2. 3
EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT
“IMPROVING LIVELIHOODS AND FOOD SECURITY:
‘PROFESSIONAL KITS’ DISTRIBUTION FOR VULNERABLE
HOUSEHOLDS AND RETURNEES” IN ABKHAZIA/GEORGIA
DURING 2004-2007
A PROJECT BY PREMIERE URGENCE
SUPPORTED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S HUMANITARIAN OFFICE (ECHO)
Sukhumi, Abkhazia
September 2007
3. 4
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 5
I Acknowledgements 6
Preface 7
Premiere Urgence and ‘professional kit’ 8
II Work plan and methodology 9
MAP: Abkhazia and PU operational areas 11
III Beneficiaries according to the phases and sectors 14
IV Analytical synthesis of phase I and II 18
Broad issues with the previous assessment 22
V Analysis of Business programme 24
Community Social programme 26
VI Comparative Impact of Agricultural programme in three phases 29
VII Conclusion and recommendations 37
VIII Focus Groups Discussion at grass roots level 40
Tour of Gali business program 49
IX Interview key participants in the project: Staff of PU 53
X With the decision makers 66
XI Key stakeholders 75
XII Case studies 1-5 80-96
XIII Photographs from the project Focus group discussions, the project beneficiaries,
professional kits
97-98
XIV Annexure A About Abkhazia 99
Annexure B TOR of the evaluation work 102
Annexure C Work plan and implementation schedule of the evaluation study 106
Annexure D Detailed analysis of agriculture programme 109
Annexure E Detailed analysis of business programme Separate
zip file
4. 5
Executive Summary
The project has successfully met its goals of improving food security and establishing a livelihoods base
for 1100 vulnerable households in target villages in five districts of Abkhazia/Georgia. However, these
achievements underscore a need for renewed resource mobilization and beneficiary support strategies to
meet anticipated, concrete expressions of demand. The main focus of future work should be strengthening
the project’s core interventions and continuing to provide support to existing beneficiaries to establish a
sustainable base of income-generating activities that will be able to flourish once the project exits
Abkhazia.
This evaluation found strong evidence for the need of an increase in emphasis on participatory approaches
to future community-level interventions, in particular by allowing beneficiaries to engage in the
development of the content, specifications, and deployment strategies of business/agricultural kits.
Harnessing local knowledge of agricultural practices and market conditions will allow the project to more
effectively leverage the assistance it provides to beneficiaries.
We identified several areas where current project design can be strengthened:
Narrow the geographical focus of the project (current beneficiaries are too dispersed and outlying
projects are therefore underserved by technical support and do not benefit from economies of
scale that arise from targeting density)
Demand/beneficiary-driven kit design and dissemination process (like freedom of choice to select
‘variety’ of crops/vegetables/livestock and other inputs)
Increase levels of technical support and training after kit deployment
Increase engagement of private sector actors – existing farmers, buyers/traders of agricultural
produce – to generate an environment where agricultural kits will have a sustainable impact.
Reduce the number of beneficiaries for collective agricultural tools (3-4 person/mini- tractor
instead of 6-12 person/mini-tractor)
Facilitate inputs to develop cattle breeding and rearing, ensure feed availability for cattle during
off-season, availability of HYV seeds of vegetables, growing and marketing off-seasonal
vegetables to neighboring countries
5. 6
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to PU top level decision makers, in general from the PREMIERE URGENCE’s HQ in Paris,
and in particular Ms.Veronique MIOLLANY, Vincent and Pierre from PU- Abkhazia for full support
provided in the office as well as in the field.
I am indebted to Astik, Marlen, Nana-1 (Business agents) Astamur, Janshukh, Peter, Adgur
(agronomists), Nana-2, Nana-3 (Gali), Bella, Xibla, Valia, Ilona, Irma, Aida (Social Workers) who have
organized field trips, community and individual meetings, conducted surveys with beneficiaries,
provided project documents, reports, for encouragement and who were interested in the results of this
evaluation.
I wholeheartedly express my gratitude to all of those beneficiaries who gave their valuable time to be
interviewed for this evaluation and to share their opinion, experiences and openly participate in the
survey, FGD and case studies.
Dima, Uriy, Alyona and Marina deserve special thanks for providing all administrative and logistics
support.
Thanks are due to Gregory and Badra for their sincere help in completing data processing for this study.
As always, Elena Bass-my better half, my beloved son Edward and lovely daughter Elizabeth have
encouraged me to take up this complex but interesting & challenging assignment. It would not have been
possible without their continued moral support and cooperation, kind words of appreciation and praise to
finish this work timely.
Finally, the comments and suggestions of my friend, Mukul Faruque, have been most useful and
acknowledged with particular gratitude.
Dhaka, 11 October 2007 Nizamuddin Al-Hussainy, PhD
6. 7
Preface
Since 2004 till date, three phases of a programme for improvement of food security and livelihoods of
resource-poor households of Abkhazia mainly of small and marginal farmers and small artisans is being
implemented by PREMEARE URGENCE (PU) under 3 grant contracts with European Commission
Humanitarian Office (ECHO).
The implementing agency was responsible for professional kit (technology) identification and
dissemination by following step by step appropriate methods and procedures. PU also worked for
capacity building of the farmers and small businesspersons (men and women), facilitated adoption of
‘professional kits’ at different levels in five districts of Abkhazia.
This evaluation report tried to identify the effects, positive and negative, intended or not on Premeire
Urgence’s humanitarian and development intervention on food security and livelihood programmes/
activity for the war affected people of Abkhazia during 2004-2007 which may help all concerned to better
understand the extent of activities those reached the target groups and assess the magnitude of their
effects on people’s welfare.
This evaluation was based on random sample questionnaire surveys, participatory focus groups
discussions with beneficiaries, questionnaire assessment with project management people and other
stakeholders in which project beneficiary populations were compared before and after PU interventions,
review of monitoring reports done by PU at several points during program intervention; case studies and
analysis carried out of available other secondary data.
What can we use it for?
• Measuring outcomes and impacts of the activity, to what extent PU made and making a difference?
What are the results on the ground? How can PU do better?
• Helping to clarify whether costs for the project activity are justified, when decision- makers need
information quickly.
• Informing recommendations on whether to expand modify or eliminate any projects activity.
• Drawing lessons for improving the design and management of future activities. Managers and policy-
makers may get added confidence in decision- making.
