Evaluation of the USAID-Kosovo SME and Agriculture - Economic ...

Development Associates, Inc.submitted by IVP to SC, not included in the evaluation documents). The focus of thiscollaboration was to be the PROGRES Processing Plant Company in Prizren municipality (seethe report describing PROGRES in Exhibit 21). PROGRES was increasingly unable to absorbthe produce from the participating farmers. As a result of the company’s decreasing activity,KBS’s role in supporting PROGRES diminished. This led to less contact and collaborationbetween IVP and KBS in their planned efforts to provide a market (PROGRES) for theparticipating farmer output under the IVP project. The other problem with the development ofthis relationship between the KBS and the IVP projects was that the KBS targets changed duringthe period of time when the SFS overall umbrella program, and IVP project activities was beinginitiated. As a result, KBS no longer had the vegetable and fruit sub-sectors among their targetproducts by the time the IVP project, under the SFS program began implementation.Nevertheless, the collaboration between PROGRES and KBS included several consultanciesearly on in the KBS project, consisting of a microbiologist, a marketing person, and a financeconsultant. Had the KBS work with agribusinesses in general and specifically with PROGREScontinued, a more substantive product marketing relationship among these projects would havedeveloped.IVP also worked with KBS to establish a collaborative relationship with the Pestova PotatoProcessing Company. The addition of a potato production component to the IVP project wasaimed at improving production practices in an effort to increase potato yields and assist farmersin seeking broader markets for their produce. This collaboration with Pestova has never reallytaken off. The Pestova Company produces potatoes on 60 hectares of their own land and hasbecome the primary supplier of its own potatoes for its processing facility. As a result of havingthis ready supply, Pestova was apparently not ready to pay a reasonable price (at least accordingto the farmers) for raw potatoes from other suppliers. IVP has felt that the Pestova Company hasnever undertaken an analysis of their potato production costs, making it difficult for them toestablish the real price of potatoes going into their processing factory. They are valuing theirown product as a low cost input and not considering the comparative cost of buying from otherproducers. Thus, when they do have to purchase potatoes from outside sources, they only seemto be willing to do so at a price lower than the expectations of the farmers collaborating in theIVP project. As a result, the anticipated collaborative relationship has not developed. 40Seven expatriate consultants have worked with the project for trainings and technology transfer.Participating farmers, local extension staff and project staff benefited from these trainings. Thesubject areas for these consultancies included: orchard management, fertilizer and watermanagement, harvest/post-harvest handling, marketing, record keeping and business planning,pest management, and extension material development. One of these consultants came throughthe LOL volunteer program. In observing one of these consultants in the field, it appeared thatthe participating farmers were very pleased with the assistance they were receiving.5. Have activities been coordinated effectively between KBS and IVP to take advantage ofeconomic opportunities in farm production and value added processing?As described above, KBS/IVP activity coordination was initiated as the onset of the IVP Project.However, due to external circumstances, this relationship was unable to continue beyond the40(Note: This analysis is based on discussions with IVP staff. The issue was not discussed with the management ofPestova.)Evaluation of the USAID/Kosovo SME 109 May 2004and Agriculture/Agribusiness ProgramsVolume I