates the team members in their work, discusses with them their findings, conclusions and recommendations and prepares the report. The team leader is responsible for the preparation of the evaluation report. The team members will provide inputs to the evaluation report and any other deliverable as agreed with the team leader. J) The mission is fully responsible for its independent report which may not necessarily reflect the views of the Governments or of FAO. An evaluation report is not subject to technical clearance by FAO although OED is responsible for quality assurance and for ensuring conformity of the evaluation report with these terms of reference.
7.2 Consultation Process
14. Formal and informal consultation with FAO, the participating governments, the donor and any other stakeholders is an important part of the evaluation process. In this regard:
K) The evaluation mission will maintain close liaison with the FAO Office of Evaluation (OED), FAO offices at headquarters, regional, sub-regional or local level, and all key stakeholders. The mission will hold informal and formal debriefing sessions with stakeholders in the project area. Although the mission is free to discuss with the authorities concerned anything relevant to its assignment, it is not authorized to make any commitment on behalf of participating governments, the donor or FAO.
L) The evaluation mission will present its preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations during a debriefing meeting in which the team will meet with key stakeholders in Budapest, to discuss and obtain feedback.
M) Both the TOR of the evaluation and the final draft report will be circulated among key stakeholders before finalization; comments and suggestions will be incorporated as appropriate.
7.3 The Evaluation Report
15. The report will be structured according to the following criteria:
N) The evaluation report will illustrate the evidence found that responds to the evaluation issues, questions and criteria listed in the TOR. The report will be as clear and concise as possible and will be a self-standing document. Adequate balance will be given to its different parts, with focus on findings, conclusions and recommendations. It will include an executive summary. Supporting data and analysis should be annexed to the report when considered important to complement the main report and for future reference.
42
O) The structure of the report should demonstrate, to the extent possible, the links between body of evidence, analysis and formulation of recommendations. The latter will be addressed to the different stakeholders: they may be strategic and/or operational and will have to be evidence- based, relevant, focused, clearly formulated and actionable.
P) The evaluation team leader and the team will agree on the outline of the report early in the evaluation process, based on the outline provided in Annex II of this TOR. The report will be prepared in English.
Q) The team leader bears responsibility for submitting the final draft report to FAO within four weeks from the conclusion of the mission. Within two 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.
7.4 Composition of the evaluation team
R) The evaluation team will include two experts with relevant skills and expertise to assess the subject under evaluation:
The Team Leader will be an evaluation expert with experience in leading large complex evaluations and a solid understanding of agricultural systems, livestock production and veterinary sciences, food security policies and agricultural/rural development in general. The Team Leader will have overall responsibility for leading the team, coordinating the team members’ inputs and compiling the evaluation report and drawing conclusions and recommendations. The other expert will be an Evaluation Officer from FAO’s Office of Evaluation (OED).
B) Mission members will have had no previous direct involvement in the formulation, implementation or backstopping of the initiative. All will sign the Declaration of Interest form of the FAO Office of Evaluation.
8 Evaluation Timetable
16. The evaluation mission will be undertaken within the period of 26 September to 14 October 2011 comprising a period of 45 working days.
17. The itinerary of the mission will comprise: A briefing with OED, technical officers in FAO’s Sub-regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Project’s country team before 26 September 2011. The latter briefings will be via Skype or telephone. Travel to Kosovo comprising meetings with the Project staff members in Kosovo, the Ministry of Agriculture and local state officials, Luxemburg government officials, the short term project specialist and selected beneficiaries during field visits. (7 days beginning on September 27th). Travel to Montenegro comprising meetings with the Project staff members in the country, the Ministry of Agriculture and local state officials, the short term project specialist and selected beneficiaries during field visits (8 day).
43 A debriefing in Budapest at the Subregional office for Central and Eastern Europe with relevant stakeholders on 14 October, 2011 After the field visits and debriefing, the team will have 4 weeks to finalize the evaluation report. Comments and feedback to the evaluation report should be prepared by the Budget Holder, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, within a period of four weeks after the completion of the report. Within one additional week, the team will include, as appropriate, the comments and suggestions in the final report. Annexes
I. Project’s Logical Framework II. OED outline for project and programme evaluation reports III. FAO Strategic Objectives, Organizational Results and Core Functions 2010-19
44
Annex 1 Project’s Logical Framework
Phase 1:
Narrative Summary Key Performance Sources of Verification Assumptions and Risks Indicators Overall objective:
Baseline survey General political and economic Improved farm profitability The livelihood of the poorer and more isolated rural Mid-term and final situation does not deteriorate communities in the project area is improved. Decreased vulnerability evaluation of the project Other initiatives cooperate, aiming at Media the region’s economic recovery General statistics Specific objectives: Accounts of local traders Government and municipalities Quantities of livestock 1. The profitability of livestock production is improved and processing industry support project implementation through increased productivity, diversified and better products marketed through formal channels Farm accounting data Terms of trade between agricultural products and marketing. and non-agricultural sector not Profitability of livestock Project documents and 2. Project experience will be made available to policy changed fundamentally makers to further develop participatory rural production reports; joint discussion rounds and field visits Purchasing power of consumers does development strategies. Government and not deteriorate Municipalities are informed about project experience Policy makers maintain interest in the sector and in rural development of remote areas
Narrative Summary Key Performance Sources of Verification Assumptions and Risks Indicators Output/Results Project records A minimum of 15 1. Groups of farmers elaborated development plans in development plans are Court registers Climatic conditions remain in the a participatory way. adopted by farmers’ groups Yearly accounts of normal range 2. Farmers’ associations provide services to farmers A minimum of 10 farmers’ associations/ cooperatives Willingness of extension service to in a sustainable way. groups are officially Farm records, including cooperate 3. For selected sub-sectors, profitability, production registered and operational farm accounting data Willingness of farmers to form technologies, product quality and marketing is cooperatives and/or associations improved. Improved production systems Participants lists of training 4. Farmers are trained. show better economic courses performance than traditional 5. Experience from the project is recorded, analysed Publications systems and disseminated. More then 1 000 farmers participated in 50 different training activities 10 technical publications produced and disseminated
46 Activities Inputs Timing Assumptions 1.1 Re-assessment of project areas: institutions, farmers TL, Loc.LTE Month 1-2 initiatives, main problems 1.2 Implement information campaign about the TL, Loc.LTE, facilitators Month 2-3 Combined with training (see Activity 4.1 objectives and possibilities of the project and 4.2) 1.3 Identify leading farmers and groups of farmers Loc.LTE, TL Month 3-5 interested in in-depth agricultural and rural development projects 1.4 Participatory in-depth planning of agricultural and Loc.LTE, TL, facilitators Month 4-6 rural development projects
2.1 Select viable farmers initiatives for further support TL, Loc.LTE Month 6-7 and demonstration projects 2.2 Support the elaboration of viable business plans for TL, Loc.LTE, Economist Month 5 to end farmers’ associations and cooperatives 2.3 Support the creation of farmers’ associations and Loc.LTE, Group formation Month 5 to end cooperatives specialist, legal adviser 2.4 Support the functioning and development of Loc.LTE, Group formation Month 5 to end farmers’ associations and cooperatives specialist, bookkeeper