• Comparing the effectiveness of alternative interventions - whether some approaches are expensive or
time-consuming.
• Strengthening accountability of PU to the beneficiaries as well as to the donor for results.
7. 8
Premiere Urgence and ‘professional kit’: From emergency to long-term development
PREMIERE URGENCE (PU), an international humanitarian development NGO based in France, was
established in 1992 to provide aid to the war affected civilian victims in former Yugoslavia. It is a non-
profit organization, whose actions are independent, non-political and non-religious.
PU provides assistance and protects people during the most traumatic moments in their lives; when they
are frightened, lost, and uncertain about the future and possessing next to nothing. Whether it is in Iraq or
Abkhazia/Georgia during or after the war or the Lebanon in the midst of fighting, the lives of ordinary
women, girls, boys and men are disrupted — changed forever. PU is to lighten their load by ensuring that
they receive the basic necessities of life and livelihoods.
PU has provided aid in 29 different countries through emergency relief, reconstruction, rehabilitation and
economic revival programmes with the objective to help vulnerable people regain self-sufficiency. To
rebuild and create economic livelihoods programmes in different emergencies, PU is implementing an
innovative Professional Kit programmes which is the appropriate ‘tool’ to revitalize the economy of the
concerned countries of natural disasters, emergency programmes of development projects to enable the
affected population to resume work and regain confidence.
One such programme was in Abkhazia (ref: Annex A), population of which had been seriously suffered a
2 years long civil war with Georgia. The 1992-1993 civil war and subsequent several series of conflicts,
blockades, protests in the following years in Abkhazia led to the displacement of over three hundred
thousand persons and devastation of this once thriving agricultural centre and tourist destination situated
between the Black Sea and the Caucasus mountains.
Once emergency needs had been covered through the distribution of food aid, the country needs to be
rebuilt. For reconstruction to take place, agricultural, business and other economic redevelopment is
essential and to provide farmers, small craftsmen/ women with the tools they lost during the war. PU with
partnership with ECHO came up with development projects to provide farmers, small business people
with tools so that they resume their agricultural products production and income earning activities ‘to
enable themselves physically and mentally, to regain their role in society and to generate income to
provide for their families’.
For the last three years PREMIERE URGENCE provided 1100 households of Abkhazia with their
essential tools which they needed so as to able to live off the essential foods/income from those
professional kits programmes.
This beneficiary-based assessment evaluation was conducted which combines individual survey, focus
groups discussions/ interviews, key informants, case studies and analysis of monitoring reports/secondary
data gathered by PU during projects performance periods.
8. 9
Work Plan and Methodology of the Evaluation
Preparatory work began with mutually agreeing of the overall terms of reference (Annexure B) and
preparation of the evaluation work plan and design matrix. (Annexure C).
To make the scope of the evaluation timely manageable, the evaluation was organized under components
as shown below:
(i) Component 1
Conduction of questionnaire survey in the field (with 140 beneficiaries of three phases) was facilitated by
the Agronomists and Social Workers of PU.
(ii) Component 2
Gathering information from existing documents of three phases of ECHO supported projects, review the
literature, review completed and ongoing PU monitoring reports, review of project documents, internal
and external reports on PU, monthly and annual performance reports, facilitation of Focus Groups
Discussions(FGD), interviewing/discussion of beneficiaries and later at home writings case studies on
beneficiaries, conducting survey with questionnaire with project personnel, decision makers,
stakeholders; random verification of questionnaire fillings at the field, report writing and presentation
and finalize the report was carried out by the evaluator.
It was based on relevant manuals, TOR guides, documentation, and interviews and/ or studies on actual
experience where available through field visits, undertaking fieldwork in selected villages from all
regions involved with projects.
Scope and Methodology:
The objective of this evaluation is to help improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of
operations. The evaluation aimed to:
• demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses in the Activity Cycle and modalities and identify the
contributing factors;
• identify and analyze the constraints that need to be addressed to improve efficiency in operations,
including possible changes in procedures and systems;
• provide recommendations to increase the efficiency and effectiveness.
Before presenting the substance of the findings, it should be noted that this evaluation does not identify
one primary cause or party responsible for the underperformance of any activity. If it is underperformance
that may be caused by a multifaceted set of issues, linked to a complex series of events and involving
many, if not all, actors in the PU. There is no scapegoat and no quick fix. The PU information
management systems have been reliable in sharing information on project status and elapsed time, and
reporting on this subject has been systematic and fully transparent.
The recommendations in this document are based on analyses of survey data collected from beneficiaries
(details in Annex D), focus group discussions, and PU staff interviews.
9. 10
The evaluation methodology included reviews of key documents (as well as previous monitoring and
evaluation), beneficiaries survey, focus groups discussions with beneficiaries of 3 phases, conducting case
studies were carried out as per the following schedule:
Phase Villages Beneficiaries Survey and
Individual Visits
Focus Group
Discussion
Case Studies
Vulnerable
Rural
Farmers for
individual
and collective
kits (Phase I)
290
14 290
Bashlata,(27)
Lower
Babashira(40)
Eshera(30)
17/9/07
Machara(1+1)
13/9/07
Vulnerable
Rural
Farmers for
individual
and collective
kits (Phase II)
260
33 260
Bashlata(6),
Babashira(11+13),
Agubediya(14)
Tamysh(30)
18/9/07
Arasadzikh(1+1)
19/9/07
Vulnerable
Rural
Farmers for
individual
and collective
kits (Phase
III) 430
27 430
Bashlata(18),
Primosk(8),
Mukhuri (28)
Primorsk(37)
10/9/07
Vulnerable
Urban and
Rural
Artisans
(Phase
III)120
Business
groups 52 117
17 groups visited
(33%)
Gali (1+1)
10/9/07
TOTAL
1100
74 1100
140(15 %)
Agriculture
29(33%)
Business
97(>1%) 6
The first draft evaluation report of the three projects was presented in a separate workshop on 26/9/07 in
Sukhumi, Abkhazia PU office participated by the program coordinators, Agronomists, Social workers and
other relevant professionals.
10. 11
The suggestions of the workshop participants and comments of the relevant decision makers were
considered for the incorporation in this final report.
