horticulture and livestock project (hlp) (tf...

Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund

HORTICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT (HLP) (TF 91885)

Proposal to the ARTF Management Committee For Approval of US$ 14.3 Million

MC Meeting Date: May 11, 2010

Applicant: Islamic Republic of AfghanistanBrief Description: The project seeks to develop a model for future development of

horticulture and livestock sub-sectors in Afghanistan and supports the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL) in building capacity for project implementation, and monitoring and evaluation.

Project Development Objective:

To assist producer households in adopting improved practices so as to increase horticulture and livestock productivity and production in focus areas.

P e r f o r m a n c e Indicators:

The performance indicators are as follows:Horticulture Development

• 15 % increase in productivity in target farmers orchards • At least 50% of target farmers adopt at least two “best

suitable practices” in focus districts • 3000 ha of new orchards established with at least 60 % of

saplings surviving by end of the projectLivestock Development

• 5 % reduction in mortality among large ruminants, and 10% among small ruminants

• At least 60 % of target producer households adopt improved poultry raising practices

• Incremental production of 15 million eggs and 450 tons of meat per year achieved

Implementation and Management Support• Functioning horticulture and livestock extension and other

services in placeSector: Rural DevelopmentLocation: Eleven focus districts: Mir Bachakot (Kabul), Shaikh Ali (Parwan),

Mahmood Raqi (Kapisa), Bazarak/Rokha/Onaba (Panjsher), Farkhar (Takhar), Imaam Sahib (Kundoz), Aybak (Samangan), Khulm (Balkh), Shebergan (Jawzjan), Sozma Qalla (Sari Pul), Pul-e-Kumri (Baghlan)

Total Project Cost: US$54.3 million

1

Amount Requested for ARTF MC Approval:

Approval of US$14.3 million

I m p l e m e n t i n g Agency:

Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock (MAIL)

Implementing Period:May 2006 -December 2011Contact for further information:

Mr. Assad ZamirDirector GeneralProgram Implementation and Coordination (PICU)Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and LivestockKabul, [email protected] +93 (0) 707 11 28 47

Reviewed and Cleared by the Administrator:

Loan Department; Legal Department; Procurement, Financial Management, Country Management and Sector Management Units

2

I. Introduction

1.1 This application seeks the ARTF Management Committee’s (MC) approval for an additional US$14.3 million to fill the current financing gap in the project. Originally it was expected that co-financing of US$10 million would be available for the project from the Japanese Social Development Fund (JSDF). However, because of the low progress during the first two years of project implementation JSDF funding was not requested. Subsequently, JSDF priorities shifted to other sectors and this source of funding is no longer available. An additional funding gap of US$4.3 million arose because of increase in project cost as a result of changes made as part of project restructuring as well as higher than expected increase in costs. The additional ARTF resources would allow further commitments to be made under the project without delay. If this request is approved, the total ARTF co-financing would reach US$34.3 million.

Background

1.2 The Horticulture and Livestock Project (HLP) with an estimated cost of US$50 million over a three-year period was approved by the World Bank Board on May 25, 2006. The IDA Grant (H2260-AF --US$20 million equivalent) became effective on October 16, 2006. On March 18, 2008, the ARTF MC provided a blanket approval for US$20 million for the project with an initial allocation of US$11 million. In December 2009, following approval of a first-order restructuring (including a two-year extension of closing date1) by World Bank Board the MC also approved the restructuring. On February 9, 2010, the MC approved allocation of the remaining US$9 million under the originally approved blanket. Of the ARTF grant of US$20 million, US$11.134 million is already committed (contracts of this amount have been signed) and US$4.8 million have been disbursed. The remaining uncommitted amount is expected to be committed by June 2010. Additional funds would be required to support further commitments (new contracts) expected to be awarded in June 2010 and thereafter.

Overview of Recent Performance

1.3 Overall project implementation performance has improved markedly during 2009. Although there are issues of sustainability of some project interventions2 and there have been delays in forward planning for some of the livestock sub-components3, overall progress has been generally good with the Horticulture and Poultry components showing the highest progress and early positive outcomes. Quality of monitoring and evaluation under the project has improved

3

1 December 31, 2011 is the extended closing date.

2 These relate to the poultry component and the liquid nitrogen plant (LN2).

3 The Veterinary Needs Assessment Study has not yet been started; and the remaining government clinics to be transferred for private operation have not yet been identified.

and the project is now able to report on intermediate outputs and outcomes. Following are some of the highlights.

1.4 During the spring and fall planting seasons in 2009, 1148 ha of new orchards were planted and have had good rates of survival. Over six hundred women farmers participated in this program. An additional 956 ha of new orchards were planted in spring 2010 bringing the total area of new orchards planted to 2104 ha. Farmers contributed 25 percent of the cost, indicating that they value the quality of services the project is providing. In the Mir Bachakot District of Kabul where the project is supporting a grape value chain pilot, farmers achieved higher yields and improved quality of grapes, and were able to reach new markets. The first batch of 7,000 intensive poultry units supported by the project started egg production in August 2009. So far over six million eggs have been produced and marketed. Under the animal health sub-component, out of the total target of 120 government clinics 114 have been transferred to trained veterinarians for private operation. A comprehensive study of the dairy sector was completed including a proposal for a milk plant with a capacity of 50 tons per day. Activities for establishing Farmer/Producer Organizations (including women groups) and supporting their involvement in input supply and marketing are proceeding with good potential for greater farmer involvement in extension services, input supplies and marketing. The project has prepared a Gender Strategy including a strategy for recruitment and retention of female staff although more remains to be done to train and retain female employees. Disbursements from the IDA and ARTF grants have more than doubled during the last one year increasing from US$9 million in December 2008 to US$24.2 million as of May 03, 2010. Finally, the project is now recognized as one of the leading programs in the horticulture and livestock sector in the country and other donors and programs are keen to collaborate.