3.1 Assessment of existing technologies and products Loc.LTE, Loc.STE. Int.STE Month 3-8 (physical and economical) 3.2 Inventory of improved technologies and products Loc.LTE, Loc.STE. Int.STE Month 3-8 3.3 Market analysis for proposed improved products Loc.LTE, Loc.STE. Int.STE Month 4-12 3.4 Selection of most appropriate technologies and TL, Loc.LTE, Loc.STE. Int.STE Month 5-9 products, together with farmers’ groups 3.5 If necessary, adapt and validate new technologies in Loc.LTE, Loc.STE. Int.STE, Month 6-21 cooperation with specialized local or regional institutes Contracts with research institutes 3.6 Demonstrate improved technologies, products and Loc.LTE, Loc.STE; Equipm., Month 5-33 marketing in selected groups fund for running costs 3.7 Support the implementation of improved Loc.LTE, Loc.STE. Int.STE Month 5-33 technologies, products and marketing 3.8. Monitoring of the performance of improved Loc.LTE Month 5-35 technologies and products 3.9. Participatory evaluation of the introduced TL, Loc.LTE, Loc.STE, Int. STE Month 11/12, 23/24, 35/36 technologies and products
47 Activities Inputs Timing Assumptions 4.1 Identify general training needs TL, Loc.LTE Month 2-3 4.2 Implement general training, open to a wide Loc.STE, Loc.LTE, Facilitators, Month 3-5 audience rooms, audio-visual equipment 4.3 Identify specific training needs according to TL, Loc.LTE Month 4-8 Based on activity 1.3 and 3.4 development plans and proposed technologies 4.4 Prepare training programme and elaborate TL, Loc.LTE, Loc.STE Month 3-6 and 13-14, 25-26 training material 4.5 Implement specific training courses Loc.LTE, Loc.STE, Int.STE, Month 5-30 Facilitators, rooms, audio-visual equipment 4.6 Follow-up of effectiveness of training TL, Loc.LTE Month 6-33
5.1 Monitoring of the performance Loc.LTE Month 5-35 of improved technologies and products 5.2 Participatory evaluation of the introduced TL, Loc.LTE, Loc.STE, Int. STE Month 11-12, 23-24, 35-36 technologies and products 5.3 Disseminate technical information and Loc.LTE, Loc.STE Month 13-36 experiences to other interested farmers’ groups 5.4 Present to and discuss lessons learned with policy TL, Loc.LTE, Loc.STE, Int. STE Periodically during entire makers at Municipal and Ministry level project duration
48 Phase 2
Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators Sources of Verification Assumptions and Risks Overall objective: To build and strengthen the skills and capacity of the poorer Improved farm profitability Comparative Analysis Government agricultural and rural more isolated rural communities in Kosovo and Decreased vulnerability Studies development policies remain constant Montenegro in order to increase household incomes, Improved Rural Socio- Final evaluation of the and supportive improve livelihoods and raise living conditions. Economic Conditions and project Other initiatives commonly aligned Farmer Empowerment Media reports & opinions and aimed at the region’s rural Ministry, general and local advancement statistics Outcomes Kosovo Montenegro Project Extension
Outcome 1 Highly Functional and Sustainable Farmer Number, activities and Group and Association Group leaders remain dynamic and Groups Associations and Cooperatives providing Services outputs of farmer groups and minutes, reports & committed to cooperative ideals and Benefits to Members and Wider Rural Communities associations financial statements Ministries and trade departments Cooperatives’ turnover Cooperative reports and supportive and with no export/import figures: Wool; Seed; financial statements; barriers insurmountable Machinery; Merchandise project reports
Outcome 2 Regional Livestock Selling Centre combined Livestock market throughput, Livestock market reports with Permanent Regional Agricultural Showground and animal description and prices and those of advisory serving All Rural Communities panel, FU and project Municipal Authorities remain committed; markets sustainable thro Outcome 3 Registered Farmers Unions expanding and Shows organized and committees for agricultural market fee receipts; FU and YFC developing Representation for Farmers and the wider Rural attended; range and number shows, project and media remain active Communities of exhibits and public reports and attendance Ministry, Municipal and FU support attendance records remains strong and exhibitors remain Membership; Number of interested issues raised, pursued and Farmers Union, project and Ministries and policy makers maintain successfully resolved by media reports; membership steadfast interest in rural development Farmers Unions. roll and minutes of Ministries and policy makers maintain meetings interest in rural development in remote areas Outcomes Kosovo and Montenegro Expanded Regions Project activities
49 Outcome 1 Key Farmers Identified Trained and Motivated successfully launched in Project, consultant and for Self-Development the expanded regions media reports Major players remain committed and all project posts are filled Outcome 2 Farmer Groups, Associations and Number of farmer Cooperatives Functional and Working in Partnership with groups formed, activities Group data. Project, Project Specialist Personnel and outputs achieved consultant and group Project work plan smoothly reports implemented and no administrative obstacles encountered with Outcome 3 Farmer Groups, Associations and Cooperatives Groups registered; registration Consolidated Sustainable and Self-Directed inventories expanded; Project, consultant and business transacted group reports Terms of trade remain competitive and markets (local and export) stay Output 4 Project Experience Results and Project methods, stable Recommendations widely shared experience and results List of publications, recorded & disseminated presentations and articles Budgetary allocations are not a made and distributed constraint (in say video production)
50 Annex III – FAO Strategic Objectives, Organizational Results and Core Functions 2010-19
FAO Strategic Objectives and Organizational Results
Code Title Lead Unit A Sustainable intensification of crop production AG
A01 Policies and strategies on sustainable crop production intensification and diversification at AGP national and regional levels A02 Risks from outbreaks of transboundary plant pests and diseases are sustainably reduced at AGP national, regional and global levels A03 Risks from pesticides are sustainably reduced at national, regional and global levels AGP
A04 Effective policies and enabled capacities for a better management of plant genetic resources AGP for food and agriculture (PGRFA) including seed systems at the national and regional levels
B Increased sustainable livestock production AG
B01 The livestock sector effectively and efficiently contributes to food security, poverty alleviation AGA and economic development B02 Reduced animal disease and associated human health risks AGA
B03 Better management of natural resources, including animal genetic resources, in livestock AGA production B04 Policy and practice for guiding the livestock sector are based on timely and reliable AGA information
C Sustainable management and use of fisheries and aquaculture resources FI
C01 Members and other stakeholders have improved formulation of policies and standards that FI facilitate the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) and other international instruments, as well as response to emerging issues C02 Governance of fisheries and aquaculture has improved through the establishment or FIE strengthening of national and regional institutions, including RFBs C03 More effective management of marine and inland capture fisheries by FAO Members and FIM other stakeholders has contributed to the improved state of fisheries resources, ecosystems and their sustainable use C04 Members and other stakeholders have benefited from increased production of fish and fish FIM products from sustainable expansion and intensification of aquaculture C05 Operation of fisheries, including the use of vessels and fishing gear, is made safer, more FII technically and socio-economically efficient, environmentally-friendly and compliant with rules at all levels C06 Members and other stakeholders have achieved more responsible post-harvest utilization and FII trade of fisheries and aquaculture products, including more predictable and harmonized market access requirements
51
D Improved quality and safety of food at all stages of the food chain AG
D01 New and revised internationally agreed standards and recommendations for food safety and AGN quality that serve as the reference for international harmonization D02 Institutional, policy and legal frameworks for food safety/quality management that support an AGN integrated food chain approach D03 National/regional authorities are effectively designing and implementing programmes of food AGN safety and quality management and control, according to international norms D04 Countries establish effective programmes to promote improved adherence of food AGN producers/businesses to international recommendations on good practices in food safety and quality at all stages of the food chain, and conformity with market requirements
E Sustainable management of forests and trees FO
E01 Policy and practice affecting forests and forestry are based on timely and reliable information FOM