Worth mentioning that, all tables/ graphs/ analysis has been made/done on the basis of information
collected through different methods/received from the beneficiaries, staff-implementers, stakeholders and
this evaluation was a 'beneficiaries, plus peoples who are involved directly or indirectly'-based. Here the
evaluator only analyzed the data and drawn conclusions and made specific recommendations, the
evaluator had the any opportunity to ’generate’ own data and based on those 'own' data make own
conclusions/recommendations.
11. 12
Political Map of Abkhazia
Operational areas of activities during the first and second phases
The project was implemented during first phase in two districts:
Sukhumi and Gulripsh districts in 14 villages to support 290 beneficiaries.
12. 13
During the second phase in five districts:
- Ochamchira and Tkwarcheli: provided support to 70 new farmers (7 new groups), with specific
orientations that are milk production (lowlands in Ochamchira, especially the newly mine-cleared
lands), and mountainous production (goats, beekeeping, etc. in Tkwarcheli)
- Gali: Consolidation of agricultural activities, notably through the initiation of an Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) process.
- Sukhumi and Gulripsh: supported to former beneficiaries and coops, plus 40 new farmers (4 new
groups).
Locations of the 3rd
phase activities
The agriculture component took place in five districts during the third phase:
- Sukhumi and Gulripsh, where PU has implemented the two previous phases of the agriculture
program, funded by ECHO. Special consideration given to isolated villages that are inland and never
received assistance.
- Ochamchira and Tkvarcheli where PU has been working since November 2005. New assessments
and meetings with local heads of administration revealed that needs remain very important in these
two districts, notably in isolated villages.
Lachkindar
Atara
Aradu
B
a
Moku
Baslakhu
Reka
Elur
Labra Djal
I Bedia
Primorsk
Ganakhleba
Dikhazurga
Nabakevi
Tagiloni
Baslata
TamishAdzubdjia
RetchriGumrish
Mukhuri
Guada
13. 14
- Gali where PU has been working since November 2005. Actions for the phase III included the
distribution of individual and collective kits the value of which was higher than that of the previous
phases I & II for Gali.
The artisan/small business component implemented in the following five districts: Sukhumi, Gulripsh,
Ochamchira, Tkvarcheli and Gali. Division of beneficiaries were needs based. In other words, though a
concerted effort was made to ensure a balanced number of beneficiaries in all districts Premiere
Urgence’s first priority was to support beneficiaries who fulfilled the selection criteria, including
presenting feasible applications for profitable business.
14. 15
Beneficiaries according to the phases and sectors
As per the data furnished by the PU Abkhazia Project Coordinators and project personnel, the following
compilation cum analysis of information has been made.
In 2004 Première Urgence launched the first program to improve the food security and livelihoods of the
vulnerable population living in Abkhazia with the support of ECHO.
In the first two phases, Première Urgence targeted exclusively farmers; however, in the third phase,
assistance to artisans and petty business persons/ traders was also incorporated into the program.
Phase I: "Boosting of Agricultural Activities in Sukhumi" from Oct. 04 to Sept. 05
This program was aimed at increasing the income and food security of 290 families in the districts of
Sukhumi, Gulripsh, Ochamchira and Tkvarcheli through the distribution of agriculture kits to farming
families and collective agriculture equipment to groups primarily composed of 8 farmers.
1st
PHASE
Number of beneficiaries according to sectors
Crop /
Garden
Animal
Husbandry TOTAL
115 114 229
95 101 196
210 215 290 BENEFICIARIES!
total beneficiaries-290
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Crop / Garden Animal Husbandry
Sukhumi
Gulripsh
15. 16
Phase II: "Consolidation of Farming Activities for the Reinforcement of Food Security in Abkhazia"
from Oct. 2005 – Oct. 2006
This program was aimed at increased the income and food security for 260 families in the districts of
Gali, Sukhumi, Gulripsh, Ochamchira and Tkvarcheli through the distribution of individual agriculture
kits and collective agriculture equipment to groups composed of about 8 farmers.
PU also provided technical advice to 290 previous program beneficiaries. Eighty-five of these previous
beneficiaries received additional agriculture kits to replace poultry kits affected by the "avian bird- flu"
epidemic.
2nd
PHASE
Number of beneficiaries according to sectors
Crops/garden
Animal
husbandry Mixed business TOTAL
195 0 0 195
20 35 0 55
19 43 1 63
14 18 11 43
13 19 1 33
261 115 13 389
total beneficiaries-389
0
50
100
150
200
250
Crops/garden Animal
husbandry
Mixed business
Gali
Sukhumi
Gulripsh
Ochamchira
Tkvarcheli
16. 17
Phase III: "Improving Livelihoods and Food Security in Abkhazia: Professional Kit Distribution for
Vulnerable Households and Returnees" from December 2006 to October 2007
The overall objective of the third phase is to provide food security and improved livelihoods to 550 poor
families in 5 targeted districts (Sukhumi, Gulripsh, Ochamchira, Tkvarcheli and Gali) of Abkhazia.
3rd
PHASE
Number of beneficiaries according to sectors
Crops/garden
Animal
husbandry Mixed business projects TOTAL
118 7 15 22 14 162
6 13 0 45 20 64
0 1 1 23 10 25
103 129 16 22 10 270
3 15 3 28 9 58
230 165 35 143 63 573
total beneficiaries-570
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Crops/garden Animal
husbandry
Mixed business
Gali
Sukhumi
Gulripsh
Ochamchira
Tkvarcheli
Total Number of Beneficiaries:
Vulnerable Rural Farmers for individual and collective kits (Phase I) 290
Vulnerable Rural Farmers for individual and collective kits (Phase II) 389
Vulnerable Rural Farmers for individual and collective kits (Phase III) 430
Vulnerable Urban and Rural businesspersons /Artisans (Phase III) 143
17. 18
Crop / Garden
Animal
Husbandry Mixed business Phase
210 215 Phase I
261 115 13 Phase II
230 165 35 143 Phase III
Phase wise beneficiaries according to the sectors
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Crop / Garden Animal Husbandry Mixed business
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
Worth mentioning that among total beneficiaries of 3 phases, the ratio between female and male
beneficiaries was 46:54.
18. 19
Analytical Synthesis of phase I and II
The ECHO project aims to improve the food security situation of vulnerable households in the Abkhazia
through the delivery of small-scale farming support via agricultural and livestock kits. The operational
framework targets at-risk households that are identified as being most entrepreneurial and likely to
succeed in implementing the toolkits provided. The toolkits are designed to improve purchasing capacity
and alleviate severe limiting constraints on agricultural production and animal breeding faced by
vulnerable households in the target areas.