II. Strategic Context and Rationale

Key Development Issues

2.1 Agriculture is central to Afghanistan’s economy. The sector accounts for about half of the GDP, and provides employment to over 60 percent of the labor force. Over 70 percent of the population lives in rural areas which have the highest incidence of poverty. Development of the agriculture sector is one of the pillars of the Government's strategy for economic growth and poverty reduction4. However, Afghanistan's agriculture has suffered from more than 30 years of conflict and unrest. The main drivers of agricultural growth and rural poverty reduction — roads, irrigation, specific technologies, information, education, input supplies, micro credit schemes

4

4 Increasing productivity of wheat for food security and developing perennial horticulture and livestock for growth and poverty reduction are key elements of the government strategy.

and markets — have all deteriorated due to the social conflict, lack of maintenance for infrastructure, and collapse of technical information and market systems.

2.2 While the development of the global horticultural industry has been exceptional since 1977, unfortunately Afghanistan has not benefited from it. Orchard management systems in Afghanistan are traditional and productivity is low. These systems have not changed since the 1970s or even earlier. However, the climate and soils in Afghanistan are well suited to perennial horticulture and have great potential both for increasing productivity and growth. Intensive orchard systems based on good practices in neighboring countries where agro-climatic and social conditions are similar can increase the yield of fruit and nut trees to up to five times. The livestock sector converts natural vegetation, under grade grain and crop by-products into meat, milk and fibre and constitutes a major source of livelihood. About half of the agriculture GDP comes from livestock.

Government Strategy and Rationale for ARTF Support

2.3 Government strategy. Starting with the Agriculture Master Plan prepared in 2005 the Government strategy for agriculture has evolved in several stages over the last five years (see figure below) culminating in a National Agriculture Development Framework (NADF) prepared by the current leadership of MAIL and endorsed by government and donors.

The NADF consists of the following four inter-related program areas or pillars: (i) Natural Resource Management; (ii) Agriculture Production and Productivity; (iii) Economic Regeneration; and (iv) Program Support and Change Management. Horticulture and livestock development are included under the Agriculture Production and Productivity pillar.

5

2005 – Agriculture Master Plan

2006 Interim ANDS

Jan 2008 – ARDSector Strategy

2007 MAIL Strategy

Mar 2008 ANDS2009

National Agriculture Development Framework

2.4 Rationale for ARTF support. HLP is one of the few major projects implemented by MAIL supporting the horticulture and livestock sectors. In order to improve its performance the project was restructured in 2009 and besides other changes was more closely aligned with the NADF objectives. Project performance has improved visibly since then. Successful completion of the project would lead to tangible outcomes and a model for future development of these important sectors. Currently the project has a financing gap of US$14.3 million which needs to be filled without delay. Since existing ARTF funding would be fully committed by June 2010 further commitments for new contracts for various project components would be possible only after additional ARTF funding is approved. Many procurements are under way with bid opening and award dates in June 2010 and beyond (see procurement plan). ARTF support to fill the financing gap would not only help in meeting the project objectives but also represent a positive signal from the ARTF in support of the NADF and the efforts MAIL is making in the agriculture sector under its new leadership. Also it is noted that the draft ARTF Financing Strategy (endorsed by donors in the London ARTF meeting held on January 29, 2010) also supports continuation of ARTF assistance to HLP. The project is currently financed by IDA and ARTF. Seeking funds from a third source would not only delay the closure of the financing gap (with consequent delays in implementation) but would also unnecessarily complicate project management by MAIL.

III. Project Description

3.1 The original design of HLP was deemed overly ambitious and complex which had resulted in sub-par performance of the executing agency and unsatisfactory execution of the project. As mentioned earlier the project was restructured to improve its performance. The following key changes were made: (i) the project objective was modified to focus more directly on horticulture and livestock productivity; (ii) the approach to horticulture and livestock development was adapted to the local conditions; (iii) the project was focused in eleven districts and its scope and targets were rationalized in line with available capacity; and (iv) the closing date was extended by two years to accommodate the slow start of project activities. The revised outcomes are: (i) increase in the productivity and production of horticulture and poultry, and (ii) reduced mortality in large and small ruminants in the project focus areas. The revised total project cost is US$54.3 million.

Project objective and results framework

3.2 The revised project objective is to assist producer households in adopting improved practices so as to increase horticulture and livestock productivity and production in focus areas. The Results Framework (key outcome indicators) is attached (Annex 1).

Project Components

6

3.3 The project components are:

Horticulture Development

(a) Rehabilitation and expansion of perennial and annual horticulture crop cultivation through: (i) the provision of training and extension support to farmers for the rehabilitation of existing orchards; (ii) the provision of seedlings and other inputs to farmers; (iii) provision of technical advisory services and training in integrated pest management, on-farm water management, farm planning and orchard management; (iv) the provision of in-kind grants to support the establishment of new orchards; and (v) provision of technical advisory services for establishment and training of farmer groups and developing linkages with horticulture input and output markets.

(b) Establishment of the Horticulture Development Council of Afghanistan for: (i) the provision of policy guidance and support to MAIL; and (ii) the carrying out of activities such as training and research to support the development of the horticulture sector.

(c) Strengthening marketing support to farmers through mobilization of farmers groups, establishing linkages with markets and provision of support to the selected value chains.

Livestock Development

(a) Strengthening the capacity of General Department of Livestock Production and Development (GDLPD) to supervise and regulate animal husbandry services, through the provision of technical advisory services and training to staff at district offices, development of livestock extension service packages, acquisition of equipment and software, carrying out of infrastructure rehabilitation and upgrading of offices.

(b) Development of livestock production and marketing initiatives for improving domestic food supplies and reducing imports, including: (i) establishment of a village-based intensive layer poultry units and broiler units for poor rural women through the provision of in-kind grants to beneficiaries, the provision of training and technical advisory services, supply of initial stock, the acquisition of equipment and the carrying out of small works; (ii) carrying out of a comprehensive study of the dairy sector in the country; and (iii) carrying out of a comprehensive study into the value chain for cashmere in the country.

