Independent Evaluation of Project Development Assistance ...
93
December 2011 Final Evaluation Report Independent Evaluation of Project Development Assistance to Farmers in Remote Areas of Kosovo and Montenegro - GCP/RER/019/LUX Office of Evaluation Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Transcript of Independent Evaluation of Project Development Assistance ...
December 2011
Final Evaluation Report
Independent Evaluation of Project Development Assistance to Farmers in Remote Areas of Kosovo and Montenegro - GCP/RER/019/LUX
Office of Evaluation
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations
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.
iii
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.
iv
Composition of the Evaluation Team
Brian Perry (Team Leader; United Kingdom, resident in Kenya)
Enrique Lora (Team member; Mexico, FAO Office of Evaluation)
v
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
vi
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
vii
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)
viii
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.
ix
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
x
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
xi
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
xii
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.
xiii
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.
1
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
2
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
3
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.
4
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.
5
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.
6
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.
7
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
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.
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
8
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.
9
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.
10
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.
11
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.
12
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.
13
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
14
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.
15
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.
16
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
17
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).
18
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
19
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.
20
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;
21
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
22
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
23
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.
24
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)
25
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
1st Phase
I. Formulation of project document End of 2005
II. Inception phase:
1. Groups of farmers elaborated in a participatory way
4th
quarter of 2006 and 1st
quarter of 2007
III. Operation first phase
2. Farmer association provide services to farmers in a
sustainable way
From 1st quarter of 2007 to
4th
quarter of 2008
3. For selected subsectors production technology and
product quality and marketing is improved
From 2nd
to 3rd
quarter of
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
2nd
phase
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
activities
From 3rd
quarter of 2009 to
4th
quarter of 2011
4. Regional Farmers Union formed and registered From 1st quarter of 2010 to
4th
quarter of 2011
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
groups
From 1st quarter of 2010 to
4th
quarter of 2010
8. New group expansion activities From 1st quarter of 2011 to
4th
quarter of 2011 9. Farmer Union registration
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.
26
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
Budget line
Total
Budget
(A)
% Expenses
(B) %
Balance
(A-B)
% of
expenditure
(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%
27
Budget line
Total
Budget
(A)
% Expenses
(B) %
Balance
(A-B)
% of
expenditure
(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
Parent) 795,201 15.5% 767,741 15.5% 27,460 96.5%
6150 Technical Support Services (5027 - Expense
Parent) 61,700 1.2% 0 0.0% 61,700 0.0%
6300 General Operating Expenses (5028 - Expense
Parent) 649,378 12.6% 671,118 13.6% <21,740> 103.3%
6130 Support Costs (5029 - Expense Parent) 591,300 11.5% 556,790 11.3% 34,510 94.2%
6400 General Overhead Expenses (5040 - Expense
Parent) 22 0.0% 22 0.0% 0 100.0%
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
28
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”.
29
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).
30
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
31
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.
32
• 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.
33
• 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.
34
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.
35
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
36
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.
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
38
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
39
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
40
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.
41
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.
42
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.
43
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).
44
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
Annex 1 Project’s Logical Framework
Phase 1:
Narrative Summary Key Performance
Indicators
Sources of Verification Assumptions and Risks
Overall objective:
The livelihood of the poorer and more isolated rural
communities in the project area is improved.
Improved farm profitability
Decreased vulnerability
Baseline survey
Mid-term and final
evaluation of the project
Media
General statistics
General political and economic
situation does not deteriorate
Other initiatives cooperate, aiming at
the region’s economic recovery
Specific objectives: 1. The profitability of livestock production is improved
through increased productivity, diversified and better
products and marketing.
2. Project experience will be made available to policy
makers to further develop participatory rural
development strategies.
Quantities of livestock
products marketed through
formal channels
Profitability of livestock
production
Government and
Municipalities are informed
about project experience
Accounts of local traders
and processing industry
Farm accounting data
Project documents and
reports; joint discussion
rounds and field visits
Government and municipalities
support project implementation
Terms of trade between agricultural
and non-agricultural sector not
changed fundamentally
Purchasing power of consumers does
not deteriorate
Policy makers maintain interest in the
sector and in rural development of
remote areas
46
Narrative Summary Key Performance
Indicators
Sources of Verification Assumptions and Risks
Output/Results
1. Groups of farmers elaborated development plans in
a participatory way.