The project log-frame identifies the following quantitative results:
1. Increased agricultural production
2. Improved access to and consumption of food
a. Improved food affordability due to decrease in food prices in the local market
b. Improved access to food due to income generation
3. Establishment of family farm concerns
4. Establishment of cooperative farming groups
The above benchmarks are broadly addressed by the indicators below {Source: Final Report ECHO I
(2005) and Final Report ECHO II (2007), PU}.
Key Indicators
ECHO I ECHO II
Start date Oct-04 Oct-05
Duration (months) 12 13
New Beneficiaries (HHs) 290 305
Previous Beneficiaries (HHs) - 290
Total Beneficiaries (HHs) 290 595
Total Beneficiaries (individuals) 1314 2320
No. of farming kits distributed to new beneficiaries 425 305
Market price impact market survey
19. 20
Consumption impact consumption/diet survey
No. of family farm concerns established - 305
No. of cooperatives/village solidarity groups
established
28 13
Need for additional assistance (replacement kits) - 85
15 Villages were selected in the ECHO I round: all of them in the periphery of Sukhumi (maxi.15 km)
because of the presence of a major market.
Sukhumi Region Gulripsh region
Achadara Babushera
Baslata Dranda
Dziguta Gulripsh
Eshera Machara
Guma Merhiul
Gumista Parnaut
Lechkop Pshap
Yashtuka
21. 22
ECHO II
Increased
Animal
% of increase
(distributed
+ offspring)
living
COWS 65 (55+10) 58%
PIGS 26 (7+19) 420%
PIGLETS 43 (51-8) 87%
SHEEP 20 (21-1) New
GOAT 9 (12-3) 90%
BEES (hives) 12 New
Global
Increased
surface
(Ha)
% of increase Global
Increased
harvest
(tons)
% of increase
POTATOE 5,3 735% 37 600%
MAIZE 3 100% 0,6 44%
ONION 0,5 New 0,4 New
Fodder crops 13 New
Result given per
beneficiary family
Average Monetary % % % of increased
incomeFormer income Global
Income Increase Income
Increase
<10% 10-
50%
50-
100%
>100%
COWS 20149 590 3% 5318 26% 22% 49% 15% 15%
PIGS 32530 1583 5% 2954 9% 50% 33% 17% 0%
PIGLETS 21814 87 0% 3742 17% 27% 53% 13% 7%
SHEEP 20298
GOAT² 17694
BEES (hives) 10188 0 0% 400 4% 100% 0% 0% 0%
POTATO 22944 3602 16% 6590 29% 15% 54% 13% 15%
MAIZE 25064 0 0% 4640 19% 33% 33% 0% 33%
ONION 17994 2563 11% 3750 16% 0% 100% 0% 0%
GI = MI + money saved +
value of the asset growth
Replacement Pigs Sheep Bees Greenhouses Goats Fertili
zersPoultry kits
Kits 48 6 6 23 1 1 85
ECHO I
22. 23
176 potato kits
- 23 vegetable kits including 21 complete greenhouses
- 11 maize-bean kits
- 99 poultry kits
- 6 bee-keeping kits
- 24 piglets’ kits
- 20 sow kits
- 30 heifer kits
- 36 cow kits
Difficult to assess now…except for some of the kits:
- potato: 44t distributed, 143 t harvested = poor harvest due to delay in the plantation and bad weather conditions
Assumption: maybe due to variety or doze of fertilizer?
Result 2: improvement of the households’ food security situation via the auto consumption
Indicator2: quantity of farm products eaten by the household
Methodology to be determined in order to assess this result
Broad issues with the previous assessment:
1. The performance of the beneficiaries is not compared to a “control” group. The program’s impact
(i.e. the impact of kit distribution on household income) should be estimated as the difference in incomes
between the target and control groups at the end of the intervention.
In the example below, the implementation of the kit increased average household income by 50%, but
only 17% compared to the control.
The true impact of the program is then 17%
Before After Difference (%)
Beneficiary $10 $15 +50%
Control (in the same village
but did not receive kit)
$6 $8 +33%
2. There is no way to measure the impact of increased agricultural production on food security via a
decrease in the market price of food (because there are other factors that affect market prices – such as the
price of fuel/petrol, availability of roads, etc).
Ideally, a survey of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries should be carried out to assess the impact of the
kits on their food consumption calories consumer per day, broken down by protein, fat, carbohydrate
sources, to investigate whether there is a sustainable improvement in the beneficiaries’ nutrition as a
result of the toolkit
23. 24
3. Investment per beneficiary changed from phase to phase!
PHASE- wise Investment per beneficiaries in Roubles
I II III
15500 8100 10200
This might have some effect on the outcome, especially in agricultural products.
In reply to a question, 88% majority of the project staff- implementing the projects activities opined that,
“It would be good if it would have been long-term programs and budgets for beneficiaries would have
increased”.
24. 25
Analysis of Business Programme
Business start-up kits were disbursed to individual vulnerable artisans or traders who are practicing small,
weak business or who worked in business sector prior to war, but who are now unable to work due to
socio-economic constraints.
- Business management training for beneficiaries of the business start-up kits. Simulation business games
and interactive business modules are used as tools to impart key business management techniques to
beneficiaries
During the review of documents/ existing reports it was found that the PU business section has conducted
a detailed ‘Artisan profile and needs assessment’ research in Sukhumi, Tkvarcheli, Ochamchira, Gulripsh
and Gali districts and market assessment. Later, PU sought applications from probable beneficiaries.
Selection of beneficiaries was conducted through individual field visits of the applicant and filling up of
form-
A checklist to assess the income of the applicant, measurement of vulnerability, housing condition
coefficient, children coefficient, elderly coefficient, dependency coefficient, debt coefficient, wealth
penalty and filling up other factors for considerations. Then all coefficients/observations were
summarized in a table and finally as per set criteria the beneficiaries were selected.
The evaluator visited 17 out of 52 business programs in four districts to learn from the experience of the
mature to improve future performance. As business program is still young and, therefore, has not yet
benefited from any evaluations the business part of the PU has been growing. As a matter of good
stewardship of the funds entrusted to PU, an evaluation of some mature projects is timely to provide
lessons and an overall assessment of the portfolio. As such, 17 of the mature projects which had the
potential to provide lessons to the growing portfolio were randomly selected for the performance
evaluation. This evaluation also provides a desk review of other noting progress on their achievements
based on documents available.