(c) Promoting public-private partnerships for the delivery of veterinary services, including: (i) provision of training and enhancing the capacity of veterinarians; (ii) harmonizing the privatized veterinary field units clinical services system; (iii) establishing sanitary mandates through private-public partnership; and (iv) provision

7

of vaccines, disease surveillance equipment and supplies for conducting sanitary mandates.

Project Management and Implementation

(a) Strengthening MAIL’s administrative capacity including development of its human resource functions and rehabilitation of its offices, through the provision of training, technical assistance, acquisition of equipment, carrying out of small works and provision of operating costs.

(b) Provision of training, technical assistance, goods, equipment and operating costs for the establishment of IMST and for the implementation, monitoring and supervision of the Project.

(c) Mobilization and building of capacity of Producer Groups and supporting their involvement in input supply, output marketing, animal health services, saving boxes, and delivery of extension services.

(d) Building institutional capacity in the Focus Area to improve delivery of horticulture and livestock related services through training of district and provincial level MAIL staff, and establishing linkages with input suppliers, service providers and micro-credit institutions.

IV. Project Cost and Financing Plan

4.1 Total project cost is estimated at US$54.3 million with the following details.

Project Component AmountUS$ Million

(i) Horticulture Development 18.87 (ii) Livestock Development 15.00 (iii) Implementation and Management Support 18.48 Contingencies 2.00 Total 54.30

Financing PlanFinancing PlanSource of Funds US$ Million equivalent

1. IDA Grant H226-AF 20

8

2. ARTF Grant TF91885 203. Estimated Project cost 54.34. Financing gap 14.3

4.2 The additional US$14.3 million requested from ARTF would finance the following: (i) Horticulture Development US$4,890,412; (ii) Livestock Development US$2,773,000; (iii) Farmer Organization Development (FOD) US$1,047,000; (iv) IMST US$3,461,819; (v) Institution and Capacity Building US$1,331,355; (vi) M&E US$12,000; and (vii) contingencies US$811,265.

V. Project Implementation Arrangements

5.1 MAIL has established an Implementation Management Support Team (IMST) overseen by the General Director of the Program Implementation and Coordination Unit (PICU) to manage project implementation. The IMST consists of a lead facilitating partner (LFP) contracted by MAIL for day-to-day management, procurement, financial management, monitoring and evaluation, and provision of horticulture and livestock specialist services. The IMST also includes an overall project coordinator and separate coordinators for each project component. Implementation of project components in the field is supported by various facilitating partners under separate contracts with MAIL.

Procurement Arrangements

5.2 The procurement arrangements that apply to the ARTF financing are the same as those applicable to IDA Grants and follow “Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD Loans and Credits (dated May 2004; revised October 2006)” and “Guidelines for Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers (dated May 2004; revised October 2006)”. The Procurement Plan, agreed by the Government, stipulates that for each contract the procurement or consultant selection method will be agreed between the MAIL and the World Bank project team, including the need for prequalification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame. The Plan is updated from time to time to reflect actual project implementation needs and improvements in the institutional capacity.

Financial Management, Disbursement and Audit Arrangements

5.3 The ARTF grant’s financial management uses the same arrangements as the IDA grant; this has been assessed from the previous supervision mission to be adequate for this grant. A public financial management (PFM) performance rating system has been recently developed for

9

Afghanistan by the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) multi-agency partnership program, which includes the World Bank, IMF, EC, and other agencies. Afghanistan’s ratings against the PFM performance indicators portray a public sector where financial resources are, by and large, being used for their intended purposes as authorized by a budget that is processed with transparency and has contributed to aggregate fiscal discipline.

5.4 Financial management and audit functions for the proposed project are undertaken through the agents contracted under the Public Administration Capacity Building project and the Public Financial Management Reform project. These are the primary instruments for continuing to strengthen the fiduciary measures put in place for ensuring transparency and accountability of funds provided by the Bank and other donors. Under these contracts, two advisers—Financial Management and Audit—are responsible for working with the government and line ministries to carry out these core functions. The Financial Management Agent (FMA) is responsible for helping the MoF maintain the accounts for all public expenditures, including IDA-financed projects and for building capacity within the government offices for these functions.

5.5 At the project level, the MAIL is responsible for the project’s financial management. The Project Director along with the nominated local counterpart for financial management work closely with the Financial Manager of the lead FP (IMST) to carry out day-to-day financial management operations of the project, preparation of M-16 forms (payment orders), and overall contract and project management.

5.6 Quarterly Financial Monitoring Reports are prepared by the project’s FM team. Annual project reports are prepared, reviewed, and approved by the MoF, supported by the FMA.

5.7 The Designated Account (DA), for the existing ARTF grant at the Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB, Central Bank) would be used for the additional ARTF funds also. The DA is maintained by the MoF. Withdrawal applications for replenishment will be submitted monthly.

10

5.8 Fund flows. Fund management for the project will follow existing procedures. As with all public expenditure, all payments under the project will be routed through MoF. The FM Adviser will assist the MoF in executing and recording project payments. In keeping with current practices for other projects in Afghanistan, the DA is operated by the Special Disbursement Unit (SDU) in the Treasury Department of MoF. Requests for payments from DA funds will be made to the SDU by the project. Funds transfer for the provincial offices’ operational expenditures will be made through the Mustofiat (MoF provincial offices). In addition to payments from DA funds, the project can also request the SDU to make direct payments to consultants or consulting firms, and special commitments for contracts covered by letters of credit. Such requests will follow World Bank procedures. All withdrawal applications to IDA, including replenishment, reimbursement, and direct payment applications, will be prepared and submitted by MoF.

5.9 Accounting and reporting. The project will maintain essential project transaction records using computerized accounting system/ Excel spreadsheets and generate required monthly, quarterly, and annual reports.

5.10 The existing project’s FM Manual, includes provision for: i) roles and responsibilities for all FM staff, ii) documentation and approval procedures for payments, iii) project reporting requirements, and iv) quality assurance measures to help ensure that adequate internal controls and procedures are in place and are being followed.

