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

Development Associates, Inc.effort. However, that company does not seem to be enjoying great success and as a result thetripartite relationship was never really initiated (see separate report on PROGRES in Exhibit 21).KBS’s role was also reduced when their mandate shifted away from agribusiness and moretoward urban business interests. There does not seem to be any efforts underway to revive thiscollaborative situation involving KBS and PROGRES. However, SEEDS continues to maintaina relationship with PROGRES, mainly consisting of discussions and exchanges of information.The project feels that there is still a possibility that PROGRES will someday be able to increasethe produce it buys from the orchards of participating farmers.IMPACT1. Is the assistance provided achieving or helping to achieve the desired results as set outin USAID’s Strategy for Kosovo for 2001-2003, SO 1.3 and IR 1.3.5, includingobjectives and benchmarks set forth in task orders and the cooperative agreement?The project does not have a baseline for the participating farmers, given the difficulty ofobtaining data from farmers about their historical yields. The project is anticipating using thedata from the 2003 demonstration trials as a baseline for the anticipated 2004 results. Theproject is reporting that the targets for the Objective of Sustainable Adoption of ImprovedTechnologies are being met (see Table 1 below and also the Indicator Matrix in Exhibit 22).These data are from the PROGRES Processing Company and are based on the amount ofproduce purchased the year before the project began. The increases reflect what was purchasedlast year, though not necessarily from participating farmers in the project. Since PROGRES isoperating at much less than full capacity, there will probably not be great increases in producepurchased in the coming year.The impact will be measured for one year only – the change in yields and the quantities sold tothe processor – between the years 2003 and 2004. Since the project was unable to obtainhistorical baseline data, measurements for only a two-year period - 2003-04, will havequestionable statistical validity. A continuing deterioration of the situation at PROGRES mayalso preclude the availability of meaningful data on procurement of fruit products from farmersin general and project participating farmers in particular. However, the project will be able tomeasure the quantities of products marketed by participating farmers at other market locations inthe region. The best measure of impact may be the on-farm trials and the improvements in yieldsover the two-year period of the project.For IR 1, the fact that the processing plant – PROGRES – was operating at a very low capacityand that the KBS project was no longer working with them precluded achieving much success increating linkages in the production-processing-marketing chain. Nevertheless, the project didmake some inroads with participating farmers in marketing, as noted elsewhere in this report.For IR 2, there was a Grower Technology Adoption Evaluation conducted recently covering theresults of the 2003 technology transfer activities. This survey indicated high rates of adoptionamong participating farmers for many of the technologies.Evaluation of the USAID/Kosovo SME 119 May 2004and Agriculture/Agribusiness ProgramsVolume I