It was planned that training will be provided to :(i) business group members in the project objectives, the
objectives for group formation improving their access to services,
And
(ii) Business management training for beneficiaries of the business start-up kits. Simulation business
games and interactive business modules would be used as tools to impart key business management
techniques to beneficiaries.
And
(iii) In community participation for social projects.
PU was supposed to be responsible for training, as well as organizing technical training. However, during
the interaction with the individual beneficiaries of the business program, it was found that some training
was provided, but difficult to evaluate the impact of training, as when asked, most of them could not
remember what sort of training was provided to them.
25. 26
When asked whether the selection criteria for beneficiaries of the artisan professional kit program was
followed or not, all of the beneficiaries told in affirmative.
PU artisan development agents helped them to fill out the business application form properly.
Detailed of the field visit report synthesized with PU monitoring reports and the outcome of analysis of
the evaluator with the project coordinator and business agents reveals (details in Annexure E) that out of
52 business ‘professional kits’ facilitated by PU in different urban and rural areas, 15% are doing
excellent, 60% -good, 8% satisfactory and rest are either ‘bad’ (4%) or ‘unknown’ (13%).See below the
pi-chart.
Marking of business according to perfomance
good- 60%
excellent- 15%
unknown- 13% satisfactory- 8%bad- 4%
Artisan start-up kits were supplied to the individual vulnerable artisans who were practicing small, weak
business or who worked as artisans or businesspeople prior to war, but who were unable to work due to
socio-economic constraints, are most of them(75%, excellent + good ones) are now doing well.
However, time has not yet matured to give opinion whether these programmes would be ‘Success and
sustainable programs’. We will have to ‘wait and see’ the performance of these business programmes
some more time.
Beneficiaries provided a 10% partial reimbursement of kit value.
Using the funds from the 10% partial reimbursement of business kits, as per the project proposal, two
community rehabilitation projects were supposed to be launched (i.e. irrigation, school, hospital, etc.).
Projects will be identified in a participatory manner by the community and local administration.
In the business programme, beneficiaries provided a 10% partial reimbursement of kit value.
26. 27
10% contribution till date (21Sept 07) was 4173 Euro. With the 10% contribution two (# 1 and 2 in the
following table) community social projects were established and some projects are marked to be
established, if fund for them could be generated.
While talking to the responsible person (for the implementation of the social community project) at the
PU office, it has been revealed that 10% contribution from the business group was not enough for the
establishment of ‘community social project’ as if there wasn’t any contribution from other donors like
SDC or local government these projects would have been impossible to implement.
Though the ‘community social project’s philosophy/idea was appreciated by all and it seems to be
extremely effective and appropriate but it was not enough, the 10% reimbursement money of the value of
the business kits from the beneficiaries. Even the ‘business beneficiaries’ were proud to be the part of
such community based social projects and felt to be participants of those projects.
While interacting with the beneficiaries of the ‘business’ groups and common beneficiaries of the
community social projects namely, ‘Replacement of transformer and repairing transformer unit’ and
‘installation of garbage can in Gali town’, it was revealed that the selection of the community projects
using the 10% reimbursement were most effective and participatory.
Community Social projects
10% Collection money for reinvestments from business projects as of on 21.09.2007
Is 4173 euro out of which 3818 Euro used, Euro 355 left.
Location Social projects Cost of the
project
(euro)
SDC
contribution
(euro)
PU
contribution
(business
projects)
Local
admin/Other
beneficiaries
contribution
Tkvarcheli Replacement of transformer
and repairing transformer
unit
9005 4580 (50%) 2232 (24,
78%)
2193(24, 35%)
Gali Installation of garbage can
in Gali town
7904 4580 (57%) 1586(20%) 1910(24, 17%)
27. 28
Investment of the 10% reimbursment (PU ECHO funded artisan program)
in community projects cofinanced by PU's SDC funded program and
local administration/beneficiaries participation
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Replacement of
transformer and
repairing transformer unit
Installation of garbage
can in Gali town
Tkvarcheli Gali
Euros
Admin/beneficiaries
contribution
PU-ECHO contribution
(business projects)
PU-SDC contribution(euro)
How many beneficiaries from the business component apply for micro-credit loans or do they intend to do
so?
Nobody of the beneficiaries yet applied for Micro-credit. One of the decision makers of PU gave opinion
that, PU does not have any micro-credit programme and there won’t be any in near future. Micro- credit
issue should be discussed and coordinated with other organizations. Another decision maker told the
evaluator that before initiating a micro-credit program for farmers, appropriate training with the artisans
should be organized and will aim at presenting organizations dealing on this issue. These organizations
will be incited to the training for business beneficiaries –till now; there is any plan for PU’s own micro-
credit programme. Most of the field staff of PU and beneficiaries (> 85%) assumed/ eexpressed that
micro-credit initiation in Abkhazia will help develop small business in all directions.
From the literature review, it was found and observed that the socio-cultural conditions of Abkhazia’s households
do not use Banks on a regular basis either for loans or for savings; larger villages may have officers
for disbursal of pensions and other governmental payments but these officers do not take deposits.
Borrowing from neighbors or relatives is widespread but is static or declining due to the low
availability of cash and strong social requirement of pay back.
Usually, in rural areas, loans range from 500-15000 Roubles ($17-$500) and are mainly used for essential foods,
agricultural inputs, health costs, education and local ceremonies. No interest is charged on these loans and the terms of the
loan is rarely fixed but usually understood to be ‘short term’ and can be paid back on an intermitted basis.
Repaying loans in kind, labour or services is possible but depends on the specific relationship,
Defaulting on these loans in kind’, labour, services is possible but depends on the specific relationship,
Defaulting on these loans is rear. Village shops also provide short-term credit but of much
Smaller amounts 50-60 rubles and for shorter periods (days and weeks). The only other
28. 29
Formal lenders active in the rural areas are the Abkhaz government, which provides two types of credits.
Firstly, credit is provided to active state farms; loans are based on farm expenditure plans
And have to pay back within 2 years and can even be written off altogether.