2. Farmers’ associations provide services to farmers
in a sustainable way.
3. For selected sub-sectors, profitability, production
technologies, product quality and marketing is
improved.
4. Farmers are trained.
5. Experience from the project is recorded, analysed
and disseminated.
A minimum of 15
development plans are
adopted by farmers’ groups
A minimum of 10 farmers’
groups are officially
registered and operational
Improved production systems
show better economic
performance than traditional
systems
More then 1 000 farmers
participated in 50 different
training activities
10 technical
publications
produced and
disseminated
Project records
Court registers
Yearly accounts of
associations/ cooperatives
Farm records, including
farm accounting data
Participants lists of training
courses
Publications
Climatic conditions remain in the
normal range
Willingness of extension service to
cooperate
Willingness of farmers to form
cooperatives and/or associations
47
Activities Inputs Timing Assumptions
1.1 Re-assessment of project areas: institutions, farmers
initiatives, main problems
TL, Loc.LTE Month 1-2
1.2 Implement information campaign about the
objectives and possibilities of the project
TL, Loc.LTE, facilitators Month 2-3 Combined with training (see Activity 4.1
and 4.2)
1.3 Identify leading farmers and groups of farmers
interested in in-depth agricultural and rural
development projects
Loc.LTE, TL Month 3-5
1.4 Participatory in-depth planning of agricultural and
rural development projects
Loc.LTE, TL, facilitators Month 4-6
2.1 Select viable farmers initiatives for further support
and demonstration projects
TL, Loc.LTE Month 6-7
2.2 Support the elaboration of viable business plans for
farmers’ associations and cooperatives
TL, Loc.LTE, Economist Month 5 to end
2.3 Support the creation of farmers’ associations and
cooperatives
Loc.LTE, Group formation
specialist, legal adviser
Month 5 to end
2.4 Support the functioning and development of
farmers’ associations and cooperatives
Loc.LTE, Group formation
specialist, bookkeeper
Month 5 to end
3.1 Assessment of existing technologies and products
(physical and economical)
Loc.LTE, Loc.STE. Int.STE Month 3-8
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
products, together with farmers’ groups
TL, Loc.LTE, Loc.STE. Int.STE Month 5-9
3.5 If necessary, adapt and validate new technologies in
cooperation with specialized local or regional institutes
Loc.LTE, Loc.STE. Int.STE,
Contracts with research institutes
Month 6-21
3.6 Demonstrate improved technologies, products and
marketing in selected groups
Loc.LTE, Loc.STE; Equipm.,
fund for running costs
Month 5-33
3.7 Support the implementation of improved
technologies, products and marketing
Loc.LTE, Loc.STE. Int.STE Month 5-33
3.8. Monitoring of the performance of improved
technologies and products
Loc.LTE Month 5-35
3.9. Participatory evaluation of the introduced
technologies and products
TL, Loc.LTE, Loc.STE, Int. STE Month 11/12, 23/24, 35/36
48
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
audience
Loc.STE, Loc.LTE, Facilitators,
rooms, audio-visual equipment
Month 3-5
4.3 Identify specific training needs according to
development plans and proposed technologies
TL, Loc.LTE Month 4-8 Based on activity 1.3 and 3.4
4.4 Prepare training programme and elaborate
training material
TL, Loc.LTE, Loc.STE Month 3-6 and 13-14, 25-26
4.5 Implement specific training courses Loc.LTE, Loc.STE, Int.STE,
Facilitators, rooms, audio-visual
equipment
Month 5-30
4.6 Follow-up of effectiveness of training TL, Loc.LTE Month 6-33
5.1 Monitoring of the performance
of improved technologies and products
Loc.LTE Month 5-35
5.2 Participatory evaluation of the introduced
technologies and products
TL, Loc.LTE, Loc.STE, Int. STE Month 11-12, 23-24, 35-36
5.3 Disseminate technical information and
experiences to other interested farmers’ groups
Loc.LTE, Loc.STE Month 13-36
5.4 Present to and discuss lessons learned with policy
makers at Municipal and Ministry level
TL, Loc.LTE, Loc.STE, Int. STE Periodically during entire
project duration
49
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
more isolated rural communities in Kosovo and
Montenegro in order to increase household incomes,
improve livelihoods and raise living conditions.