E02 Policy and practice affecting forests and forestry are reinforced by international cooperation FOE and debate E03 Institutions governing forests are strengthened and decision-making improved, including FOE involvement of forest stakeholders in the development of forest policies and legislation, thereby enhancing an enabling environment for investment in forestry and forest industries. Forestry is better integrated into national development plans and processes, considering interfaces between forests and other land uses E04 Sustainable management of forests and trees is more broadly adopted, leading to reductions in FOM deforestation and forest degradation and increased contributions of forests and trees to improve livelihoods and to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation E05 Social and economic values and livelihood benefits of forests and trees are enhanced, and FOE markets for forest products and services contribute to making forestry a more economically- viable land-use option E06 Environmental values of forests, trees outside forests and forestry are better realized; FOM strategies for conservation of forest biodiversity and genetic resources, climate change mitigation and adaptation, rehabilitation of degraded lands, and water and wildlife management are effectively implemented
F Sustainable management of land, water and genetic resources and improved responses NR to global environmental challenges affecting food and agriculture F01 Countries promoting and developing sustainable land management NRL
F02 Countries address water scarcity in agriculture and strengthen their capacities to improve NRL water productivity of agricultural systems at national and river-basin levels including transboundary water systems F03 Policies and programmes are strengthened at national, regional and international levels to NRD ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity for food and agriculture and the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources F04 An international framework is developed and countries' capacities are reinforced for NRC responsible governance of access to, and secure and equitable tenure of land and its interface with other natural resources, with particular emphasis on its contribution to rural development F05 Countries have strengthened capacities to address emerging environmental challenges, such as NRC climate change and bioenergy F06 Improved access to and sharing of knowledge for natural resource management OEK
52
G Enabling environment for markets to improve livelihoods and rural development ES
G01 Appropriate analysis, policies and services enable small producers to improve competitiveness, diversify into new enterprises, increase value addition and meet market requirements G02 Rural employment creation, access to land and income diversification are integrated into ESW agricultural and rural development policies, programmes and partnerships G03 National and regional policies, regulations and institutions enhance the developmental and poverty reduction impacts of agribusiness and agro-industries G04 Countries have increased awareness of and capacity to analyse developments in international EST agricultural markets, trade policies and trade rules to identify trade opportunities and to formulate appropriate and effective pro-poor trade policies and strategies
H Improved food security and better nutrition ES
H01 Countries and other stakeholders have strengthened capacity to formulate and implement ESA coherent policies and programmes that address the root causes of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition H02 Member countries and other stakeholders strengthen food security governance through the ESA triple-track approach and the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security H03 Strengthened capacity of member countries and other stakeholders to address specific AGN nutrition concerns in food and agriculture H04 Strengthened capacity of member countries and other stakeholders to generate, manage, ESS analyse and access data and statistics for improved food security and better nutrition H05 Member countries and other stakeholders have better access to FAO analysis and information ESA products and services on food security, agriculture and nutrition, and strengthened own capacity to exchange knowledge
I Improved preparedness for, and effective response to, food and agricultural threats and TC emergencies I01 Countries' vulnerability to crisis, threats and emergencies is reduced through better TCE preparedness and integration of risk prevention and mitigation into policies, programmes and interventions I02 Countries and partners respond more effectively to crises and emergencies with food and TCE agriculture-related interventions I03 Countries and partners have improved transition and linkages between emergency, TCE rehabilitation and development
K Gender equity in access to resources, goods, services and decision-making in the rural ES areas K01 Rural gender equality is incorporated into UN policies and joint programmes for food ESW security, agriculture and rural development K02 Governments develop enhanced capacities to incorporate gender and social equality issues in ESW agriculture, food security and rural development programmes, projects and policies using sex- disaggregated statistics, other relevant information and resources K03 Governments are formulating gender-sensitive, inclusive and participatory policies in ESW agriculture and rural development K04 FAO management and staff have demonstrated commitment and capacity to address gender ESW dimensions in their work
53
L Increased and more effective public and private investment in agriculture and rural TC development L01 Greater inclusion of food and sustainable agriculture and rural development investment TCI strategies and policies into national and regional development plans and frameworks L02 Improved public and private sector organisations' capacity to plan, implement and enhance the TCI sustainability of food and agriculture and rural development investment operations L03 Quality assured public/private sector investment programmes, in line with national priorities TCI and requirements, developed and financed
FAO Core Functions a Monitoring and assessment of long-term and medium-term trends and perspectives b Assembly and provision of information, knowledge and statistics c Development of international instruments, norms and standards d Policy and strategy options and advice e Technical support to promote technology transfer and build capacity f Advocacy and communication g Inter-disciplinarity and innovation h Partnerships and alliances
54
Appendix 2. List of meeting conducted during the evaluation mission
Evaluation Mission Itinerary in Kosovo
Date Location Activity City 26 September Day 1 Arrival in Pristina airport and accommodation in Hotel Pristina, “AFA”, Pristina Kosovo
Office of Grand Duchy Meeting with Mr. Pierre Weber, Head of Grand Duchy of of Luxembourg Office in Pristina Luxembourg in Pristina
Informal meeting with Mr Afrim Sharku, National Team Leader in Kosovo 27 September Day 2 Ministry of 08:30 Meeting with Mr. Bajram Imeri – Director of the Agriculture, Department of Animal Production -MAFRD Pristina, Forestry and 09:30 Meeting with Mr. Kaplan Halimi - Permanent Kosovo Rural Secretary of MAFRD and Kapllan, Halimi Development General Secretary of MAFRD (MAFRD) 10:30 Meeting with Mr. Xhavit Bytyqi - Professor of Animal Health and Animal Breeding, Pristina Agriculture and Veterinary Faculty Pristina, 11:30 Meeting with Mr. Muhamet Kamberi - Professor Agriculture of Animal Food and Animal Feeding, Pristina Faculty Agriculture and Veterinary Faculty 12:30 Meeting with Mr. Xhavit Ramadani - Professor of Milk Production and Processing, Pristina Field visit in Agriculture and Veterinary Faculty Shterpce and 13:30 Lunch break Restoran “Gardena” Prizren project 16:00 Meeting with Farmers Association and Young region Farmers Club “Gotovusha”, Shterpce 17,00 Meeting Farmers Association and Young Farmers Sheterpce and Club “Novo Selo”, Zhupa, Prizren Zhupa, 19:30 Accommodation in Hotel “Arxhena” – Brod, Kosovo Dragash Arrival to Brod, Dragash, Kosovo 28 September Day 3 Dragash - 09:00 Meeting with Farmers Association “Studenec”, Brod, Kosovo Project Office Brod, Gora 10:30 Meeting with project staff in Dragash – Project Municipality Office, Dragash Dragash, office 11:00 Meeting with Mr. Flamur Sulejmani, Agriculture kosovo Directorate in Dragash municipality Field visit in 12:00 Visit Farmers’ Cooperative wool store, Dragash Dragash 13:00 Lunch break in Restorant “Venecia” project region 14:30 Meeting with Young Farmers Club “Krushevo”, Gora 15:30 Meeting with Farmers Association “Furna”, Restelica, Gora 17:00 Visit Farmers Cooperative and Cheese Unit, Kosava, Opoja Opoja,
55
Evaluation Mission Itinerary in Kosovo
Date Location Activity City 18.00 Meeting with Young Farmers Club “Bresana”, Kosovo Opoja 19:00 Departure Opoja 20:30 Arrival in Gjakova and accommodation in Hotel Gjakova, “Pashtriku” Kosovo 29 September Day 4 Field visit in 08:30 Departure from Hotel new project 09:00 Meeting with Farmers Association “Gurrat e region Bardha”, Gjakova 10:00 Farmers Association “Kullat e Drenocit”, Decani Project office 11:00 Meeting with Young Farmers Club “KRA”, Decani, Decani Kosovo Municipality 12:00 Meeting with Mr. Nasim Haradinaj – Director of office in Agriculture Directorate in Decani Municipality Decani 13:00 Lunch break in Decani 14:00 Project Presentation (Power Point) project office, Decani 15:00 Meeting with UN FAO project staff, Decani 16:30 Meeting with AI technicians, Peja 18:00 Accommodation in Hotel “Gold”, Peja Peja, Kosovo 30 September Day 5 Field visit in 08:30 Departure from Hotel new project 09:00 Meeting with Young Farmers Club “Nabergjani”, region Peja 10:00 Meeting Farmers Association “Gurra e-N”, Peja Peja, Kosovo 11:00 Meeting with Wool Cooperative, 12:30 Meeting with Young Farmers Club “Studenica”, Istog Istog, Kosovo 13:30 Meeting with Farmers Association “Koreniku”, Istog 18:00 Accommodation Hotel AFA Pristina, Kosovo
1 October Day 6 Pristina Review Pristina, Kosovo
