Interim evaluation
The Federal Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BA) is a small, mountainous
country, almost landlocked. The climate is continental except for the
immediate hinterland of the Dalmatian Coast on the Mediterranean Sea.
The country has a surface of about 51 000 sq. km. and a population
of about 3.4 million with an additional million living abroad (1995).
The project area was supposed to cover the whole area of BA. Implementation
was to start in the Bosniac-Croat Federation (BiH) and then be extended
to the Republika Srpska (RS) in co-ordination and accordance with the
international community and the key institutions involved in the peace
process. During its first phase the project has limited its interventions
to the Federation’s territory, particularly to the areas that were
mostly hit by the war (i.e. Bihac, Gorazdhe, Mostar, Sarajevo, Tuzla and
Zenica).
Project design and objectives
Under the Reconstruction Programme for BA, the Government and the international
community have formulated a USD 330 million Reconstruction and Rehabilitation
Programme for Agriculture and Rural Areas. The Farm Reconstruction Project
(FRP) initiated by IDA and IFAD is the first project under the programme.
IFAD has financed the FRP’s restocking activities component.
Target group
At design, the target group of the IFAD-financed restocking activities
component would be private, experienced smallholder livestock producers
and their families, having use of land areas ranging from 1 ha to 5 ha.
According to 1995 figures there were, in 1981, 264 406 private farm households
within that range, i.e. 49% of the total number of private farms. Priority
would be given to refugees, returnees and farm families who suffered substantial
damage during the war, including the loss of all or the greater part of
their livestock.
Additional eligibility criteria were: (i) technical competence in the
relevant areas of livestock production; (ii) ability to provide adequate
shelter and feed for new livestock provided under the project; (iii) access
to an effective mating service; (iv) access to adequate product storage
and marketing outlets; (v) agreement to keep mating/calving records for
cattle and lambing records for sheep; (vi) agreement to returning animals
of the same number, kind and condition which they had received; and (vii)
bona fide evidence of their committment to rebuild and operate their farms,
e.g. starting repairs and/or crop production (Staff Appraisal Report,
paras 4.01-4.03).
Objectives and components
The immediate objectives of the restocking activities component were
to restore and improve the beneficiaries’ food security and help
them generate additional cash income and employment. The medium-term objective
was to lay the basis for beneficiaries’ participation in later development
interventions aimed at enabling them to generate an acceptable standard
of living from smallholder livestock production.
The FRP has four components: (i) Farm Mechanization; (ii) Restocking
Activities; (iii) Animal Health; and (iv) Project Implementation
Support.
Expected effects
and assumptions
Expected benefits from FRP include: (i) increased farm production, on-farm
employment and incomes; (ii) expanded off-farm rural employment opportunities;
(iii) increased food security; (iv) a significant improvement in
stock quality; and (v) cost-saving and revenue-raising opportunities for
the Government. An initial 2 300 farm families would be the direct
beneficiaries, followed by a second generation of direct beneficiaries
of 2 000 farm families.
Key assumptions were (a) a stock distribution pattern of two heifers
or ten sheep per beneficiary farm family, and (b) that the peace agreement
would hold in the region.
Evaluation
An Interim Evaluation Mission of the FRP - Re-stocking Activities visited
BA from 25 November to 11 December 1996 (a draft Executive Summary of
the Interim Evaluation (IE) Report was made available to IFAD Operations
Department on January, 1997). Due to the exceptional situation and time
constraints, the evaluation took place contextually to a formulation mission
(follow-up project) fielded by IFAD’s Near East and North Africa
Division (PN), to look into the definition of a potential second phase
of the Livestock Component. Although there was continuous and mutual exchange
of information between evaluation and formulation experts, each mission
was entirely independent from the other.