5.11 The FM Manual has established project financial management in accordance with standard Afghan government policies and procedures including use of the government Chart of Accounts to record project expenditures. The use of these procedures will enable adequate recording and reporting of project expenditures. Overall project accounts will be maintained centrally in SDU, which will be ultimately responsible for recording of all project expenditures and receipts in the Government’s accounting system. Reconciliation of project expenditure records with MoF records will be carried out monthly by the project.

5.12 Disbursement method. Disbursements from the Grant will be transaction-based, with replenishment, reimbursement, direct payment, and payments under Special Commitments including full documentation or against statements of expenditures, as appropriate.

5.13 Audit of Project funds. The Auditor General, supported by the Audit Agent, is responsible for auditing the accounts of all IDA and ARTF-financed projects. Annual audited project financial statements will be submitted within six months of the close of GOA’s fiscal year.

5.14 The Bank-funded projects already or currently being implemented by MAIL have no overdue audit reports. The key issues raised in the projects’ previous years audit reports have been resolved satisfactorily, except for Solar Year 1387, which are currently in the process of being resolved.

11

5.15 Audit – Responsible entity. Whereas it was stated in the earlier application, that the Ministry of Finance (MoF) was responsible for submission of audit report for the project, the understanding and intention was to convey that MoF provides oversight for public financial management over all implementing agencies; processing of project payments is done by the MoF, and that audited financial statements are submitted to the Bank through MoF.

5.16 Projects are implemented by the designated agencies of the national government (line ministries normally). These agencies are exclusively responsible for the authorization of use of funds, for the preparation of the quarterly financial and progress reports, for appropriate uses of project funds and for furnishing to the external auditors the supporting evidence for uses of funds, and for the responses to audit findings and follow-up to audit findings.

5.17 It is hereby clarified that for the Emergency Horticulture and Livestock Productivity Project, the responsible entity for the audit report is the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock.

Monitoring and Reporting

5.18 The IMST/LFP and its M&E unit, in close collaboration with the other FPs, is responsible for the overall monitoring of the project’s development outcomes and intermediate outcomes of each project component. The Results Framework attached to this proposal in Annex 1 is the basis for monitoring the project results and outcomes. Progress in implementing the key project activities are monitored against annual work plans (that show quarterly targets and milestones) prepared by each FP and cleared by the LFP. The progress of each sub-component is monitored and reported by the FPs to the IMST. The MAIL/IMST submits quarterly progress reports to the Bank. 5.19 The achievement of project development objectives and project implementation performance is independently reviewed by the Bank’s task team during their periodic and day to day reviews using the performance indicators of the results matrix and agreed annual/quarterly work plans, procurement plans and quarterly progress reports. The donors co-financing the project through ARTF and other sources as well as representatives of the donors implementing complementary programs in the sector are invited to participate in the Bank’s review missions.

VI. Economic and Financial Analysis

6.1 The main project benefits would come from: (a) increased productivity of perennial and annual horticulture crops in existing and new orchards; (b) increased production of eggs and poultry meat; (c) reduced mortality of large and small ruminants; and (d) strengthened government and producer institutions and services. The estimated economic rate of return (ERR) of the restructured project is 21.7 percent and the net present value (NPV) is US$39.4. Although

12

these are lower than the original estimate prepared at the time of appraisal5, they are within the acceptable range.

6.2 Similarly, analysis of farm budget models shows that farmers’ household income would increase at project maturity by 8 percent to 57 percent over the present situation. The extent of this increase depends on the type and size of farm, the relative importance of the activity, the production system and the type of crops and activities involved.

VII. Environmental and Social Aspects

7.1 Environmental issues. The restructured project remains in Environmental Category B as originally envisaged. Project activities are not expected to have any significant negative environmental impacts. On the contrary, developments proposed for perennial tree crops are likely to have a positive impact by promoting nursery development that will lead to an increase in orchard areas. The promotion of perennial horticulture might increase the use of chemical insecticides and fertilizers in the project areas. However, strict Integrated Pest Management (IPM) measures will be incorporated with inputs from an international IPM specialist and by developing and adopting crop-specific plans, training farmers in the planning and application of IPM practices and monitoring these activities in project areas. Risk of erosion in new orchard areas will be mitigated by seeding alfalfa cover crop at the same time that fruit tree seedlings are planted.

7.2 Social issues. Project activities are not expected to have any significant negative social impacts. On the contrary, the expected project outcomes would result in long term social benefits to target beneficiaries : (i) horticulture and intensive livestock production activities will be open to a broad range of farmers in the project area through their participation in producer groups, extension activities, value chain development, input supply and marketing; and (ii) gender mainstreaming efforts are ongoing across all components and specific efforts are being made to reach women as producers in particular within the livestock component (poultry) but also through the horticulture component.

7.3 The Environment and Social Safeguards Framework is the basis for following through the project’s arrangements for implementation, monitoring, and capacity building for environmental social issues. No project activities are implemented without appropriate mine risk management, based on the procedures defined in the Environmental and Social Safeguard Framework. The pest management plan (PMP) has been updated.

VIII. Sustainability and Risks

13

5 This is primarily because of increase in cost particularly for IMST. At the time of appraisal costs were under-estimated and inflation in costs have been much higher than expected.

8.1 Risks and their mitigation. So far the project’s track record of improved performance spans over less than one year and there are several risks and externalities that could adversely affect the project:

Risk Mitigation Measure1. Recently there has been a turnover

of key staff and replacements have taken place. The performance of the new incumbents remains to be seen.

MAIL/PICU would continue close supervision, carry out a critical review of performance of key staff of LFP and FPs, and take appropriate action. This is an ongoing process.

2. There are risks that:a) Poor women who have been

selected for semi-intensive poultry unit may not save enough money to start the second cycle.

b) Some of the government veterinary clinics transferred to trained veterinarians for private operation may not be viable.