2 October Day 7 Pristina Review Pristina, Kosovo 3 October Day 8 Pristina Skype conference with Gerold Boedeker, Field Pristina, Programme Officer – FAO SEU Kosovo
Meeting with James Airey, Project manager and Afrim Sharku, National Team Leader in Kosovo Meeting with Krenar Bujupi, Sustainabe Development Department from World Bank office in Kosovo on the Agricultural Development Project. Meeting with Nora Loxha Sahatciu, UN Coordination Specialist United Nations Kosovo Team
4 October Day 9 Pristina Meeting with Heini Conrad, Project Coordinator from Hotel Intercooperation (Swiss Agency for Development and accommodatio Cooperation) n Pristina Meeting with Mr. Pierre Weber, Head of Grand Duchy
56
Evaluation Mission Itinerary in Kosovo
Date Location Activity City of Luxembourg Office in Pristina Meeting with Nuredn Nestani, Heiffer International representative in Kosovo
5 October Day Montenegro Depart for Montenegro 10 Meeting with Farmer Group Fusha e Madhein Peja, Kosovo Meeting with Farmer Group Gurra N
Arrival Berane, Montenegro Berane Montenegro
Evaluation Mission Itinerary in Montenegro
Date Location Activity City/Country 6 October Day Berane 09.00 Meeting with project team in Berane, Montenegro: Berane, 11 Saso Martinov, Cross Border Liaison Montenegro Tatjana Dedic, National team leader in Montenegro James Airey, Project manager Podgorica, 13:00 Meeting with Zora Dairy Manager Montenegro
7 October Day Podgorica 12 9:00-9:45 Meeting with Branimir Vujacic, State Secretary of Montenegro’s Ministry of Agriculture 9:45 – 10:45 Meeting with Predag Jankovic and Slavica Pavlovic from SNV, Netherlands Development Cooperation 11:00h: Meeting with Mr.Zoran Jovovic, Associate professor Podgorica, of the Biotechnical Faculty, Department of field crops and Montenegro vegetables. 12.30h: Lunch break 14:000h: Meeting with Mr. Milutin Simovic (MP & former Minister of Agriculture) 15.00: Meetings with Rastislav Vrbensky, UN Resident coordinator and Milica Begovic Team Leader from UNDP 16:00 Travel to Berane, Montenegro
Berane, Montenegro 8 October Day Berane Berane, 13 Project 11:00h: Visit Farmers’ Cooperative wool and seed store, Montenegro Office Berane 12:00 Lunch break
14:00h: Visit Farmers Association and Young Farmers Club, Bor, Bor, Berane Montenegro 16:00h: Visit Farmers Cheese Unit, Korita, Bijelo Polje Bijelo Polje, 17.00h Departure Korita Montenegro 18:30h: Arrival Berane
57
Evaluation Mission Itinerary in Montenegro
Date Location Activity City/Country 9 October Day Pljevlja 07:30h: Departure Berane 14 10.00h Arrival Pljevlja region 10:00h: Meeting with farmers association. Kosanica Kosanica 11:00h: Meeting with farmers association, Krusevo Krusevo 12:30h: Meeting with local community representatives, Pljevlja 13:30h: Lunch break 15:30h: Meeting with farmers association, Piperi Piperi 18:00h: Meeting with farmers association Ljieska Ljieska 19.00: Arrival in Plevlja Plevlja, Montenegro 10 Day Plevlja 09:00h: Departure Plevlja October 15 11:30h:Meeting with farmers association, Tomasevo Tomasevo Berane 13:30 Arrival in Berane, field visit discussion Berane 11 Day Berane Travel to Pristina Pristina, October 16 Debriefing session with Project staff in Montenegro Kosovo 12 Day Pristina Debriefing session with: Pristina, October 17 James Airey, Project Manager Kosovo Saso Martinov, Cross Border Liason and representative of Montenegro’s team Afrim Sharku, National Team Leader in Kosovo Emrullah Spahiu, Group Development Specialist Kosovo Mr. Pierre Weber, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Representatives from Farmers groups and Young farmers club in Kosovo Bajram Imeri – Director of the Department of Animal Production -MAFRD
Evaluation Mission Itinerary in Budapest
Date Location Activity City/Country 13 Day Pristina Travel to Budapest Budapest, October 18 Hungary
14 Day Debriefing session with: October 19 Gerold Boedeker, Field Programme Officer Sub regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe Andriy Rozstalnyy, Animal Production and Health Officer Stjepan Tanic, Agribussiness and Enterprise Development Officer Goran, Stavrik, Programme Officer Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. James Airey, Project Manager Geza Gabriel, SEU Junior Technical Officer for Plant Production and Protection Balazs Bartakovics, REU Administrative Clerk Anna-Maria Hajduk, REU Communication and Delivery as One Junior Technical Officer Aghasi Harutyunyan, REU Field Programme
58
Consultant
Meeting with: Andriy Rozstalnyy, Animal Production and Health Officer
Meeting with: Fernanda Guerrieri, Assistant Director General and Regional Representative of FAO REU
Debriefing session with: Fernanda Guerrieri, Assistant Director General and Regional Representative of FAO REU Gerold Boedeker, Field Programme Officer Sub regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe Goran, Stavrik, Programme Officer Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. James Airey, Project Manager
59
Appendix 3. Summary of reported achievements of the project
Summary of reported achievements during phase 1 and 2 of project Development assistance to Farmers in Remote Areas of Kosovo and Montenegro
1. Inception stage of the project: An inception report was produced in 2006 containing an analysis on how the project would be implemented, with a particular emphasis on its first phase 12 months of implementation. The document contains an analysis of the municipalities in which the project was to concentrate its activities as well as suggestions to amend the original project document (first phase). One report on herd composition, health and management55 was produced in 2006 on the basis of 113 farmers visited in five different municipalities of Montenegro. It contains an analysis of the composition of herds, productivity (meat and milk), herd management and health problems. One report on sheep breeds and flock management produced in 200756 containing diagnosis information based on a sample of 35 farmers visited within five municipalities in Montenegro. The report analyses information on sheep production conditions, structure of sheep breeds and sheep management and technologies employed by the sample of farmers. One report was produced containing descriptive information on the conditions of agricultural machinery within five municipalities of Montenegro57. 2. Promotion In Montenegro, 600 posters were set up, 1,000 fliers were printed out and distributed . In Kosovo, posters were distributed in 177 villages of the project’s selected area. Radio and TV coverage in localities in Montenegro was reported. Additionally, visits were paid to municipal governments of the project area previous to participatory meetings. Internal activities of coordination and preparation of participatory meetings. In Montenegro and Kosovo, 18 and 16 hub-centres, respectively, were set up where farmers registered their interest to be considered for participatory meetings. 3. Participatory approach: Participatory meetings conducted by the project during phase 1 and 2 Kosovo Montenegro Total Key Key Key Meetings Participants Meetings Participants Meetings Participants farmers58 farmers farmers 62 1,560 351 48 809 236 149 2,894 587 Source: presentation “Main activities in Kosovo project Region November 2009 to September 2011”sent by Afrim Sharku on 19 October 2011 and Presentation made by Tatjana Dedic on 6 October 2011 in Berane.
55 Miroslav Marinkovic (2006) “Herd Composition Health and Management In Northeast Montenegro”. 56 Miroslav Marinkovic (2006) “Sheep breeds flock management and health assessment in Polimsjo and Ibarski regions”. 57 Ranko Kopriovica (2006) “Conditions of agricultural machinery in the north east of Montenegro”. 58 The project selected key farmers to organise training workshops and demonstration activities in their farms. Key farmers were selected accordingly to the following criteria: acceptance of main project activities, openness to receive advice on new technologies and techniques, cooperation and interest expressed during participatory meeting.
60
177 farmers (75%) in Montenegro and 215 (61%) farmers in Kosovo continued collaborating as key farmers after follow up visits. 809 farmers in Montenegro and 1,560 farmers in Kosovo were asked to fill a questionnaire during participatory meetings. Two reports of participatory meetings59 were produced containing a description of possible strengths, weaknesses and challenges derived from the participatory workshops during the first phase of the project. These documents also contains basic socio-economic information on the characteristics of farmers who attended the participatory workshops which was collected by the questionnaire previously mentioned (e.g. age of farmers, number of household members, statistics on cultivated and pasture owned land, statistics on units of livestock, equipment and incomes from farm and off farm activities60) Two reports produced by a group development experts61 containing a review of the participatory approach during the first phase of the project and a proposal for a winter training program on forage and feed production, animal breeding, agricultural mechanisation and formation of groups. 3. Training and demonstration of techniques:
Training sessions and workshops conducted by the project (during phase 1 and 2) Kosovo Montenegro Total Topics Number Participants Number Participants Number Participants Training of facilitators 1 4 2 9 3 13
Animal breeding, feeding and health, agricultural mechanization and farm facilities, forage production, creation of farmers groups, 9 318 4 322 13 640 Milk production and processing, Milk quality control, plant protection, farm management.