The evaluation mission’s specific Terms of Reference (TORs) were
to (a) assess the importation and distribution of IFAD-financed cattle
and goats into BA; (b) assess the distribution of animals to farmers,
with particular attention to the suitability of recipient farmers in terms
of the eligibility criteria set out by the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR);
and (c) evaluate the living conditions for the livestock provided, particularly
in relation to the availability and quality of feed, animal husbandry
and access to mating services. The evaluation was to be based on (i) data
provided by the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) and by the Regional
Implementation Units (RIUs), and (ii) field visits throughout the Federation.
Implementation context
Bosnia has suffered tremendous damage since the war broke out in 1992.
Around 250 000 people were killed and 1.5 million of the 3.8
million estimated to be currently living in BA are internal refugees or
displaced persons. While the project was identified at the end of 1995,
annual per capita income had fallen to an estimated USD 500 from USD 1
900 in 1990. Industrial input was about 5% of 1990 output . Eighty percent
of the population was partly or fully dependent on humanitarian aid.
A year later some significant improvements had been made, although poverty
is still widespread and economic recovery will take time, as well as infrastructure
reconstruction. The Dayton-Paris Agreement has managed to stop the war,
but there is still high uncertainty regarding the future of civil cohabitation.
Also, the problem of returnees has not been solved as yet.
The project covers most areas of the Federation, particularly those that
were mostly damaged during the war. The project in general, and the livestock
component in particular, was meant to address some of the most urgent
needs of the rural population, notably to start reconstituting the family
herd, either for self-consumption or in view of establishing a livestock-based
micro-enterprise. Also, the project would contribute to the Government’s
efforts to reconstitute a national herd of improved cattle and rehabilitate
milk production and marketing.
Project achievements
The project was approved by the Executive Board in April 1996, therefore
it only has a few months of implementation history behind. However, the
progress made in these few months in terms of cattle selection, identification
of beneficiaries at the local level and organizational arrangements for
animal distribution is outstanding, given the logistical difficulties
and the situation prevailing in the country. Thanks to a high level of
committment of all parties involved (World Bank, IFAD, Bosnian Government,
project staff, local staff), the implementation period was actually reduced
from thirty to eight months and all animals were distributed before the
end of 1996. This achievement cannot be underestimated, given the state
of need of designated beneficiaries and the extremely cold weather conditions
of continental Bosnia, whereby getting a heifer before roads are blocked
by snow can make the difference between life and death.
There have been several adjustments of the project during the implementation
phase. For example, (i) sheep were not purchased because those available
for purchase were not suitable for the local climatic conditions. The
sheep budget was used to buy more heifers; and (ii) on credit: the reimbursement
system adopted was not in kind as assumed at design, but in cash as it
was chosen locally.
Also due to its design and implementation speed, the project experienced
a number of shortcomings and outstanding issues concerning targeting,
credit, coordination, M&E, technical assistance, livestock distribution,
veterinary services etc. These are briefly highlighted below (section
4).
Effects assessment
and sustainability
Targeting. There has been no strict implementation of targeting
criteria as designed in the SAR. Municipalities have publicised the program
and drew up lists of interested farmers, setting the priorities according
to local observation of actual needs. The only criteria which were reported
to be applied everywhere were: (a) war-damaged households and (b) appropriate
conditions for keeping the heifer. Nevertheless, in the prevailing situation,
the system used has proved effective and targeting is satisfactory.
Beneficiaries' perception. The evaluation mission visited farmers
in areas of Tuzla (2 days), Gorazdhe (2 days), West Herzegovina (1 day),
Mostar (1 day), West Bosnia (1 day), Vitez (2 days) and Zenica (1 day).
Farmers were randomly selected from the list of beneficiaries. All farmers
with one exception (Black & White, Tuzla) expressed high satisfaction
with the quality of the animals they received. This also indicates that
the selection process of heifers has been careful and highly professional.
All farmers interviewed declared that this (livestock) program has addressed
the basic and most urgent needs of distressed populations given the prevailing
circumstances.