The project will conduct detailed assessments of both the poultry and animal health subcomponents. Necessary modifications will be made based on the recommendations of these assessments. Some recommendations were made during the recent supervision mission also to address the issues at hand.

3. The male and female producer groups being established under the project may not be sustainable beyond the project.

The project is supporting the involvement of the producers groups in the last mile service delivery for extension services and collective action plans for input supplies and marketing so that they become self-supporting. For the women groups the project would facilitate linkages with recently approved Agriculture and Rural Enterprise Development Project (AREDP) that would support self help groups through provision of matching grants and linkages with sources of credit and markets.

4. Inconsistencies in cost sharing policies among various horticulture programs could affect project progress.

MAIL is addressing this issue through the Agriculture Task Force which is urging various ongoing programs to harmonize policies.

5. There is a financing gap of US$14.3 million and delay in mobilizing resources could affect project performance.

This application is addressing this issue.

6. Security issues could affect project implementation.

Areas where producer group mobilization would take place are carefully selected taking security in to account. A distant working approach would be considered if security deteriorates. Greater reliance would be placed on locally recruited staff.

List of Annexes

Annex 1: Results Monitoring FrameworkAnnex 2: Project Cost and Proposed Financing PlanAnnex 3: Procurement Plan

14

Project DevelopmentObjectives

Project Outcome Indicators 2008 Baseline Value2008 Baseline Value2008 Baseline Value TgtValue for

2009

Outcome Value for 2009Outcome Value for 2009Outcome Value for 2009Outcome Value for 2009 NetChange


Project Outcome IndicatorsIndicator Items Target

GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for

2009Target GroupTarget Group Control GroupControl Group

NetChange



GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for

2009[2009 Status] Annual

Change[2009] Annual

Change[%]

To assist producer households in adopting improved practices so as to increase horticulture and livestock productivity and production in focus areas

HorticultureHorticultureHorticultureHorticultureHorticultureHorticultureHorticultureTo assist producer households in adopting improved practices so as to increase horticulture and livestock productivity and production in focus areas

1 15 % increase in productivity[1] in target farmers orchards

Area Productivity [Kg/Jerib of Canopy Area]:Area Productivity [Kg/Jerib of Canopy Area]:Area Productivity [Kg/Jerib of Canopy Area]: 3% Change in Area Productivity [Kg/Jerib of Canopy Area]:Change in Area Productivity [Kg/Jerib of Canopy Area]:Change in Area Productivity [Kg/Jerib of Canopy Area]:Change in Area Productivity [Kg/Jerib of Canopy Area]:Change in Area Productivity [Kg/Jerib of Canopy Area]:


1 15 % increase in productivity[1] in target farmers orchards Almond:

Apricot: Grape: Pomegranate:

21410611683

384

22411951723

229

3%380

20813563997

77%96%112%159%

33017313297872

48%45%91%103%

28%19%18%35%



Tree Productivity [Kg/Tree]Tree Productivity [Kg/Tree]Tree Productivity [Kg/Tree]

3%

Change in Tree Productivity [Kg/Tree]:Change in Tree Productivity [Kg/Tree]:Change in Tree Productivity [Kg/Tree]:Change in Tree Productivity [Kg/Tree]:Change in Tree Productivity [Kg/Tree]:



Almond: Apricot: Grape: Pomegranate:

2.68 3

3%

4.7425.8519.074.99

59%135%240%

5.27%

4.1325.166.134.54

41%68%2.2%-1.5%

18%43%237%

7%




13 15

3%

4.7425.8519.074.99

59%135%240%

5.27%

4.1325.166.134.54

41%68%2.2%-1.5%

18%43%237%

7%




5.61 4

3%

4.7425.8519.074.99

59%135%240%

5.27%

4.1325.166.134.54

41%68%2.2%-1.5%

18%43%237%

7%



Almond: Apricot: Grape: Pomegranate: 384 4.61

3%

4.7425.8519.074.99

59%135%240%

5.27%

4.1325.166.134.54

41%68%2.2%-1.5%

18%43%237%

7%


2 At least 50% of target farmers adopt at least two best suitable practices in focus districts

(1) Application of Improved Practices for IncreasingOrchard Productivity(1) Application of Improved Practices for IncreasingOrchard Productivity(1) Application of Improved Practices for IncreasingOrchard Productivity

10% (1) Application of Improved Practices for Increasing OrchardProductivity(1) Application of Improved Practices for Increasing OrchardProductivity(1) Application of Improved Practices for Increasing OrchardProductivity(1) Application of Improved Practices for Increasing OrchardProductivity(1) Application of Improved Practices for Increasing OrchardProductivity


2 At least 50% of target farmers adopt at least two best suitable practices in focus districts Winter Pruning: Summer/

Green Pruning: Fruit Thinning:Trellising:GA (Giberellic Acid):

N A N A N A N A NA

10%

72%59%48%27%16%



(2) Application of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)(2) Application of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)(2) Application of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

10%

(2) Application of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Practices(2) Application of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Practices(2) Application of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Practices(2) Application of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Practices(2) Application of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Practices



Dormant Oil: Bordeaux Mixture: Bordeaux Paste: Lime sulphur: Sprayer:Duster:Protection Clothing:

N A N A N A N A N A N A NA

10%

34%33%36%43%63%47%59%


3 3000 ha of new orchards established with at least 60 % of saplings surviving

New Orchard Established:New Orchard Established:New Orchard Established: 705 ha New Orchard Established: [1149 ha]New Orchard Established: [1149 ha]New Orchard Established: [1149 ha]New Orchard Established: [1149 ha]New Orchard Established: [1149 ha]


3 3000 ha of new orchards established with at least 60 % of saplings surviving Almond:

Apricot: Grape: Pomegranate:

0000

N A N A N A NA

705 ha3741 Jerib [748.2 ha]1532 Jerib [306.4 ha]434 Jerib [86.8 ha]