Improved farm profitability
Decreased vulnerability
Improved Rural Socio-
Economic Conditions and
Farmer Empowerment
Comparative Analysis
Studies
Final evaluation of the
project
Media reports & opinions
Ministry, general and local
statistics
Government agricultural and rural
development policies remain constant
and supportive
Other initiatives commonly aligned
and aimed at the region’s rural
advancement
Outcomes
Kosovo Montenegro Project Extension
Outcome 1 Highly Functional and Sustainable Farmer
Groups Associations and Cooperatives providing Services
and Benefits to Members and Wider Rural Communities
Outcome 2 Regional Livestock Selling Centre combined
with Permanent Regional Agricultural Showground and
serving All Rural Communities
Outcome 3 Registered Farmers Unions expanding and
developing Representation for Farmers and the wider Rural
Communities
Outcomes
Kosovo and Montenegro Expanded Regions
Number, activities and
outputs of farmer groups and
associations
Cooperatives’ turnover
figures: Wool; Seed;
Machinery; Merchandise
Livestock market throughput,
animal description and prices
Shows organized and
attended; range and number
of exhibits and public
attendance
Membership; Number of
issues raised, pursued and
successfully resolved by
Farmers Unions.
Project activities
Group and Association
minutes, reports &
financial statements
Cooperative reports and
financial statements;
project reports
Livestock market reports
and those of advisory
panel, FU and project
committees for agricultural
shows, project and media
reports and attendance
records
Farmers Union, project and
media reports; membership
roll and minutes of
meetings
Group leaders remain dynamic and
committed to cooperative ideals
Ministries and trade departments
supportive and with no export/import
barriers insurmountable
Municipal Authorities remain
committed; markets sustainable thro
market fee receipts; FU and YFC
remain active
Ministry, Municipal and FU support
remains strong and exhibitors remain
interested
Ministries and policy makers maintain
steadfast interest in rural development
Ministries and policy makers maintain
interest in rural development in
remote areas
50
Outcome 1 Key Farmers Identified Trained and Motivated
for Self-Development
Outcome 2 Farmer Groups, Associations and
Cooperatives Functional and Working in Partnership with
Project Specialist Personnel
Outcome 3 Farmer Groups, Associations and Cooperatives
Consolidated Sustainable and Self-Directed
Output 4 Project Experience Results and
Recommendations widely shared
successfully launched in
the expanded regions
Number of farmer
groups formed, activities
and outputs achieved
Groups registered;
inventories expanded;
business transacted
Project methods,
experience and results
recorded & disseminated
Project, consultant and
media reports
Group data. Project,
consultant and group
reports
Project, consultant and
group reports
List of publications,
presentations and articles
made and distributed
Major players remain committed and
all project posts are filled
Project work plan smoothly
implemented and no administrative
obstacles encountered with
registration
Terms of trade remain competitive
and markets (local and export) stay
stable
Budgetary allocations are not a
constraint (in say video production)
51
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
national and regional levels
AGP
A02 Risks from outbreaks of transboundary plant pests and diseases are sustainably reduced at
national, regional and global levels
AGP
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
for food and agriculture (PGRFA) including seed systems at the national and regional levels
AGP
B Increased sustainable livestock production AG
B01 The livestock sector effectively and efficiently contributes to food security, poverty alleviation
and economic development
AGA
B02 Reduced animal disease and associated human health risks AGA
B03 Better management of natural resources, including animal genetic resources, in livestock
production
AGA
B04 Policy and practice for guiding the livestock sector are based on timely and reliable
information
AGA
C Sustainable management and use of fisheries and aquaculture resources FI
C01 Members and other stakeholders have improved formulation of policies and standards that
facilitate the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) and
other international instruments, as well as response to emerging issues
FI