Interest rate is 12%. Second credit is provided for starting up new agricultural enterprises from state
Privatization fund. Loans can be up to $ 20000 and interest rate is 7%/year; repayment does not begin
Until year 2 (UNDP-Abkhazia Agricultural report 2006).
Still, most of the field Staff of PU and beneficiaries (> 85%) expressed that micro-credit initiation in Abkhazia
will help develop small business in all directions. The decision making authority of the Project planning
to conduct training with the artisans aiming at presenting dealing with micro-credit.
29. 30
Impact analysis of three phases of agriculture programme
Survey conducted among a sample of beneficiaries using the (detailed results are in annex D, E) based on
the sampling frame described in chapter II.
A survey comparing pre- and post-intervention average household asset holdings indicates that there is a
significant degree of variation in the beneficiaries’ response to the distributions of the kits. A summary of
key indicators is shown below:
The majority of survey respondents (98%) identify the kit materials as being of good quality, and
interviews reveal that there were few concerns regarding the timeliness of kit delivery.
30. 31
However, the impact of kit implementation on the asset holdings of beneficiary households has been
broadly uneven, with survey data indicating that nuts and citrus tree (though not directly linked with the
project activity) numbers only responding positively after Phase 3, while other trees actually declined
after the first two phases. Poultry and cattle (cows and pigs) responded well after Phases 1 and 2, but by
Phase 3, numbers declined. This may be due to the reason that farmers may sold out cows and pigs to buy
new ones or as for pigs maybe the farmers sold out the piglets just before the survey and waiting now for
buying other assets. Income generated through the process was not possible due to complicacy of
calculations or record keepings by the farmers (see annex D).
Overall, these data paint an important picture. First, data collection remains incomplete and only provides
a very rough estimate of the project’s impact. More importantly, the asset “portfolio” held by
beneficiaries has changed significantly due to the introduction of the kits, although there is evidence that
volatility in assets remains due to seasonal variations in crop yields. Field-based evidence indicates that
cattle holdings declined by Phase 3 as people sold off pigs and cows in response to higher market prices
and to supplement income. There is also evidence that beneficiaries not exposed to high levels of
technical support fail to establish a sustainable income-generating base and sell-off livestock and poultry
given to them as part of the kit.
Agricultural equipment (greenhouses, mini-tractors and trailers) are key to allowing beneficiaries to
leverage their agricultural and livestock kits into income-generating streams and the project has been very
successful in providing beneciciaries with these assets. One dimension that is not captured by these data is
geographical dispersion. Field-based evidence indicates that physical assets are much more effectively
used in communities that are close together (high density of beneficiaries) and therefore receive more
frequent support visits.
PhaseI:
GreenHouse
PhaseIII:
GreenHouse
PhaseII:Mini
Tractor
PhaseI:
Trailer
PhaseIII:
Trailer
Before
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
Before
After
The kits delivered a significant boost to the availablity of farm equipment in both family farms and
cooperatives, which further boosts their productivity. The targeting of family farms and coops by the
project has been a very successful strategy achieving the greatest possible impact with scarce physical
equipment.
31. 32
Average household livestock and poultry counts improved after Phase 1 and 2, but declined significantly
after Phase 3 – more evidence that households’ assets have improved but remain vulnerable.
32. 33
Crop yields did not improve as a result of kit distribution, with the exception of vegetables in Phase 2 and
3. This indicates that agricultural kits need to be further tailored to the needs of beneficiary groups, with
greater sensitivity to existing market conditions, variety selection, taking account of local micro- climate,
and the community capacity. In particular, potential output gains can be achieved by expanding the seed
variety and fertilizer dozes and other ‘envoronments’( needs to be determined by studies) incorporated in
the kits.
33. 34
What is the beneficiaries’ viewpoint?
The majority of beneficiaries consistently report a good match with the kit they received, in addition to
complementary training and timeliness of program delivery. 77% of beneficiaries continue to use the kit
at the end of Phase 3, and 84% report the ability to continue operating without additional PU support.
Broadly, all three phases have achieved marginal increases in the number of nut, citrus and other fruit/nut
trees among the beneficiary population (Details of averages and sums of the survey: please see Annex D).
Impact
- Were the selection criteria of beneficiaries transparent and appropriate? Did Première Urgence follow
up these criteria?
Yes
- Did the income and assets improve as a result of the program? To what extent?
Difficult to ascertain in monetary terms, but there has been an improvement in the asset holdings of
beneficiary households
- Did beneficiaries improve their food security? To what extent?
34. 35
Yes, which an improvement in household incomes generated by agricultural kits and a greater diversity of
assets available to the household. However, agricultural production is still not sustainable and requires
continued investment of technical support.
- Was collaboration improved amongst agriculture stakeholders in Abkhazia?
Partly successful.
- How did the beneficiaries perceive the programs and the activities of Première Urgence implemented?
- Were the locations of intervention appropriate?
Yes
Efficiency and Effectiveness
- Was the organization of groups effective?
Under question. Mixed reaction from the respondents, depending on the gender of the beneficiary. Male
participants were happy, female participants assessed that they were humiliated in sharing the group’s
‘opportunities’ as per their ‘different needs’.
There should have been “different needs but equal opportunities” for every one of the groups.
- Was the distribution of equipment timely?
98% yes
- Was technical training appropriate for beneficiaries (agriculture and business)?
>90% yes.
Sustainability
- Are the agricultural kits still used? Are the farms still functioning?
78% are still using.
- What is the local authorities view on the success and sustainability of the programs?
Very positive. It was revealed that farmers have vast opportunity to sell their agro-based products, any
vegetable like tomato, cucumber, green leafs in the local market throughout the year, thus if the vegetable
productions could be increased and diversified and further produced in off- seasons ( March- May, or
October- November) and increased by supporting appropriate technical training and ensuring all agro-
based inputs like high yielding varieties of demanding vegetables seeds, needed equipments , fencing,
greenhouse facilities, pesticide/fungicide, fertilizer, fuel, agricultural tools, irrigation etc. then farmers
will have the capacity to increase their yield and income and thus sustainability could be prevailed.
This issue is also applicable to the animal husbandry including pigs and poultry production.
It was distinctively found that cow rearing was the most popular and profitable kit especially for women.