48 Jerib [9.6 ha]

163.00%



Sapling Surviving in New Orchards:Sapling Surviving in New Orchards:Sapling Surviving in New Orchards: 60% Sapling Surviving in New Orchards:Sapling Surviving in New Orchards:Sapling Surviving in New Orchards:Sapling Surviving in New Orchards:Sapling Surviving in New Orchards:




0000

N A N A N A NA

60%94%82%95%73%

157%137%158%122%

Annex 1

Results Monitoring Framework

16



2009




GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for


NetChange



GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for


Change[2009] Annual

Change[%]

To assist producer households in adopting improved practices so as to increase horticulture and livestockproductivity and production in focus areas

4 At least 20% increase in producer price for the products where the value chain pilot is implemented

On-farm Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)On-farm Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)On-farm Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)On-farm Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)On-farm Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)On-farm Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)On-farm Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)On-farm Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)To assist producer households in adopting improved practices so as to increase horticulture and livestockproductivity and production in focus areas


Grape: AverageMax: Min

18369

19.6079.0011.00

20%5%5%

15.253.5

7

(-) 12%49%

(-) 22%

11.8257

(-) 40% (-) 68% (-) 36%

28%117%14%



Outside Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)Outside Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)Outside Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)Outside Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)Outside Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)Outside Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)Outside Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)Outside Selling Price of Grapes [Afs/Kg] in Mir Bacha Kot (MBK)



Grape: AverageMax: Min

23.35412

22.83015

5%5%5%

17.1357

(-) 27% (-) 35% (-) 42%

16.23410

(-) 46%13%

(-) 33%

19% (-) 69%)

(-) 9%


LivestockLivestockLivestockLivestockLivestockLivestockLivestock


5 5 % reduction in mortality among largeruminants

Large Ruminant: 4.91% 5.83% 5% 0.79% (-) 4.68% 0.50% (-) 5.33% 0.65%


6 10 % reduction in small ruminants Small Ruminant: 11.87% 13.83% 10% 3.80% (-) 9.35% 0.02% (-) 13.8% 4.45%


7 20% reduction in mortality of poultry Poultry Mortality: 5.87% 11.35% 20% 11.45% 5.60% 7.19% (-) 4.15% 9.73%


8 At least 60 % of target producer households adopt improved poultry raising practices in focus districts

Practices for Increasing Poultry ProductionPractices for Increasing Poultry ProductionPractices for Increasing Poultry ProductionPractices for Increasing Poultry Production Practices for Increasing Poultry ProductionPractices for Increasing Poultry ProductionPractices for Increasing Poultry ProductionPractices for Increasing Poultry Production



Feeding Balanced Feed: Use of Feeder:Use of Drinker:

NA NANA

99.50%99.50%99.50%

99.50%99.50%99.50%



Poultry Health Care PracticesPoultry Health Care PracticesPoultry Health Care PracticesPoultry Health Care Practices Poultry Health Care PracticesPoultry Health Care PracticesPoultry Health Care PracticesPoultry Health Care Practices



Vaccinating Pullets: Deworming of Chicken: Treating Sick Chickens/ Vet: Individual Savings:

N A N A N A NA

99.50%94.90%94.90%

50.20%

99.50%94.90%94.90%50.20%


9 Incremental production of 12 million eggs and 200 MT of meat per year

No. of Eggs Produced Zero NA 12 M 3,689,000 30.74%


10 Comprehensive feasibility study of dairy development completed, providing recommendations for the way-forward

Zero NA Done 100%

Institution and Capacity BuildingInstitution and Capacity BuildingInstitution and Capacity BuildingInstitution and Capacity BuildingInstitution and Capacity BuildingInstitution and Capacity BuildingInstitution and Capacity BuildingInstitution and Capacity BuildingInstitution and Capacity BuildingInstitution and Capacity BuildingInstitution and Capacity Building11 Functioning horticulture and livestock

extension and other services in placeNA Start HLP Hort & LS-Extn being built w/ 122 Hort and 22

LS Extn Staff, 6 sets of Hort & 4 sets of LS extn materials; weekly radio program; organization of beneficiaries into groups; and DASPS being established

HLP Hort & LS-Extn being built w/ 122 Hort and 22LS Extn Staff, 6 sets of Hort & 4 sets of LS extn materials; weekly radio program; organization of beneficiaries into groups; and DASPS being established

17



2009




GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for


NetChange



GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for


Change[2009] Annual

Change[%]

Intermediate OutcomesIntermediate OutcomesIntermediate OutcomesIntermediate OutcomesIntermediate OutcomesIntermediate OutcomesIntermediate OutcomesIntermediate OutcomesIntermediate OutcomesIntermediate OutcomesIntermediate OutcomesIntermediate OutcomesHorticulture ComponentHorticulture ComponentHorticulture ComponentHorticulture ComponentHorticulture ComponentHorticulture ComponentHorticulture ComponentHorticulture ComponentHorticulture ComponentHorticulture ComponentHorticulture ComponentHorticulture Component

Orchard managementOrchard managementOrchard managementOrchard managementOrchard managementOrchard managementOrchard managementOrchard managementOrchard managementOrchard managementOrchard managementIncreased productivity of existing orchards through assistance in input supplies and technical services on best suitable practices for orchard production

12 10000 farmers achieve 10 % increase in production as a result of applying improved technologies (IPM, canopy and on-farm irrigation management principles) in focus districts

Percent of Farmer with 10% and more Yield Increase in 2099 relative to 2008 Baseline]:Percent of Farmer with 10% and more Yield Increase in 2099 relative to 2008 Baseline]:Percent of Farmer with 10% and more Yield Increase in 2099 relative to 2008 Baseline]:Percent of Farmer with 10% and more Yield Increase in 2099 relative to 2008 Baseline]:Percent of Farmer with 10% and more Yield Increase in 2099 relative to 2008 Baseline]:Percent of Farmer with 10% and more Yield Increase in 2099 relative to 2008 Baseline]:Percent of Farmer with 10% and more Yield Increase in 2099 relative to 2008 Baseline]:Percent of Farmer with 10% and more Yield Increase in 2099 relative to 2008 Baseline]:Increased productivity of existing orchards through assistance in input supplies and technical services on best suitable practices for orchard production