C02 Governance of fisheries and aquaculture has improved through the establishment or
strengthening of national and regional institutions, including RFBs
FIE
C03 More effective management of marine and inland capture fisheries by FAO Members and
other stakeholders has contributed to the improved state of fisheries resources, ecosystems and
their sustainable use
FIM
C04 Members and other stakeholders have benefited from increased production of fish and fish
products from sustainable expansion and intensification of aquaculture
FIM
C05 Operation of fisheries, including the use of vessels and fishing gear, is made safer, more
technically and socio-economically efficient, environmentally-friendly and compliant with
rules at all levels
FII
C06 Members and other stakeholders have achieved more responsible post-harvest utilization and
trade of fisheries and aquaculture products, including more predictable and harmonized
market access requirements
FII
52
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
quality that serve as the reference for international harmonization
AGN
D02 Institutional, policy and legal frameworks for food safety/quality management that support an
integrated food chain approach
AGN
D03 National/regional authorities are effectively designing and implementing programmes of food
safety and quality management and control, according to international norms
AGN
D04 Countries establish effective programmes to promote improved adherence of food
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
AGN
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
and debate
FOE
E03 Institutions governing forests are strengthened and decision-making improved, including
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
FOE
E04 Sustainable management of forests and trees is more broadly adopted, leading to reductions in
deforestation and forest degradation and increased contributions of forests and trees to
improve livelihoods and to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation
FOM
E05 Social and economic values and livelihood benefits of forests and trees are enhanced, and
markets for forest products and services contribute to making forestry a more economically-
viable land-use option
FOE
E06 Environmental values of forests, trees outside forests and forestry are better realized;
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
FOM
F Sustainable management of land, water and genetic resources and improved responses
to global environmental challenges affecting food and agriculture
NR
F01 Countries promoting and developing sustainable land management NRL
F02 Countries address water scarcity in agriculture and strengthen their capacities to improve
water productivity of agricultural systems at national and river-basin levels including
transboundary water systems
NRL
F03 Policies and programmes are strengthened at national, regional and international levels to
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
NRD
F04 An international framework is developed and countries' capacities are reinforced for
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
NRC
F05 Countries have strengthened capacities to address emerging environmental challenges, such as
climate change and bioenergy
NRC
F06 Improved access to and sharing of knowledge for natural resource management OEK
53
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
agricultural and rural development policies, programmes and partnerships
ESW
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
agricultural markets, trade policies and trade rules to identify trade opportunities and to
formulate appropriate and effective pro-poor trade policies and strategies
EST
H Improved food security and better nutrition ES
H01 Countries and other stakeholders have strengthened capacity to formulate and implement
coherent policies and programmes that address the root causes of hunger, food insecurity and
malnutrition
ESA
H02 Member countries and other stakeholders strengthen food security governance through the
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
ESA
H03 Strengthened capacity of member countries and other stakeholders to address specific
nutrition concerns in food and agriculture
AGN
H04 Strengthened capacity of member countries and other stakeholders to generate, manage,
analyse and access data and statistics for improved food security and better nutrition
ESS
H05 Member countries and other stakeholders have better access to FAO analysis and information
