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

Development Associates, Inc.SUSTAINABILITY1. Are institutional and legislative reforms being carried out to support agricultural andagribusiness development?There are several reform issues that pervade most aspects of the agriculture sector, includingimport and export imbalances and the privatization of land and businesses. Since these are sopervasive, they are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this evaluation.The current work with the regional agriculture staff may encourage future collaboration and openavenues for the dissemination of technical information. These relationships from the WorkingGroup could provide a certain sense of sustainability to project activities if they are able tocontinue. The project should seek to solidify these relationships in the final months of activity.2. Is the assistance effective in building local capacity to carry on agricultural and SMEdevelopment efforts after USAID funded technical assistance is ended?As pointed out in several of the preceding sections, there are signs that local capacity is beingdeveloped, or at least inroads are being made, through the six participating associations, theworking group, and the six municipal “forums”. The project doesn’t have enough time to domuch solidifying, but the groundwork seems to have been prepared for future progress.The project worked with three Farmer Associations through the process for registration asNGO’s. This will allow them to act with more authority on behalf of participating farmers andpossibly enter into business arrangements.LESSONS LEARNED (COMBINING IVP AND SEEDS)1. What are the technical lessons?The timeframe of the projects was certainly too short. Fortunately, the projects were quitefocused, but this is also a limitation on how much can be learned from the technology transferactivities. Obviously, in the case of SEEDS, a fruit tree project needs longer than 20 months toachieve any meaningful objectives. Although the participating farmers exhibited a high learningcurve in the trainings, there is still a general reluctance among some farmers to accept newtechnologies. Thus, more time should have been provided for these projects.Any agricultural technology transfer program should have broader objectives to capture spin-offsfrom the improved technologies. The projects could have benefited from additional funds toengage participating farmers in more demonstration activities, such as on-farm or in-villagestorage techniques, small scale processing equipment, and handling and grading techniques.These areas were not a major focus of the projects, and would have been useful additions tobegin moving participating farmers further up the technological ladder.A stronger component within the projects focusing on seed/seedling multiplication should havebeen addressed in the projects. The development of increased domestic sources ofseed/seedlings would benefit farmers by providing a ready supply at lower prices. This wouldEvaluation of the USAID/Kosovo SME 122 May 2004and Agriculture/Agribusiness ProgramsVolume I