Effects on beneficiaries’ incomes. It was evident from field
interviews (with one exception in the area of Mostar) that no cost-benefit
analysis was made to see whether, and at what conditions, loans for heifers
could be repaid out of the animal itself. Also, none of the farmers interviewed
was keeping breeding records as stipulated in the SAR (ref. additional
eligibility criteria).
Many beneficiaries’ main objective was to reconstitute the household’s
assets stock using all available opportunities. Most of them are part-time
farmers, therefore their concern about income-generation from animals
is traditionally limited or non-existent, although employment opportunities
are currently very slim for most people. Many beneficiaries are demobilized
soldiers who do not appear to have the slightest worry about loan repayment.
If this were the case, their investment would have a zero cost for the
household, therefore would be an income-generating one independently of
its actual profitability.
Specific effects on women. Most beneficiaries’ household
heads are part-time farmers and borrowed for a single animal in order
to satisfy family needs in terms of milk supply. Their main objective
is that, whatever happens in the future, their children will not be left
without milk again. The project has a direct beneficial effect on families,
particularly on mothers of small children.
It is usually the women that look after the animals. When beneficiaries
borrow for a single animal (which was the project policy in most areas),
farming is not their main or exclusive source of income. As it is usually
the husband that seeks off-farm employment, the wife takes care of the
animal. Project-financed heifers are therefore a source of employment
mainly for women.
Finally, a significant number of project-supplied animals went to female
beneficiaries.
Specific effects on the environment. There was no evidence of
any project-related detrimental effects on the environment.
Sustainability. It is too early to make an assessment of
the perspectives of project activities in terms of sustainability. It
is possible, however, to pinpoint the main aspects by which the sustainability
of project-related activities is likely to be influenced. Such aspects
relate to (a) the credit scheme, (b) the animals’ survival rate,
and (c) political stability, upon which depends the flow of international
funds for reconstruction.
Main issues
Credit supervision and repayment
The UPI Bank branch network does not appear to be sufficiently widespread
over the Federation territory to guarantee for effective credit supervision.
As farmers usually identify an institution with the person that represents
it locally, UPI Bank is virtually non-existent as far as farmers are concerned.
This could easily create problems in case of limited non-repayment and
encourage widespread non-repayment as a consequence.
UPI has a high social motivation to perform credit supervision, but its
financial interest (1% interest on sub-loans) is very low. Furthermore,
the risk of non-repayment lies entirely on the Government [Ministry of
Agriculture (MOA)]. The bank is also undergoing privatization of capital,
as most financial institutions in Bosnia. In the light of the above, it
is unlikely that UPI will use much of its own resources for the project
credit supervision and to pursue bad loans in the long term.
The repayment system has to be reviewed and clarified. Loans have to
be repaid in Deutschmarks, but many farmers are not aware of this and
many of them have no easy access to foreign currency and/or institutions
that accept it. As the risks of non-repayment have finally to be borne
by the Government, the latter is the only authority that can actually
guarantee enforcement of repayment.
Veterinary services
There are several areas within the Federation where veterinary services
are either not readily available or not accessible to the poorer layers
of the rural population, including IFAD project beneficiaries. The rehabilitation
and supply of Municipal Veterinary Stations (MVSs) remains an outstanding
issue although it is partly being addressed by the German development
agency GTZ.
The quality of service by quarantine stations within the Federation is
also questionable. According to IFAD livestock specialist, hygiene is
not satisfactory in the stations and this causes an excessive death and
abortion rate.
However, while the mission was taking place, IFAD reached an agreement
with MOA and started financing local veterinary services -including artificial
insemination- in order to ensure that veterinary support will be available
for IFAD-financed heifers and their calves. On the basis of this agreement,
financed on a grant basis, performance-related contracts are signed by
the PIU and MVSs, by which the latter should cover all heifers provided
under the project for a period of one year.
Transportation System
Complaints have been expressed to the Interim Evaluation team on several
occasions regarding the quality of transports provided for the delivery
of heifers.