products and services on food security, agriculture and nutrition, and strengthened own
capacity to exchange knowledge
ESA
I Improved preparedness for, and effective response to, food and agricultural threats and
emergencies
TC
I01 Countries' vulnerability to crisis, threats and emergencies is reduced through better
preparedness and integration of risk prevention and mitigation into policies, programmes and
interventions
TCE
I02 Countries and partners respond more effectively to crises and emergencies with food and
agriculture-related interventions
TCE
I03 Countries and partners have improved transition and linkages between emergency,
rehabilitation and development
TCE
K Gender equity in access to resources, goods, services and decision-making in the rural
areas
ES
K01 Rural gender equality is incorporated into UN policies and joint programmes for food
security, agriculture and rural development
ESW
K02 Governments develop enhanced capacities to incorporate gender and social equality issues in
agriculture, food security and rural development programmes, projects and policies using sex-
disaggregated statistics, other relevant information and resources
ESW
K03 Governments are formulating gender-sensitive, inclusive and participatory policies in
agriculture and rural development
ESW
K04 FAO management and staff have demonstrated commitment and capacity to address gender
dimensions in their work
ESW
54
L Increased and more effective public and private investment in agriculture and rural
development
TC
L01 Greater inclusion of food and sustainable agriculture and rural development investment
strategies and policies into national and regional development plans and frameworks
TCI
L02 Improved public and private sector organisations' capacity to plan, implement and enhance the
sustainability of food and agriculture and rural development investment operations
TCI
L03 Quality assured public/private sector investment programmes, in line with national priorities
and requirements, developed and financed
TCI
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
55
Appendix 2. List of meeting conducted during the evaluation mission
Evaluation Mission Itinerary in Kosovo
Date Location Activity City
26 September Day 1
Office of
Grand Duchy
of
Luxembourg
in Pristina
Arrival in Pristina airport and accommodation in Hotel
“AFA”, Pristina
Meeting with Mr. Pierre Weber, Head of Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg Office in Pristina
Informal meeting with Mr Afrim Sharku, National Team
Leader in Kosovo
Pristina,
Kosovo
27 September Day 2 Ministry of
Agriculture,
Forestry and
Rural
Development
(MAFRD)
Pristina,
Agriculture
Faculty
Field visit in
Shterpce and
Prizren project
region
08:30 Meeting with Mr. Bajram Imeri – Director of the
Department of Animal Production -MAFRD
09:30 Meeting with Mr. Kaplan Halimi - Permanent
Secretary of MAFRD and Kapllan, Halimi
General Secretary of MAFRD
10:30 Meeting with Mr. Xhavit Bytyqi - Professor of
Animal Health and Animal Breeding, Pristina
Agriculture and Veterinary Faculty
11:30 Meeting with Mr. Muhamet Kamberi - Professor
of Animal Food and Animal Feeding, Pristina
Agriculture and Veterinary Faculty
12:30 Meeting with Mr. Xhavit Ramadani - Professor of
Milk Production and Processing, Pristina
Agriculture and Veterinary Faculty
13:30 Lunch break Restoran “Gardena”
16:00 Meeting with Farmers Association and Young
Farmers Club “Gotovusha”, Shterpce
17,00 Meeting Farmers Association and Young Farmers
Club “Novo Selo”, Zhupa, Prizren
19:30 Accommodation in Hotel “Arxhena” – Brod,
Dragash
Pristina,
Kosovo
Sheterpce and
Zhupa,
Kosovo
Arrival to
Brod,
Dragash,
Kosovo
28 September Day 3
Dragash -
Project Office
Municipality
office
Field visit in
Dragash
project region
09:00 Meeting with Farmers Association “Studenec”,
Brod, Gora
10:30 Meeting with project staff in Dragash – Project
Office, Dragash
11:00 Meeting with Mr. Flamur Sulejmani, Agriculture
Directorate in Dragash municipality
12:00 Visit Farmers’ Cooperative wool store, Dragash
13:00 Lunch break in Restorant “Venecia”
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
Brod, Kosovo
Dragash,
kosovo
Opoja,
56
Evaluation Mission Itinerary in Kosovo
Date Location Activity City
18.00 Meeting with Young Farmers Club “Bresana”,
Opoja
19:00 Departure Opoja
20:30 Arrival in Gjakova and accommodation in Hotel
“Pashtriku”
Kosovo
Gjakova,
Kosovo
29 September Day 4 Field visit in