Almond: 2% 79% 76% 3%

Increased productivity of existing orchards through assistance in input supplies and technical services on best suitable practices for orchard production


Apricot: 2% 80% 64% 16%



Grape: 2% 76% 66% 10%



Pomegranate: 2% 50% 41% 9%


13 Four suitable intercrops introduced by project

0 Four crops - alfalfa, wheat/ barley, tomato, and garlic/ onions identified for intercropping in fruit orchards

Four crops - alfalfa, wheat/ barley, tomato, and garlic/ onions identified for intercropping in fruit orchards

Horticulture Extension ServiceHorticulture Extension ServiceHorticulture Extension ServiceHorticulture Extension ServiceHorticulture Extension ServiceHorticulture Extension ServiceHorticulture Extension ServiceHorticulture Extension ServiceHorticulture Extension ServiceHorticulture Extension ServiceHorticulture Extension ServiceHorticultural extension service developed that can reliably provide information to 15000 producer households in focus districts

1415

120 extension workers trained Trained Extension Staff Zero NA 100 122 122.00% 122%Horticultural extension service developed that can reliably provide information to 15000 producer households in focus districts

1415 Extension material produced for 6 tree

crops and 4 intercropsZero Na 0 Six sets of extension materials for tree crops

prepared: (1) Pamphlet on proper pruning of fruit trees; (2) Orchard Management Guidebook; (3) Flyer on Shikada Lifecycle and Control; (4) Guidelines for Control-ling Diseases of 4 Fruit Crops; (5) Monthly Gardener; (6) Annual Crop Guidelines [under preparation]

Six sets of extension materials for tree cropsprepared: (1) Pamphlet on proper pruning of fruit trees; (2) Orchard Management Guidebook; (3) Flyer on Shikada Lifecycle and Control; (4) Guidelines for Control-ling Diseases of 4 Fruit Crops; (5) Monthly Gardener; (6) Annual Crop Guidelines [under preparation]

100%

Horticultural extension service developed that can reliably provide information to 15000 producer households in focus districts

16 15,000 producer households confirm receiving horticulture extension services in focus districts

Target Farmers ReceivingExtension Services

0 72% 72%

Value Chain DevelopmentValue Chain DevelopmentValue Chain DevelopmentValue Chain DevelopmentValue Chain DevelopmentValue Chain DevelopmentValue Chain DevelopmentValue Chain DevelopmentValue Chain DevelopmentValue Chain DevelopmentValue Chain DevelopmentImprove marketable production and returns to farmers by targeted interventions in the value chain

17

1819

At least 100 farmers and 30 traders/merchants participate in the value chain

Participant Farmers:Participant Traders/Merchants:

00

NANA

5010

7015

140%150%

140%150%

Improve marketable production and returns to farmers by targeted interventions in the value chain

17

1819

5 % increase in prod'n of 2 marketable 0

Improve marketable production and returns to farmers by targeted interventions in the value chain

17

1819 5 % increase in returns of 2 marketable 0

Livestock ComponentLivestock ComponentLivestock ComponentLivestock ComponentLivestock ComponentLivestock ComponentLivestock ComponentLivestock ComponentLivestock ComponentLivestock ComponentLivestock ComponentLivestock Component

18



2009




GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for


NetChange



GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for


Change[2009] Annual

Change[%]

Improved access to animal health services through privatization

21 Number of households receiving animal health interventions from VFU’s increased by 5%/year

Treating Sick Animals: Treating Sick Animals:Treating Sick Animals: Treating Sick Animals:Treating Sick Animals: Treating Sick Animals:Treating Sick Animals: Treating Sick Animals:Treating Sick Animals: Treating Sick Animals:Treating Sick Animals: Treating Sick Animals:Treating Sick Animals: Treating Sick Animals:Treating Sick Animals: Treating Sick Animals:Improved access to animal health services through privatization


Govt. Vet Clinic: Private Vet Clinic: NGO Vet Clinic:

25.70%30%

5.50%

22.40%25.90%

8.00%

5% 25.90%30.80%4.10%

0.20%0.80%

-1.40%

23.70%26.80%

3.90%

1.30%0.90%

-4.10%

-1.10%-0.10%2.70%

-0.20%-0.40%-0.50%



Vaccinating Animals:Vaccinating Animals:Vaccinating Animals:Vaccinating Animals: Vaccinating Animals:Vaccinating Animals:Vaccinating Animals:Vaccinating Animals:

-1.10%-0.10%2.70%

-0.20%-0.40%-0.50%



Govt. Vet Clinic: Private Vet Clinic:NGO Vet Clinic:

21.20%29.50%

4.70%

18.40%26.80%

4.40%

5% 22.30%30.40%5.10%

1.10%0.90%0.40%

19.70%28.10%

5.30%

1.30%1.30%0.90%

-1.10%-0.10%2.70%

-0.20%-0.40%-0.50%



Buying Vaccines:Buying Vaccines:Buying Vaccines:Buying Vaccines: Buying Vaccines:Buying Vaccines:Buying Vaccines:Buying Vaccines:




17.80%28.70%

4.50%

13.20%25.90%

3.90%

5% 19.10%30.40%5.10%

1.30%1.70%0.60%

14.50%28.10%

4.40%

1.30%2.20%0.50%

0.00%-0.50%0.10%



Buying Vet Meds:Buying Vet Meds:Buying Vet Meds:Buying Vet Meds: Buying Vet Meds:Buying Vet Meds:Buying Vet Meds:Buying Vet Meds:-1.10%1.10%

-0.80%




17.40%28.90%

3.40%

13.20%28.90%

3.90%

5% 18.40%30.00%3.60%

0.60%1.10%

-0.30%

14.90%28.90%

4.40%

1.70%0.00%0.50%

-1.10%1.10%

-0.80%PoultryPoultryPoultryPoultryPoultryPoultryPoultryPoultryPoultryPoultryPoultrySemi-intensive layer and broiler poultry units established, generating sustainable income for rural women