Knowledge of beneficiaries on non-traditional trades, availability of raw materials, market situation on
management of output, improved animal feed, artificial insemination, nursery rising, horticulture,
innovative methods of vegetables or fruit processing/preservation or on preservation of seed, micro-credit,
gender equality etc. are limited. Therefore, skill development training programmes on these issues has got
better prospect in Abkhazia.
35. 36
Future of the project
As the war affected, returnees, IDPs, rural vulnerable groups of Abkhazia- non-beneficiaries target people
of PU, who accounts numerous, still waiting any sort of support from any quarter to start up their small
businesses, agricultural works, it is advisable that PU continues their humanitarian-development works
for the betterment of these groups.
At the same time the project decision makers, who have accumulated substantial work experience in the 3 phases
of their work in complex situation of Abkhazia opined to continue for farming and business programs because
there are still lots of needs, but certainly with Adaptation as the context changed.
Another decision maker told that PU shall have some legitimacy to work in Abkhazia and Georgia.
A lot of things have shall to be done. But the approach should changed and be adapted. We are not any more
in a “emergency situation”, but more in a “reconstruction and rehabilitation”
Situation. A project coordinator has given his opinion that, “Can remain as long as frozen conflict situation exists
Approach, however, will need to evaluate steadily PU’s global strategy for the coming year: shall give or not to
the mission in Abkhazia the mandate to implement further projects”.
The senior project personnel like agronomist and social workers, have given the opinion regarding
the future activities that It would be good to have long - term projects. Financial assistance should be
more imposing as the short-term projects do not solve the main problems of the beneficiaries; they are
only emergency help to survive.
- I would like to see the continuation of the program in agriculture. Abkhazia needs “the PU ”. Especially
Ochamchirsky region. People hope on PU. They need PU’s help.
- The work, carried out in Abkhazia, helped the poor people to solve their problems, concerning
agriculture. To my mind the next step is to organize the work in the same field with the collective
groups, providing nominal help and giving micro-credits, covering all the territory of Abkhazia.
- The work in Abkhazia lends a helping hand to the poor people. It is essential to continue work in the
same regions, including several villages in Gudautsky region.
- The program should cover all the regions of Abkhazia, increasing financial flows.
The agronomist have some different opinions like Covering all the territory of Abkhazia with agricultural
programs, stock-raising, wine-growing, maize-growing, sheep-breeding, citrus-growing, nuts and tea-
growing.
“- Long-term projects directed not only to the development of agriculture, but also to the development of
the small business.
- A zone of activity– covers the whole territory of Abkhazia, as with PU’s help there is a perspective of the
development of the listed projects among the needed ones.
- As far as the humanitarian help is concerned, which is given away by PU, I would like to see either the
elements of the development in a new phase and it seems to me, that we have to increase our
beneficiaries’ budget for that purpose, so that they could overcome the achieved results and improve their
financial condition”.
36. 37
Conclusion and recommendation:
The main findings of this evaluation are not surprising. There are no magical formulas for the success of
community level agriculture projects in Abkhazia. There are however clear factors that contributed to
success and those were identified and described in this report.
Overall, the "Improving Livelihoods and Food Security in Abkhazia: Professional Kit Distribution for
Vulnerable Households and Returnees" project is ending smoothly in its project areas and all three phases
have been rated by the beneficiaries as successful.
The projects were relevant and efficient as the findings reveal that the overall condition of war affected
rural Abkhazia is agrarian in nature and basic conditions of target groups/farmers are almost similar to
that of other war affected/ ‘frozen’ after conflict/ reconstruction and rehabilitation conditions of the
regions. The projects activities have increased the technical capacity and knowledge of the beneficiaries
and partly in addressing the problem of food security and livelihood of Abkhazia. It is rated successful
given the effectiveness of actual outputs, a program followed by an advanced monitoring plan.
However, its sustainability is less likely because the program developed is not likely to be implemented
without follow- up interventions. The evaluator is very much optimistic about the prospect of
sustainability of the project if a proper design is made for the next phase of the project.
A participatory/bottom- up approach to program/ project design and implementation is considered the
best strategy to build community self- reliance and ownership of project activities by the beneficiaries and
therefore sustainability. This is particularly relevant to Abkhazia where farming systems are diverse and
strongly influenced by local socio-economic, agro-ecological, micro-climatic, soil and other conditions
and knowledge. In this context it is necessary for farmers to be actively involved in problem identification
and developing solutions combining their local knowledge with the ideas and technology options that the
extension agent/ agronomist/ field facilitator of PU may have to offer. Consequently, evaluator
recommends more participatory approaches to food security and livelihoods development.
Special social awareness training may be conducted among the probable future beneficiaries before
rendering support in the next phase. Main thrust may be given on nutrition, food security, and livelihoods
management so as to strengthen their confidence.
Simple, affordable, farmers friendly agricultural professional kits (technologies) should be identified
among the existing and available ones to start the process for dissemination among the Abkhaz farmers
through demonstration and training.
Emphasis should be placed on an institutionalized process to develop program directions and strategies
including the participation of representatives from the key stakeholder groups (both at national and
district levels), farmer groups, staff of NGOs and other programs in agriculture. This process should also
result in donors and NGOs developing their own programs in line with these directions and strategies as
well as improved collaboration between/among them.
All beneficiaries and decision makers/project personnel feel the need to reduce the number of
beneficiaries for per mini- tractor (motto-block) from 6-12 to 3- 4 in future probable Projects.
There should be flexibility of choice of varieties of crops/vegetables/dozes of fertilizer.
37. 38
Kit's technologies should be transferred in such a way, so that beneficiaries can get package service
facilities for implementation.
Attempts should be made to involve women beneficiaries in the marketing process.
Business agents may be oriented further on small business/ trade, production and marketing, micro-credit
etc. preferably outside of the country, so that in near future they could be treated as trainers as well as
guide of the beneficiaries.
Lesson learned from stockholders opinions: A consultation with the public during the preparation of next
phase is desirable to ensure that project design incorporates stakeholder participation. The need to consult
with the public is particularly important for livelihoods related project involving many diverse
stakeholders; often strong personal and emotional interests emerge.
Continued consultation throughout the project cycle is also necessary. Early consultation with a wider
range of stakeholders may have broadened the focus of the project to address the root causes of the
problem rather than focusing narrowly on the effects.
Use public awareness campaigns and mass media initiatives to market the project to the public and thus
gain support for project activities. Transparency of intended project objectives and activities is essential.