new project
region
Project office
Municipality
office in
Decani
08:30 Departure from Hotel
09:00 Meeting with Farmers Association “Gurrat e
Bardha”, Gjakova
10:00 Farmers Association “Kullat e Drenocit”, Decani
11:00 Meeting with Young Farmers Club “KRA”,
Decani
12:00 Meeting with Mr. Nasim Haradinaj – Director of
Agriculture Directorate in Decani Municipality
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
Decani,
Kosovo
Peja, Kosovo
30 September Day 5 Field visit in
new project
region
08:30 Departure from Hotel
09:00 Meeting with Young Farmers Club “Nabergjani”,
Peja
10:00 Meeting Farmers Association “Gurra e-N”, Peja
11:00 Meeting with Wool Cooperative,
12:30 Meeting with Young Farmers Club “Studenica”,
Istog
13:30 Meeting with Farmers Association “Koreniku”,
Istog
18:00 Accommodation Hotel AFA
Peja, Kosovo
Istog, Kosovo
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
Programme Officer – FAO SEU
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
Pristina,
Kosovo
4 October Day 9 Pristina Meeting with Heini Conrad, Project Coordinator from
Intercooperation (Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation)
Meeting with Mr. Pierre Weber, Head of Grand Duchy
Hotel
accommodatio
n Pristina
57
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
10
Montenegro Depart for Montenegro
Meeting with Farmer Group Fusha e Madhein
Meeting with Farmer Group Gurra N
Arrival Berane, Montenegro
Peja, Kosovo
Berane
Montenegro
Evaluation Mission Itinerary in Montenegro
Date Location Activity City/Country
6 October Day
11
Berane 09.00 Meeting with project team in Berane, Montenegro:
Saso Martinov, Cross Border Liaison
Tatjana Dedic, National team leader in Montenegro
James Airey, Project manager
13:00 Meeting with Zora Dairy Manager
Berane,
Montenegro
Podgorica,
Montenegro
7 October Day
12
Podgorica
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
of the Biotechnical Faculty, Department of field crops and
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
Podgorica,
Montenegro
Berane,
Montenegro
8 October Day
13
Berane
Project
Office
11:00h: Visit Farmers’ Cooperative wool and seed store,
Berane
12:00 Lunch break
14:00h: Visit Farmers Association and Young Farmers Club,
Bor, Berane
16:00h: Visit Farmers Cheese Unit, Korita, Bijelo Polje
17.00h Departure Korita
18:30h: Arrival Berane
Berane,
Montenegro
Bor,
Montenegro
Bijelo Polje,
Montenegro
58
Evaluation Mission Itinerary in Montenegro
Date Location Activity City/Country
9 October Day
14
Pljevlja 07:30h: Departure Berane
10.00h Arrival Pljevlja region
10:00h: Meeting with farmers association. Kosanica
11:00h: Meeting with farmers association, Krusevo
12:30h: Meeting with local community representatives,
Pljevlja
13:30h: Lunch break
15:30h: Meeting with farmers association, Piperi
18:00h: Meeting with farmers association Ljieska
19.00: Arrival in Plevlja
Kosanica
Krusevo
Piperi
Ljieska
Plevlja,
Montenegro
10
October
Day
15
Plevlja
Berane
09:00h: Departure Plevlja
11:30h:Meeting with farmers association, Tomasevo
13:30 Arrival in Berane, field visit discussion
Tomasevo
Berane
11
October
Day
16
Berane Travel to Pristina
Debriefing session with Project staff in Montenegro
Pristina,
Kosovo
12
October
Day
17
Pristina Debriefing session with:
James Airey, Project Manager
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
Pristina,
Kosovo
Evaluation Mission Itinerary in Budapest
Date Location Activity City/Country
13
October
Day
18
Pristina Travel to Budapest
Budapest,
Hungary
14
October
Day
19
Debriefing session with:
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
59
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
60
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
Meetings Participants Key
farmers58
Meetings Participants
Key
farmers Meetings Participants
Key
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.
61
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)
Topics
Kosovo Montenegro Total
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,
Milk production and processing, Milk quality
control, plant protection, farm management.
9 318 4 322 13 640
Ploughing demonstration 2 130 15 81 17 211
Training for FYC and Presentation of
Thessalonica American Farm School 1 50 1 50
Animal health, subsidies and grants provided
by government 1 56 1 56
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 technicians
1 4 1 2 2 6
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”.