Ploughing demonstration 2 130 15 81 17 211 Training for FYC and Presentation of 1 50 1 50 Thessalonica American Farm School Animal health, subsidies and grants provided 1 56 1 56 by government Creation of Farmers Union and YFC Union 4 32 4 32 Sheep shearing (in the field) 4 13 4 13 8 26 Production of semi hard cheese 1 8 1 4 2 12 Artificial insemination for veterinarian 1 4 1 2 2 6 technicians
Total 24 615 27 431 51 1,046 Sources: list of workshops sent by Saso Martinov on 3 September 2011, presentation “Main activities in Kosovo project Region November 2009 to September 2011”sent by Afrim Sharku on 19 October 2011 and Presentation made by Tatjana Dedic on 6 October 2011 in Berane, reports from Saso Martinov and Tatjana Dedic.
59 Vlade Zaric (2007 and 2006) “Report of participatory meetings and workshop in the project area”. 60 See annex 2 of both reports. 61 John Millns (2007 and 2006) “Mission report by the Group development specialist”.
61
Production of brochures for six different topics (Cattle breeding, sheep breeding, animal feeding, animal nutrition, animal health, milk production, farmers groups development, forage production, farm mechanisation, livestock facilities, milk and dairy hygiene) containing answers raised by farmers during the workshops. In total, 16,000 brochures were printed in Kosovo in two different languages and 13,500 in Montenegro. In Kosovo (Dragash and Decani regions), two machinery demonstrations of agricultural machinery for silage and hay production was conducted with the participation of 230 farmers. In Montenegro, one machinery demonstration in the field was organized during the first phase of the project with the participation of 200 farmers. In Montenegro, two agricultural shows were held in 2008 and 2009 in order to exhibit sheep and cattle breeds, cheese produced by groups and farm machinery. In Kosovo, 5 annual livestock shows in Sharri and Peja regions were held since 2008 and 2010, respectively, with the aim to promote pure breed of livestock and project activities. The following table describes the activities of the demonstration plots established by the project: Number of demonstration plots conducted by the project Type of Demonstration Montenegro Kosovo Total Fertilization of natural meadow and pastures 39 137 176 Planting and fertilizing grass mixture 67 52 119 Fertilized artificial meadows 18 18 Alfalfa 24 73 97 Vetch/peas and Oats 143 37 180 Certified seed production 1 1 Total 274 317 591 Source: presentation “Main activities in Kosovo project Region November 2009 to September 2011”sent by Afrim Sharku on 19 October 2011 and Presentation made by Tatjana Dedic on 6 October 2011 in Berane.
Reported results in production of silage and land cultivated in the project region62:
Production of silage: Year Kosovo (Ton) 2007 183.6 2008 499 2009 570 2010 479 2011 484 Source: presentation “Main activities in Kosovo project Region November 2009 to September 2011”sent by Afrim Sharku on 19 October 2011
62 It is difficult to attribute this effect only to the intervention of the project given that in Montenegro there are subsidies over land cultivated which increased since 2008 and subsidies over heads of cattle owned and milk production as well.
62
Cultivated land: Land cultivated with cereals for silage production (Ha) Montenegro63 Year Kosovo Cereals Forage Grass mixture 2007 9.12 152 155 60 2008 26.8 155 130 60 2009 26.4 155 154 80 2010 66.7 228 202 90 2011 85.35 152 155 60 Source: presentation “Main activities in Kosovo project Region November 2009 to September 2011”sent by Afrim Sharku on 19 October 2011 and Saso Martinov, Data on Pljeva Municipality cultivated land received on 11/10/2011 by email. o Demonstration plots established in Montenegro in 2011 covered 33.45 ha which induced the cultivation of additional 69.6 ha using project’s equipment in the area. 2,038 tons of silage has been prepared by 33 farmers of which 993 tons is maize silage and 1,045 tons is from legume-cereal mixtures and grass in Montenegro.
4. Farmer groups: In Kosovo and Montenegro, 44 groups were formed. Their main activity is to share the agricultural machinery for the production of hay, forage and silage. These groups are small in terms of participants; for instance, in Montenegro’s groups the average number of participants is 7 farmers. An important characteristic of these farmer groups is their legal status, which is registered as a non-profit organisation.
In Kosovo and Montenegro the project supported the creation of six cooperatives. Three of them with wool production as the main activity, two focused on cheese production and 1 of them focused on seed production. This last one was established in Montenegro.
Farmer Groups and Cooperatives in Kosovo Main activity Number of Number of groups and farmers cooperatives Machinery rings 12 86 Animal breeding 4 27 Milk collection and processing 3 22 Cheese production and agro- 1 6 tourism Sheep production 2 13 Production of animal food 5 44 Cheese cooperative 2 20 Wool cooperative 2 17 Total 31 235 Source: Afrim Sharku, National Project Officer sent on 20 October 2011 by email.
63 Only Pljevlja municipality.
63
Farmer groups and cooperatives in Montenegro Number of Number of Main activity groups/ farmers cooperatives Agricultural mechanization /animal feeding 14 101 Cheese production 2 10 Wool cooperative/seed production 1 21 Sheep breeder association 1 25 Seed production cooperative 1 5 Total 19 162 Source: Presentation by Tatjana Dedic and list of farmer groups sent by Saso Martinov In Kosovo, nine farmers groups were supported in the preparation of documentation for the application to obtain grants, such as application forms and business plans.
Effects related to the formation of groups and cooperatives:
o In Montenegro, 3 farmer groups on agricultural mechanization/animal feeding were formed with the participation of 22 farmers at their own initiative.
o Building of 2 milk collection points and production of cheese in Kosovo:
Cheese Curd Net profits Net profits of Cheese of Cheese Year Production Production cooperative cooperative (kg) (kg) 1 (in €) 2 (in €) 2009 11,450 4,150 3,100 1,559 2010 19,600 7,250 5,400 2,525 2011 16,275 6,000 4,464 2,116 Source: Presentation provided during the evaluation by Afrim Sharku.
o Both in Montenegro and Kosovo, cheese enterprises are linked to supermarket chains. In Montenegro the market is Voli supermarket chain, with branches in the coastal areas of Montenegro and in Podgorica. In the case of Kosovo, the cheese produced by both cooperatives is distributed in 22 branches of local supermarkets. o Seed production in Montenegro: in Montenegro,11,730 kg of certified oats were produced, approved by the Biotechnical Institute and sold to farmers. o Wool production from 2 cooperatives in Kosovo and 1 cooperative in Montenegro was exported to UK with the support of the project. In Kosovo, the cooperative sold to Macedonia 80 tons out of the 117 tons packed in 2011.
64
Volume of wool packed and exported by cooperatives (Ton) Year Kosovo Montenegro 2008 17 17 2009 60 2010 1864 60 2011 117 135 Source: Presentation sent by Afrim Sharku immediately after the evaluation, presentation made by Tatjana Dedic during the evaluation, and Six-monthly project reports. o In 2009, Marketing Cooperative ‘Agrosjever’ Montenegro generated € 40,000 in wool-export earnings and achieved € 76,000 Euro in total turnover.
Young farmers groups: In Montenegro, 8 YFCs in Berane and Roszaje Municipalities, with the participation of 148 members ( 28% women and 72% men65). In Kosovo, 22 YFCs in Dragash and Decani with 261 members. YFCs participated in workshops (human rights, public speaking) and recreational activities (sports tournaments and livestock contests) as well as two yearly initiatives for rubbish collection. YFCs benefited from computers acquired by the project. YFC representatives participated in events of Rural Youth Europe in 2010 and 2011.