Technical Assistance
The project implementation speed has contributed to contrasts and problems
between the PIU and part of the foreign Technical Assistance (TA). The
Bosnian project management has repeatedly highlighted to the evaluation
team the need to use, whenever possible, available qualified local professional
staff instead of foreign TA.
Project implementation Unit
Decentralization of decision-making process: several progress
reports have highlighted the need for a higher level of decentralization
of decision-making at the regional and municipality levels. Poor communication
between PIU, RIU, municipalities and beneficiaries have been reported
throughout the project implementation phase. Coordination problems are
particularly acute in the case of the RIU Mostar, that operates on a mixed
Bosniac-Croat territory.
Monitoring & Evaluation: the M&E system has not been set
up before project startup. Data collection has been limited to list of
animals procured and list of final beneficiaries. The officer in charge
of M&E within the PIU has just been appointed. The system and persons
in charge of data flows from the grassroots level to the RIUs and PIU
is not defined. Selected indicators for the evaluation of socio-economic
project performance are not clearly identified and used.
Financial Controller: the issue of finding a replacement for the
TA Financial Controller has been addressed late and a possible solution
to this problem was only found a few days before the end of the TA’s
last contract.
Lessons Learned and Recommendations
for a follow-up phase
Given the overall satisfactory performance of the FRP - Re-stocking Activities
and the high level of unmet demand, a follow-up project is recommended
along the lines of the first one. However, a number of changes should
be pursued: a stricter application of more realistic targeting criteria,
a revision of animals to be selected (i.e. several complaints about Black
& Whites), a better defined credit supervision system, a more decentralized
decision-making process, a livestock selection responding to different
types of demand (i.e. subsistence and entrepreneurial) and a flexible,
grass-rooted M&E system.
Herd-multiplication
Over 90% of farmers expressed their plan to keep the heifer if female,
whereas less then 50% declared they would keep a male for more than a
few months. Those who would keep the male were farmers planning to build
up their own herd in areas where Artificial Insemination (AI) was either
unavailable or too expensive. All the others would sell them for slaughter
after a few months to a year.
In the region of Zenica, the Government had reportedly expressed to the
beneficiaries its interest to recover part of the loan in kind, as to
avoid the loss of animals of high quality breeds and to generate a revolving
fund in-kind to benefit more farmers out of the heifers imported until
now. This option could be experimented wherever the conditions of quarantine
stations allow for safe animal collection and redistribution by the State.
However, by no circumstances should this option become a compulsory sale
of calves to the State Farms independently of the farmers’ own choice.
Further demand
There is a general pressure for more animals to be delivered, as a considerable
share of demand has been unmet for several reasons. The only areas where
no unmet demand was reported are those most war-affected areas that have
been given top priority in distribution (e.g. Gorazdhe), but there again,
the return of most refugees is foreseen as taking place next spring and
more demand will emerge then. In other areas where activities started
late because of institutional confusion (e.g. West Mostar and Livno areas),
the real extent of demand has yet to emerge.
Two main lines of requirements have emerged from the farmers interviewed:
(a) to get one heifer for family needs (demand unmet by the first phase);
and (b) to get several heifers to develop a livestock micro-enterprise.
The latter need has emerged predominantly, but not exclusively, in the
Livno and West Mostar areas. These two types of need should both be addressed
by a second phase, probably with separate components and with different
types of animals.
Marketing of milk
Many beneficiaries interviewed expressed their interest to upscale their
level of production, but only in case the milk marketing circuit were
to be rehabilitated and efficiently managed. This issue should be addressed
while pursuing the objective of reconstitution of the livestock national
herd, as well as targeting micro-entrepreneurs through a second phase
project.
Targeting
Targeting in the project has been satisfactory although SAR targeting
criteria were not strictly applied. Beneficiaries selection by municipalities
has generally been satisfactory, also due to the widespread state of need
in rural BA. The follow-up project should try to address the needs of
eligible farmers who have already been identified in 1996 but whose demand
has been unmet. Rapid diagnostic surveys should also identify targetable
returnees who regained their land after the baseline survey was conducted
in the initial months of the project. Identification of beneficiaries
in the areas of Mostar and West Bosnia, which started several months later
for institutional problems, should be completed.