62
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.
63
Cultivated land:
Land cultivated with cereals for silage production (Ha)
Year Kosovo Montenegro
63
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
groups and
cooperatives
Number of
farmers
Machinery rings 12 86
Animal breeding 4 27
Milk collection and processing 3 22
Cheese production and agro-
tourism
1 6
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.
64
Farmer groups and cooperatives in Montenegro
Main activity
Number of
groups/
cooperatives
Number of
farmers
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:
Year
Cheese Curd Net profits
of Cheese
cooperative
1 (in €)
Net profits
of Cheese
cooperative
2 (in €)
Production
(kg)
Production
(kg)
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.
65
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.
66
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
67
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
68
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?
69
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?
70
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
LEVEL
WOOL PRODUCTION,
PROCESSING &
MARKETING
MILK PRODUCTION,
PROCESSING AND
MARKETING
LAMB PRODUCTION,
PROCESSING AND
MARKETING
CATTLE
MARKETING
MONITORING
AND
EVALUATION
Implications for
national strategy and
policy drafted with
key participation
Major input, service and production constraints identified and communicated Measures of
changes in
production and
marketing
synthesised and
communicated
Technological responses to major constraints identified and adopted on a pilot basis
Key sustainable markets identified, communicated and exploited
Producer and value chain-associated groups developed and piloted; key drivers of sustainability identified and
communicated
Plan developed for scaling up key production, processing and marketing lessons (processes, technologies,
management, etc.
71
Appendix 7. Consultants employed by the project
Type of
employment Position
Kosovo and
Montenegro Kosovo Montenegro
Grand
Total
Full time
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 –
National Professional Officer
1
1
Administrative Assistant 1
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
Part time
National Local Farmer
Coordinator
1 1
Office Grounds Assistant 1
1
Part time Total 2 2
WAE
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
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
presenter
Animal feeding
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
72
Type of
employment Position
Kosovo and
Montenegro Kosovo Montenegro
Grand
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
73
Appendix 8. Budget and expenditures
Budget of DAFKM, both phases (in USD)
Budget line 1st phase
budget (1)
First phase
budget %
2nd phase
budget
Second
phase
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
Parent) 410,241 15.7% 405,910 16.0%
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
Parent) 349,099 13.4% 344,739 13.6%
6400 General Overhead Expenses (5040 - Expense
Parent) 22 0.0% 0 0.0%
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)
74
Budget revision during both phases of DAFKM
Budget line
Budget Revision A Budget Revision B Budget Revision F
Original
Budget
First
budget
revision
June
2009
Increase /
Decrease
Variation
%
Original
Budget
Second
Budget
revision
Sep 2009
Increase /
Decrease
Variation
%
Original
Budget
New
Budget
Increase /
Decrease
Variation
%
5300 Salaries Professional (5011 -
Expense Parent) 220,500 0 -220,500 -100.0 0 0 0 0 87,463 87,463
5500 Salaries General Service (5012 - Expense Parent)
105,400 131,105 25,705 24.4 131,105 235,385 104,280 79.5 235,385 253,079 17,694 7.5
5570 Consultants (5013 - Expense
Parent) 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
5650 Contracts (5014 - Expense Parent)
85,000 2,500 -82,500 -97.1 2,500 21,100 18,600 744.0 21,100 1,236 -19,864 -94.1
5660 Locally Contracted Labour
(5020 - Expense Parent) 43,000 106,557 63,557 147.8 106,557 140,327 33,770 31.7 140,327 194,939 54,613 38.9
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 Parent)
125,000 235,357 110,357 88.3 235,357 338,717 103,360 43.9 338,717 428,170 89,453 26.4
6000 Expendable Procurement (5024 -
Expense Parent) 53,000 41,073 -11,927 -22.5 41,073 89,973 48,900 119.1 89,973 83,085 -6,887 -7.7
6100 Non Expendable Procurement (5025 - Expense Parent)
597,000 410,241 -186,759 -31.3 410,241 816,151 405,910 98.9 816,151 795,201 -20,950 -2.6