64 This production was detained in Italy because of custom problems. 65 Percentages estimated with information provided in Dedic and Martinov (2011) Report (February and April, 2011) which are 9 YFCs, with the participation of 121 members (34 women and 87 men). The number of YFCs and members is based on the presentation by Dedic during the field mission.
65
Appendix 4. List of documents reviewed 1. Consultant reports and field documents a. Inception report, 2006 b. Mission report “Herd Composition Health and Management In Northeast Montenegro”, 2006 c. Mission report by the Group development specialist, 2006 d. Report of participatory meetings and workshop in the project area, 2006 e. Report “Conditions of agricultural machinery in the north east of Montenegro”, 2006 f. Report of participatory meetings and workshop in the project area, 2007 g. Mission report by the Group development specialist, January 2007 h. Mission report “Sheep Breeds Flock Management and Health Assessment in the Polimsko and Ibarski Regions”, January 2007 i. Mission report by the Group development specialist, April 2007 j. Draft report “Forage and Feeds Report” 2006-2009 k. BTOR Report by Nedzad Ajanovic February 2009 l. BTOR Report by Nedzad Ajanovic October 2009 m. End of Mission Report by Saso Martinov and Tatjana Dedic (October- December 2009) n. End of Mission Report by Saso Martinov and Tatjana Dedic (February-April 2010) o. End of Mission Report by Saso Martinov and Tatjana Dedic (August-October 2010) p. End of Mission Report by James Airey (October 2009-March 2010) q. End of Mission Report by Saso Martinov and Tatjana Dedic (November- December 2010) r. Back to Office Report, Project presentation on the 21st Scientific Professional Conference of Agriculture and Food Industry in Bosnia and Herzegovina by Saso Martinov, Tatjana Dedic, Afrim Sharku and Asim Thaqi (October 2010) s. End of Mission Report by Saso Martinov and Tatjana Dedic (May-July 2011) t. Vlade Zaric, “Cost Benefit Analysis of selected project activities in Montenegro” u. Emrullah Spahiu, “Cost Benefit Analysis of selected project activities in Kosovo”
2. Project documents and agreements a. Signature by Government of Serbia and Montenegro to the Project Document, 2006 b. Project agreement with United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, 2007 c. Project document phase 1 (2006-2008) d. Project document phase 2 (2009-2011) e. Donor’s agreement phase 1 f. Donor’s agreement phase 2 3. Projects six-month progress reports: a. January-June, 2006 b. July-December, 2006
66
c. January-June, 2007 d. July-December, 2007 e. January-June, 2008 f. July-December, 2008 g. January-June, 2009 h. July-December, 2009 i. January-June, 2010 j. July-December, 2010 k. January-June, 2011 4. List of farmer groups in Kosovo and Montenegro regions covered by the project 5. List of project staff (title, gender, duration of assignment, travel authorizations) 6. List of workshops organized by project 7. List of equipment bought by project 8. Budget revisions (2009 and 2011) 9. Evaluation of Development assistance to farmers in remote areas of Montenegro and Kosovo commissioned by the Office of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in Pristina in 2009 to IQ Consulting. 10. Muhedin Nushi and Fatmir Selimi (2009) “An assessment of the competitiveness of the dairy food chain in Kosovo” Agripolicy, enlargement network for agripolicy analysis, February. 11. Twenty fifth FAO regional conference for Europe (2006) “The View Of The European Region On The Role Of FAO as Provider of Global Public Goods” 12. Twenty sixth FAO regional conference for Europe (2006) “Main conclusions and list of recommendations stemming from the debate in the 35th session of the ECA on item: The role of FAO in knowledge exchange and capacity building in the Europe and Central Asia Region” 13. Kosovo’s Agricultural and Rural Development Plan 2009-13 14. Montenegro’s strategies and national programme for Food Production and Rural Development. 15. SARD-M (2008) “Assessment of strengths and weaknesses of mountain policies in South-Eastern Europe (SEE)” Regional Report. 16. World Banks MIDAS Project Appraisal Document 17. World Bank ARDK Project Appraisal Document
67
Appendix 5. Key evaluation questions Key evaluation questions for final evaluation of project GCP/RER/019/LUX Development assistance to farmers in remote areas of Montenegro and Kosovo
Key evaluation questions Relevance 1. How relevant was the project (taking into account its own theory of change, if any): a) to Governments’ objectives at its different levels (ministry and municipalities in the project area) b) to the farmers (differentiate men & women) themselves c) to FAO (REU/SEU): How does it fits in FAO strategy for Eastern Europe/where does it fits in the SO and OR d) to other organizations/institutions (UN agencies, Luxembourg, other donors) 2. What development problem has the project attempted to solve/attend in the rural areas of Kosovo and Montenegro? a) Was it a relevant problem affecting/constraining Kosovo and Montenegro’s rural/agricultural development? b) Was it affecting a particular type or group of rural farmers in the intervened area? 3. How appropriate was the design of the project, taking into account the conditions and needs of actors involved (Small holder farmer in Kosovo, government at various levels, priority agricultural subsectors within the rural areas), the situation of the ultimate beneficiaries, and the resources available to the project. In particular: a) How appropriate and realistic was the project overall objective? b) Was the relationship between inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact logical and realistic? c) How realistic (especially regarding timeframes and mobilization of private sector) was the proposed approach? d) Could there have been alternative approaches to reach the desired objectives? e) How appropriate was the design of the project in relation to the context of the regions covered? f) How appropriate were the management/implementation arrangements? g) How appropriate were the resource allocations (technical, human, financial)? h) How appropriate was the definition of the target groups, and the selection criteria used? How was the target population selected? (Areas of the project, key farmers, farmers associated/conforming the cooperatives and YFC) Is there an estimation of the target population? (what are the principal characteristics of the target population?) i) Did the projects design considered gender and ethnic issues? 4. Did the project document/logic framework specify relevant and appropriate indicators and targets? 5. How valid were the identified assumptions and risks; which risk mitigation measure were proposed? 6. Were there any links to other planned or ongoing similar initiatives? Efficiency 7. How efficiently has the project been implemented? Specifically: a) How efficient was the start-up, and have the planned activities happened on time? b) Have the work plans provided guidance to project staff? c) How efficiently have resources been utilized (regarding procurement, technical and operational backstopping) 8. Have the management arrangements been efficient? a) Has the project organizational set up contributed to an efficient operation and to generate synergies among teams?
68
Key evaluation questions 9. How efficient has been the project’s reporting mechanisms in order to track progress and identify constraints? a) Has the project reported its achievement to the different stakeholders involved? b) Have the project M&E mechanism provided feedback to correct deviation from the original targets? Effectiveness 10. Has the project achieved its intended outputs?, namely: a) Development plans elaborated by farmers groups with a participatory approach b) Provision of sustainable services to farmers by the farmers’ associations c) Training to farmers d) Best practices and experiences systematically documented and disseminated e) Regional agricultural shows 11. What are the main achievements in terms of: a) Profitability and productivity of farmers b) Adoption of new technologies/practices by farmers and farmers associations c) Improvements in products quality and marketing d) Sustainability of farmers associations/cooperatives formed
Impact 12. Has the project achieved and/or contributed to: a) Improve the livelihood of the poorer and more isolated communities b) Increases to households incomes in the project area c) Strengthening the skills and capacity of the poorest areas of Kosovo and Montenegro d) Raise living conditions Sustainability 13. What are the prospects for sustaining and possibly up scaling the project's results by the beneficiaries and/or local institutions after the termination of the project?
14. Are there any indications for a successful replication of the theory of change behind the project? 15. Have there been complementarities and synergies between the projects and other related initiatives and projects?