22

23

Around 11,000 semi-intensive layer- poultry units established

Zero NA 7000 7000 100%Semi-intensive layer and broiler poultry units established, generating sustainable income for rural women

22

23 Around 7,000 broiler units established 0 Not started yet

Semi-intensive layer and broiler poultry units established, generating sustainable income for rural women

24 At least 60% of established layer- poultry and broiler units adopt the second cycle of poultry production[3]

0 OCS established the 98% of the current poultryproducers have decided to embark on the 2nd cycle of layer-poultry production by combining savings and hatching chicks at home

OCS established the 98% of the current poultryproducers have decided to embark on the 2nd cycle of layer-poultry production by combining savings and hatching chicks at home

DairyDairyDairyDairyDairyDairyDairyDairyDairyDairyDairyFeasibility of Dairy Development assessed

25 Inception Phase of dairy sector study completed by December 2009

Zero NA 100% Completed 100%

Livestock ExtensionLivestock ExtensionLivestock ExtensionLivestock ExtensionLivestock ExtensionLivestock ExtensionLivestock ExtensionLivestock ExtensionLivestock ExtensionLivestock ExtensionLivestock Extension

19



2009




GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for


NetChange



GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for


Change[2009] Annual

Change[%]

Livestock extension services developed that can reliable provide information to 15,000 producer households in focus districts

26 22 livestock extension workers trained No. of livestock extension workers trained:

0 22 100%


27 Extension materials produced for dairy, small ruminants, and poultry

3 Four sets of Livestock Extension Materials havebeen prepared on (1) dairy cow breeding; (2) calf rearing; (3) dairy poster; (4) straw treatment with urea. Training materials on general animal husbandry, and broiler production and hygienic milk production are under preparation. In addition, HLP sourced FAO and DCA has produced several kinds of extension materials that are being refined and finalized.

Four sets of Livestock Extension Materials havebeen prepared on (1) dairy cow breeding; (2) calf rearing; (3) dairy poster; (4) straw treatment with urea. Training materials on general animal husbandry, and broiler production and hygienic milk production are under preparation. In addition, HLP sourced FAO and DCA has produced several kinds of extension materials that are being refined and finalized.


28 15,000 producer households confirm receiving livestock extension in focus districts

0

Institution and Capacity Building ComponentInstitution and Capacity Building ComponentInstitution and Capacity Building ComponentInstitution and Capacity Building ComponentInstitution and Capacity Building ComponentInstitution and Capacity Building ComponentInstitution and Capacity Building ComponentInstitution and Capacity Building ComponentInstitution and Capacity Building ComponentInstitution and Capacity Building ComponentInstitution and Capacity Building ComponentInstitution and Capacity Building ComponentVillage based producer organizations (male and female) established and strengthened in11 focus districts

29 Around 1032 male and female producer groups operating

Total Groups Formed: Male Groups Formed: Female Groups Formed

Zero NA 282 282175107

100%100%100%

Village based producer organizations (male and female) established and strengthened in11 focus districts

29 Around 1032 male and female producer groups operating

Total Groups Operating: Male Groups Operating Female Groups Operating:

94%94%96%


30 At least 60 % of (or 619) producer groups achieving at least 50 % of their group action plan

Total Groups w/Action Plan:Male Groups w/ Action Plan:Fem Groups w/ Action Plan:

169 94 [n=179] 53%



Groups Implementing at least 50% of Group Plan:Groups Implementing at least 50% of Group Plan:Groups Implementing at least 50% of Group Plan:Groups Implementing at least 50% of Group Plan: Groups Implementing at least 50% of Group Plan:Groups Implementing at least 50% of Group Plan:Groups Implementing at least 50% of Group Plan:



Male Groups: Female Groups

35%43%

35%43%

Male and female producergroups have an improved access to services in 9 clusters in 5 selected focus districts

31 40 % of the members of 300 male and female groups (120 groups) organized in 5 Focus Districts confirm having an improved access to the supply of production inputs

0 Agenda for 2010Outcome Monitoring

20



2009




GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for


NetChange



GroupControlGroup

TgtValue for


Change[2009] Annual

Change[%]

32 20 % of 300 male and female groups organized in 5 focus districts confirm having an improved access to marketing services

0 Agenda for 2010Outcome Monitoring

Strengthened capacity of MAIL and district level agricultural institutions to ensure efficient implementation of HLP and other projects

33 60 % of the relevant institutions at district level confirm the establishment of coordination and collaborative arrangements

0 Initiative on establishing the District Agricultural Service Provision System (DASPS) is being piloted in Mir Bacha Kot District

Initiative on establishing the District Agricultural Service Provision System (DASPS) is being piloted in Mir Bacha Kot District

Strengthened capacity of MAIL and district level agricultural institutions to ensure efficient implementation of HLP and other projects 34 80 % of beneficiaries of horticulture,

livestock and FOD trainings confirm satisfaction with the trainings

0 Preparations started for training evaluationPreparations started for training evaluation

[1] Yield per Jerib (one Hectare=5 Jeribs)[2] Best suitable practices mean practices which are considered to be the best, considering the prevailing situation of Afghanistan, and include improved water management, pruning and orchard management.

[3] An estimated 8,000 households (40 % of targeted households) will revert to improved backyard management.

21

Annex 2

Project Cost and Proposed Financing Plan

1.1 Project Cost

Project Component Amount US$ million(i) Horticulture Development 18.87 (ii) Livestock Development 15.00(iii) Implementation and Management Support 18.48 Contingencies 2.00Total 54.30

1.2 Financing Plan

IDA Grant H226-AF US$ 20 millionARTF Grant TF 91885 US$ 20 millionFinancing gap for which additional ARTF funding is requested US$ 14.3 million

22

horticulture and livestock project (hlp) (tf...

Documents