Targeting mechanisms in the follow-up project should consider the double
nature of demand for heifers, i.e. for micro-enteerprise development and
for subsistence purposes. Furthermore, it should be noted that the need
to feed the animals (which has generated a 1 - 5 ha land availability
criterium in the first phase) has excluded the neediest rural people from
the project. In order to better match IFAD’s mandate, a follow-up
project should consider ways of addressing the needs of these people,
too.
Credit Repayment
There are reasons to believe that the credit supervision and recovery
system will create problems after the first instalments are due (April
1997). A financial institution able to guarantee supervision in the field
should be in charge of the credit component. IFAD’s Project Management
Department may wish to include in the Financing Agreement of a follow-up
project a clause by which a scarce recovery rate in this project can cause
a loan suspension in the next one.
Beneficiary participation
Due to time constraints, the participation of farmers in the selection
of animals has been almost entirely absent. This should be rectified in
the follow-up project where eligible farmers should be consulted in relation
to their preferences for animals. This could be carried out in co-operation
with Agricultural Staff in the Municipalities concerned.
The need for a rapid project implementation has also caused a generally
poor information of farmers regarding the details of the credit scheme.
As farmers are not receiveing heifers for free, a follow-up project should
put much more emphasis in providing complete and consistent information
to all farmers interested in the scheme.
Institutional Arrangements
Given the difficulty of project implementation in the Croat-majority
areas of the Federation, special institutional arrangements may need to
be developed in the second phase in order to ensure a better functioning
of project-related activities in these areas.
Financial Management.
The identification and recruitment of a local counterpart to replace
the TA Financial Manager has been delayed for several reasons, notably
the difficulty to find a technically highly-qualified person with an excellent
knowledge of english, computer-literate and willing to accept a temporary
employment (most people with such characteristics having a permanent one).
The person selected and recruited for this delicate and crucial job will
need to be closely assisted and supervised at least during the first period
on duty. The TA or another financial expert should be guaranteed for this
purpose during the initial stages of a potential follow-up project.
Monitoring & Evaluation
The M&E system should be designed and put in place before project
startup and be ready to start operations right from the beginning of project
activities, as an integral part of the PIU. Arrangements should include
a period of Technical Assistance by a qualified M&E expert to be distributed
over the project period (e.g. two months at project startup, one month
after one year of implementation, one or two months during mid-term evaluation
or review, etc). A local M&E expert should be selected before project
startup, receive some training and work in close co-operation with the
TA. The M&E section should also be provided with a vehicle and computer
facilities. Incentives should be foreseen for local field staff designated
to systematically and continuously feed information into the system, to
allow for effective management and, eventually, evaluation of project
impact. Surveys should include a non-targeted control group to facilitate
evaluation of project socio-economic impact on its beneficiaries.
Technical Assistance
Given the difference in cost between the two categories of experts, the
high unemployment rate now prevailing in BiH and the country’s generally
high level of education, the Government’s request to absorbe local
professional staff instead of foreign TA is legitimate and should be met
whenever possible. On the other hand, it is useful for local project staff
to benefit from the assistance of foreign TA in all those disciplines
where there is limited internal knowledge (e.g. M&E) and also to learn
to relate to foreign rules and regulations (e.g. finance and procurement,
livestock supply). All parties involved have the responsibility of guaranteeing
that the project is implemented in the best possible way and the argument
of local unemployment should not be used at the detriment of quality of
project performance.
IFAD, the Government of BiH and PIU should agree on a balance of TA and
local staff requirements before project startup. IFAD and the Cooperating
Institution should make sure during project implementation that the selected
TA is actually performing according to the high standards required. On
the other hand, monitoring should also make sure that the Government/PIU
does not use this argument as a pretext to liquidate whatever TA is not
in line with its modus operandi.