69
Appendix 6. Evaluation Framework Stated overall objectives To build and strengthen skills and capacity of the poorer and more isolated rural communities in order to a. Increase household incomes b. Improve livelihoods c. Raise living conditions Perceived overall objectives To enhance the role of market-orientated livestock-based agriculture in the livelihoods of the more isolated rural communities of Kosovo and Montenegro through: a. Strengthen the capacity and knowledge base of enterprise-driven small and medium scale livestock farmers b. Build and enhance farmer-based societal organisations to improve farmer effectiveness and efficiency c. Build and develop product-based cooperative organisations to improve the processing and marketing of emerging livestock products d. Strengthen the efficiency of livestock production through input mechanisation and improved service delivery Overall outcome Market-orientated livestock-based agriculture in the mountainous regions of Kosovo and Montenegro is a recognised and effective contributor to rural livelihoods in Kosovo and Montenegro Specific outcomes NATIONAL WOOL PRODUCTION, MILK PRODUCTION, LAMB PRODUCTION, CATTLE MONITORING LEVEL PROCESSING & PROCESSING AND PROCESSING AND MARKETING AND MARKETING MARKETING MARKETING EVALUATION
Implications for Major input, service and production constraints identified and communicated Measures of national strategy and Technological responses to major constraints identified and adopted on a pilot basis changes in policy drafted with Key sustainable markets identified, communicated and exploited production and key participation Producer and value chain-associated groups developed and piloted; key drivers of sustainability identified and marketing communicated synthesised and Plan developed for scaling up key production, processing and marketing lessons (processes, technologies, communicated management, etc.
70
Appendix 7. Consultants employed by the project
Type of Kosovo and Grand Position Kosovo Montenegro employment Montenegro Total National Forage and Feed Consultant 2 3 5 National Group Development Consultant 2 2 4 National Livestock Consultant 1 1 National Local Farmer Coordinator 7 4 11 National Team Leader – Full time National Professional Officer 1 1 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Driver 1 1 Office Assistant 2 2
Office Grounds Assistant 3 3 Office Maintenance Assistant 2 2 Full time Total 1 18 12 31 National Local Farmer Part time Coordinator 1 1 Office Grounds Assistant 1 1 Part time Total 2 2 Agriculture mechanization expert 1 1 2 Animal feeding expert 1 1 Animal health & Animal breeding expert 1 1 Cross-Border Liaison Officer- International 1 1 WAE
Dairy consultant 1 1 Dairy expert 1 1
Forage and Feeds Consultant 1 1 Forage production expert 1 1 2 Group Development International Specialist 1 1 International Project Manager 1 1
Livestock consultant 1 1
WAE Total 1 6 6 13 Workshop Animal feeding presenter Animal feeding consultant 2 2 Animal food control and quality - HACCP 1 1 Animal health Animal health consultant 1 1
Cattle breeding Cattle breeding consultant 1 1
71
Type of Kosovo and Grand Position Kosovo Montenegro employment Montenegro Total Dairy consultant 1 1
Farm management consultant 1 1 Forage production 1 1 Livestock buildings and equipment 1 1 Livestock buildings and equipment consultant 1 1
Milk production NGO Registration Advisor. 1 1 Plant protection 1 1 Public speaking 2 2 Sheep breeding consultant 1 1 Toxically plant in animal feed 1 1 Workshop presenter Total 8 8 16 Grand Total 2 34 26 62 Source: ET with the background information provided by SEU
72
Appendix 8. Budget and expenditures
Budget of DAFKM, both phases (in USD)
Second 1st phase First phase 2nd phase Budget line phase budget (1) budget % budget budget %
5300 Salaries Professional (5011 - Expense Parent) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5500 Salaries General Service (5012 - Expense Parent) 131,105 5.0% 104,280 4.1% 5570 Consultants (5013 - Expense Parent) 813,688 31.2% 954,840 37.7% 5650 Contracts (5014 - Expense Parent) 2,500 0.1% 18,600 0.7% 5660 Locally Contracted Labour (5020 - Expense Parent) 106,557 4.1% 33,770 1.3% 5900 Travel (5021 - Expense Parent) 190,576 7.3% 164,295 6.5% 5920 Training (5023 - Expense Parent) 235,357 9.0% 103,360 4.1% 6000 Expendable Procurement (5024 - Expense Parent) 41,073 1.6% 48,900 1.9% 6100 Non Expendable Procurement (5025 - Expense 410,241 15.7% 405,910 16.0% Parent) 6110 Hospitality (5026 - Expense Parent) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6130 Support Costs (5029 - Expense Parent) 300,048 11.5% 291,252 11.5% 6150 Technical Support Services (5027 - Expense Parent) 27,850 1.1% 61,700 2.4% 6300 General Operating Expenses (5028 - Expense 349,099 13.4% 344,739 13.6% Parent) 6400 General Overhead Expenses (5040 - Expense 22 0.0% 0 0.0% Parent) 6500 Chargeback (5050 - Expense Parent) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6510 Chargeout (5060 - Expense Parent) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% TOTAL 2,608,115 100.0% 2,531,646 100.0% Source: ET with information provided by BH (2) Budget correspondent to the first phase as per the Budget revision A (May 2009)
73
Budget revision during both phases of DAFKM
Budget Revision A Budget Revision B Budget Revision F First Second budget Budget line Original Increase / Variation Original Budget Increase / Variation Original New Increase / Variation revision Budget Decrease % Budget revision Decrease % Budget Budget Decrease % June Sep 2009 2009 5300 Salaries Professional (5011 - 220,500 0 -220,500 -100.0 0 0 0 0 87,463 87,463 Expense Parent) 5500 Salaries General Service (5012 - 105,400 131,105 25,705 24.4 131,105 235,385 104,280 79.5 235,385 253,079 17,694 7.5 Expense Parent) 5570 Consultants (5013 - Expense 673,200 813,688 140,488 20.9 813,688 1,768,528 954,840 117.3 1,768,528 1,596,245 -172,283 -9.7 Parent) 5650 Contracts (5014 - Expense 85,000 2,500 -82,500 -97.1 2,500 21,100 18,600 744.0 21,100 1,236 -19,864 -94.1 Parent) 5660 Locally Contracted Labour 43,000 106,557 63,557 147.8 106,557 140,327 33,770 31.7 140,327 194,939 54,613 38.9 (5020 - Expense Parent) 5900 Travel (5021 - Expense Parent) 195,000 190,576 -4,424 -2.3 190,576 354,871 164,295 86.2 354,871 397,942 43,071 12.1 5920 Training (5023 - Expense 125,000 235,357 110,357 88.3 235,357 338,717 103,360 43.9 338,717 428,170 89,453 26.4 Parent) 6000 Expendable Procurement (5024 - 53,000 41,073 -11,927 -22.5 41,073 89,973 48,900 119.1 89,973 83,085 -6,887 -7.7 Expense Parent) 6100 Non Expendable Procurement 597,000 410,241 -186,759 -31.3 410,241 816,151 405,910 98.9 816,151 795,201 -20,950 -2.6 (5025 - Expense Parent) 6110 Hospitality (5026 - Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parent) 6130 Support Costs (5029 - Expense 296,414 300,049 3,635 1.2 300,048 591,300 291,252 97.1 591,300 591,300 0 0.0 Parent) 6150 Technical Support Services 60,500 27,850 -32,650 -54.0 27,850 89,550 61,700 221.5 89,550 61,700 -27,850 -31.1 (5027 - Expense Parent) 6300 General Operating Expenses 122,500 349,099 226,599 185.0 349,099 693,838 344,739 98.8 693,839 649,378 -44,462 -6.4 (5028 - Expense Parent) 6400 General Overhead Expenses 0 22 22 22 22 0 22 22 0 (5040 - Expense Parent) 6500 Chargeback (5050 - Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parent) 6510 Chargeout (5060 - Expense 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parent) TOTAL 2,576,514 2,608,116 31,602 1.2 2,608,115 5,139,761 2,531,646 97.1 5,139,762 5,139,762 0 0.0 Source: ET with information provided by BH
74
Expenditures of DAFKM