6110 Hospitality (5026 - Expense
Parent) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6130 Support Costs (5029 - Expense Parent)
296,414 300,049 3,635 1.2 300,048 591,300 291,252 97.1 591,300 591,300 0 0.0
6150 Technical Support Services
(5027 - Expense Parent) 60,500 27,850 -32,650 -54.0 27,850 89,550 61,700 221.5 89,550 61,700 -27,850 -31.1
6300 General Operating Expenses (5028 - Expense Parent)
122,500 349,099 226,599 185.0 349,099 693,838 344,739 98.8 693,839 649,378 -44,462 -6.4
6400 General Overhead Expenses
(5040 - Expense Parent) 0 22 22 22 22 0 22 22 0
6500 Chargeback (5050 - Expense Parent)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6510 Chargeout (5060 - Expense
Parent) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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
75
Expenditures of DAFKM
Budget line
Total
Budget
(A)
% Expenses
(B) %
Balance
(A-B)
% of
expenditure
(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
Parent) 795,201 15.5% 767,741 15.5% 27,460 96.5%
6150 Technical Support Services (5027 - Expense Parent) 61,700 1.2% 0 0.0% 61,700 0.0%
6300 General Operating Expenses (5028 - Expense
Parent) 649,378 12.6% 671,118 13.6% <21,740> 103.3%
6130 Support Costs (5029 - Expense Parent) 591,300 11.5% 556,790 11.3% 34,510 94.2%
6400 General Overhead Expenses (5040 - Expense
Parent) 22 0.0% 22 0.0% 0 100.0%
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)
76
Appendix 9. Geographical coverage of the project
Phase 1
Phase 2
Kosovo: geographic coverage by municipality
Phase 1
Phase 2
Montenegro: Project geographic coverage by municipality
77
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
livestock production
For farmers keeping the next type of livestock for a minimum of six
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
production
Premium = 5.5 cents (€) per litre delivered to registered dairy and cheese
plants. In order to become eligible the minimum deliver should be 200
litres per month
c) Support to milk
collection network
Direct subsidy to operating costs of collection centres buying milk from
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
production (over land
cultivated)
130€ per hectare of crops cultivated for commercial purposes or feed
production (cereals, potatoes, forage plants for silage production, annual
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
in agricultural equipment
and investment and
livestock farms
30% of the investment value and up to 40% of the investment value in
less favoured areas or for young farmers. If both of the last conditions
(less favoured areas + young farmers) the support could raise up to 50%
of the investment.
Source of resources: World Bank MIDAS project.
f) Support to sustainable
use of mountain pastures
The support is given to the agricultural holdings practicing
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
breeding improvement
Supply of semen for AI is supported in entirety, and licensed bulls up to
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
78
Subsidy Amount of subsidy in € Remarks
Subsidy to increase
number of flocks
7 €/per head over 40 heads of and up
to 100 heads in 2006
8 €/per head over 30 heads of and up
to 200 heads in 2007
Administered by the Ministry of
Farmers in Montenegro’s part of
the project (Bijelo Polje) were
beneficiaries of this subsidy.
Subsidy over milk
production price
Price with subsidy = 37 € cents/litre
to 40 € cents/litre
Price without subsidy= 31€
cents/litre
Approx premium = 7 to 9
cents/litre
Mentioned by the farmers
association in Berane region
Subsidy over land
cultivated
130 €/ha before 2008
150 €/Ha after 2008
In Plelvja Muncipality ,
governmental officials
acknowledged the existence of
this subsidy
Source: field visits Montenegro
Governmental subsidies in Kosovo
Support Description
a) Direct payment
(Since 2010)
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
(since 2010)
50% of the investment value
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
79
Support Description
distribution machinery for liquid and solid.
c) Support to dairy cows,
since 2011
Beneficiaries under this measure will be all farmers who breed 5 or
more dairy cows, up to 30 dairy cows, in all stages of production.
d) Support to quality of
milk, since 2011
Beneficiaries should hold contracts with dairy where they deliver milk;
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
80
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.