Total % of Expenses Balance Budget line Budget % % expenditure (B) (A-B) (A) (B/A) 5300 Salaries Professional (5011 - Expense Parent) 87,463 1.7% 86,047 1.7% 1,417 98.4% 5500 Salaries General Service (5012 - Expense Parent) 253,079 4.9% 262,661 5.3% <9,582> 103.8% 5570 Consultants (5013 - Expense Parent) 1,596,245 31.1% 1,596,451 32.3% <206> 100.0% 5650 Contracts (5014 - Expense Parent) 1,236 0.0% 1,236 0.0% 0 100.0% 5660 Locally Contracted Labour (5020 - Expense Parent) 194,939 3.8% 168,532 3.4% 26,408 86.5% 5900 Travel (5021 - Expense Parent) 397,942 7.7% 390,387 7.9% 7,555 98.1% 5920 Training (5023 - Expense Parent) 428,170 8.3% 359,019 7.3% 69,152 83.8% 6000 Expendable Procurement (5024 - Expense Parent) 83,085 1.6% 83,042 1.7% 44 99.9% 6100 Non Expendable Procurement (5025 - Expense 795,201 15.5% 767,741 15.5% 27,460 96.5% Parent) 6150 Technical Support Services (5027 - Expense Parent) 61,700 1.2% 0 0.0% 61,700 0.0% 6300 General Operating Expenses (5028 - Expense 649,378 12.6% 671,118 13.6% <21,740> 103.3% Parent) 6130 Support Costs (5029 - Expense Parent) 591,300 11.5% 556,790 11.3% 34,510 94.2% 6400 General Overhead Expenses (5040 - Expense 22 0.0% 22 0.0% 0 100.0% Parent) TOTAL 5,139,762 100% 4,943,045 100% 196,717 96% Source: ET with information provided by BH (3) Budget correspondent to the first phase as per the Budget revision A (May 2009)
75
Appendix 9. Geographical coverage of the project
Kosovo: geographic coverage by municipality
Phase 2
Phase 1
Montenegro: Project geographic coverage by municipality
Phase 2
Phase 1
76
Appendix 10. Governmental subsidies and direct support to livestock and agricultural activities in Kosovo and Montenegro
Governmental subsidies in Montenegro
Support Description a) Direct support to For farmers keeping the next type of livestock for a minimum of six livestock production months: Cows and heifers: 70 €/per head for farms keeping minimum 3 heads and up to 50 heads. Sheep and goats: 9 €/per head for farms rearing more than 20 sheep and/or more than 10 goats per flock to a maximum of 300 head per farm. Slaughterhouse premium: 120 € per head of fattened beef cattle, bulls and oxen sold to approved slaughterhouse (minimum weight 400 kg per head) b) Direct support to dairy Premium = 5.5 cents (€) per litre delivered to registered dairy and cheese production plants. In order to become eligible the minimum deliver should be 200 litres per month c) Support to milk Direct subsidy to operating costs of collection centres buying milk from collection network Montenegrins farmers. Subsidy = 0.025 cents (€) per litre collected which could be increased to 0.03 if collection is coming from remote areas (distance up to 50 km) Additional premium = 0.02 cents (€) per litre if quantity of milk increased compared to last year. d) Direct support to crop 130€ per hectare of crops cultivated for commercial purposes or feed production (over land production (cereals, potatoes, forage plants for silage production, annual cultivated) fodder crops from arable and fodder crops from perennial grassland sown which started in 2008, grass-legume mixture and lucerne) 180€ per hectare of buckwheat 600€ per hectare of arable seed production. Note: minimum 0.5 hectares and use of certified seed (usage supervised by extension service) e) Support to investment 30% of the investment value and up to 40% of the investment value in in agricultural equipment less favoured areas or for young farmers. If both of the last conditions and investment and (less favoured areas + young farmers) the support could raise up to 50% livestock farms of the investment. Source of resources: World Bank MIDAS project. f) Support to sustainable The support is given to the agricultural holdings practicing use of mountain pastures transhumance for at least two months in a year. 15€ per livestock unit (a cow of 500 kg and above, ox, two heifers/or steers, 8 sheep, 10 goats, one horse, while lambs and calves are not included in the calculation for the premium) Eligibility: earmarks and movement notified. g) Support to livestock Supply of semen for AI is supported in entirety, and licensed bulls up to breeding improvement 120 € per head. This is also complemented with training of farmers in order to develop the knowledge in this field. In remote rural areas, where AI cannot be organised, the use of high-quality bulls for natural mating is supported, provided that the bulls are selected and licensed in accordance with legal procedures. Exhibitions of breeding animals are supported, that are defined clearly, in advance. Source: Decree of approval of Montenegro’s Agribudget 2010
77
Subsidy Amount of subsidy in € Remarks Subsidy to increase 7 €/per head over 40 heads of and up Administered by the Ministry of number of flocks to 100 heads in 2006 Farmers in Montenegro’s part of 8 €/per head over 30 heads of and up the project (Bijelo Polje) were to 200 heads in 2007 beneficiaries of this subsidy.
Subsidy over milk Price with subsidy = 37 € cents/litre Mentioned by the farmers production price to 40 € cents/litre association in Berane region Price without subsidy= 31€ cents/litre Approx premium = 7 to 9 cents/litre Subsidy over land 130 €/ha before 2008 In Plelvja Muncipality , cultivated 150 €/Ha after 2008 governmental officials acknowledged the existence of this subsidy Source: field visits Montenegro
Governmental subsidies in Kosovo Support Description a) Direct payment 2010: (Since 2010) Direct payment to dairy cows and heifers for breeding reproduction of Bush, Simental, Holstein, Brown Swiss and Graph
Farmers who apply must meet the following conditions: 1. Be a permanent resident of the Republic of Kosovo 2. Have 5 or more cow’s milk; 3. Heifers must be aged 12 to 24 months; 4. Have 1 of the race more than the above heifers 5. Dairy cows and heifers for reproduction should be tagged with Ear tags of the Republic of Kosovo. 6. Cows and heifers imported must be accompanied by the accompanying document 7. Have signed an agreement for the supply of milk or any of dairying collection points (only for dairy cows) 8. Be members of any of the associations that deal with livestock activities (preferred) and 9. Have a valid personal bank account in any of the banks operating in the Republic of Kosovo. The minimum is 5 heads while supporting higher threshold is 30 dairy cows Maximum 20 heads in the case of heifers b) Farm investment 50% of the investment value (since 2010) Investments eligible for this sub-measure are: - Closed systems of milking, - Equipment for cooling the milk , - Equipment for preparation of concentrated animal feed (eg wind and mixing), - Equipment for extensive food preparation (mowing machines like mechanism to monitor the tractors over 30 horsepower, turning the hay machines, machines for baling in cube form and rote bale, two heavy machines for ensilage) - Improvement of infrastructure in farm - Have an impact on animal health and welfare (improving the boxes, crib to feed, water supply systems, ventilation systems, expanding the space for lighting and natural ventilation), - Systems for collection and disposal of manure and fertilizer
78
Support Description distribution machinery for liquid and solid. c) Support to dairy cows, Beneficiaries under this measure will be all farmers who breed 5 or since 2011 more dairy cows, up to 30 dairy cows, in all stages of production. d) Support to quality of Beneficiaries should hold contracts with dairy where they deliver milk; milk, since 2011 hold 15 or more heads of dairy cows continuously and proof of possession of at least 0.5 hectares of arable land (land that are acceptable and meadows sown) for a head. Source: Kosovo administration Ministry of Agriculture and Project staff
79
Appendix 11. Profile of team members
Prof. Brian Perry, a UK national resident in Kenya, is a veterinary surgeon by profession, and an international development scientist with over 40 years of experience. His expertise lies in four main areas. These are a) the epidemiology, dynamics and economic impact of livestock diseases in Africa, Asia and Latin America; b) the roles of livestock in processes of sustainable and inclusive economic growth in developing countries; c) leading independent international evaluations of public funding investments in agricultural development; and d) the planning and facilitation of research, development and poverty reduction agendas and programmes. He holds professorships at the universities of Edinburgh (honorary professor), Oxford (visiting professor) and Pretoria (honorary professor).
Enrique Lora, national of Mexico, is an Evaluation Officer in FAO Office of Evaluation (OED) with experience in evaluation of agricultural and rural sector programmes and projects and analysis of public policies and institutional development in Latin America. He is an Economist and has a Master’s Degree in Public Policy.
80