It is recommended that if the above observations are taken into considerations, the project may be
extended or replicated in other places for similar target groups.
Specific recommendations:
i. The project’s success has revealed a substantial population of vulnerable potential
beneficiaries in Abkhazia that are likely to benefit from future programming and should
provide the basis for the project’s continued expansion.
ii. Emphasis should be placed on skill development/enhancement and quality of training
enabling the participants to get employment/livelihoods in greater numbers/ involved in more
income generating projects.
iii. A team of senior officers responsible for implementation of the project should be allowed to
visit/ undergo training in those countries which have already been benefited by participatory
development, for the purpose of obtaining first-hand information on the subjects of their
practical and strategically needs.
iv. Narrow the geographical focus of the project (current beneficiaries are too dispersed and
outlying communities are therefore underserved by technical support and do not benefit from
economies of scale that arise from targeting density).
v. Demand/beneficiary-driven kit design and dissemination process (like freedom of choice to
select 'variety' of crops/vegetables/livestock and other inputs)
vi. Increase levels of technical support, training and supervision after kit deployment
38. 39
vii. Increase engagement of private sector actors – existing farmers, buyers/traders of agricultural
produce – to generate an environment where agricultural kits will have a sustainable impact.
viii. Reduce the number of beneficiaries for collective agricultural tools (3-4 person/mini- tractor
instead of 6-12 person/mini - tractors).
ix. Facilitate inputs to develop cattle breeding and rearing, ensure feed availability for cattle
during off-season, availability of high yield variety (HYV) seeds of vegetables, growing and
marketing off-seasonal vegetables to neighboring countries.
x. Align staff with service delivery: There are 3 agronomists working for PU but there are no
livestock specialists or veterinarians to support the livestock kit component in the agricultural
programme. The technical support offered to kit recipients is a crucial part of the program
and needs to be strengthened.
xi. Survey data indicate that the most productive kit components to date have been greenhouses,
livestock (cows/pigs/goats) and potatoes. Significant improvements in productivity and yield
have also been recorded by beneficiaries with access to mini-tractors. Future kit design and
customization should be driven by these considerations.
xii. The monitoring and follow-up components of the kit program should be expanded to provide
beneficiaries with greater support and develop a feedback mechanism to assess the success of
various components of the program.
39. 40
FOCUS GROUP DISSCUSSION WITH THE BENEFICIARIES
AT THE GRASS ROOTS LEVEL
Discussion was facilitated by the evaluator in Russian Translated from Russian in to
English
Focus group discussion in Agubedia
Собрание бенефициантов Фаза -1
Присутствовали: -10 чел (из 13)
Обсуждали : помощь ПП, результаты деятельности,
причины неудач
- отбор бенефициантов, насколько справедливым был отбор
-присутствие «небенефицианта» программы с претензией,
что её не включили в программу. Основные проблемы, с её
слов, социально-бытовые, а не сельскохозяйственные.
- просьба со стороны большей части присутствующих о
решении хозяйственных проблем (крыши), просьба
сообщить в соответствующие инстанции или организации
Выступали бенефицианты:
- основная проблема – продовольственное обеспечение
(food security), выдача посадочного материала (конец мая) в
поздние сроки, проблема с обработкой земли, выдача мини
трактора – в конце сезона, когда пропала необходимость его
использовать, т.е. осенью (Колбая, Гулия)
Focus group discussion in Agubedia
Meeting of beneficiaries – Phase 1
No. persons present – 10 (out of 13)
Topic of discussion : help from
PU/intervention , results of activity ,
reasons for failure
-selection of beneficiaries, how
sincere (unbiased) was the selection
process,
- Presence of non-beneficiary of
program with pretences, for not
having been included in the program.
Major problems, from her perspective,
concerning social welfare as opposed
to agriculture.
- Request from the majority present to
repair household problems (roofs),
request to inform at instance to
responsible organization.
Presentation of beneficiaries
- foremost problem – food security ,
40. 41
- Низкая Урожайность картофеля как результат
неправильно выбранного сорта картофеля и недостаточного
количества удобрений.
-замечания по поводу погодных условий (засухи)
Из 13 ( в группе 5 женщин + 7 мужчин):
- 7 хозяйств получили картофель
- 4 хозяйств получили коров
- 5 хозяйств получили цыплят
- 5 хозяйств получили поросят
Вопрос: - Улучшилось ли питание?
Ответ: - от картофеля – нет
От коров – да
-выдача помощи по приоритетам выдавалась по
2-м видам в зависимости от бюджета
Например: картофель+поросята
Картофель+телёнок
Цыплята+поросята
Вопрос: Какова прибыль от коровы?
Ответ: - Да, в виде продуктов питания (молоко, сыр,
мацони)
- В том числе и на продажу
Сусанна: поросята.
distribution of planting material (end
of May) at later dates , problem with
plaguing /processing of the fields ,
distribution of mini-tractors – at the
end of season, when there is no reason
to use it i.e – in autumns (Kolbaya,
Guliya )
- Low productivity (output) of
potatoes as a result of having chosen
the wrong variety of potato and lack
of fertilizer.
Out of 13 (in the group were 5
women , 7 men)
- 7 households received potato
professional kit
- 4 households received cow
professional kit
- 5 households received chicken
professional kit
- 5 households received pig
professional kit
Question: – Did nourishment
improved?
Answer :
– from potatoes – No
- from cows – Yes
- Distribution of help on basis of
priority (2 rations) depended on
allocated budget.
For example : potato + pigs
41. 42
Дали 4, 1- убежал. осталось -3
Использовали в пищу –
Купили комбикорм+ к тому, что выдали
Вопрос: -Улучшилось ли питание?
Ответ: - от картофеля – нет
От коров – да
- выдача помощи по приоритетам выдавалась
по 2-м видам в зависимости от бюджета
Например: картофель+поросята
Картофель+телёнок
Цыплята+поросята
Вопрос: Какова прибыль от коровы?
Ответ: - Да, в виде продуктов питания (молоко, сыр,
мацони)
- В том числе и на продажу
Сусанна: поросята.
Дали 4, 1- убежал. осталось -3
Использовали в пищу –
Купили комбикорм+ к тому, что выдали
Очень довольна!
Манана:
Корова – 8 литров
• Сыр, творог – кроме того, что питались, ещё и
продавала
potato + cow
chicks + pigs
Question: What was the gain from
cows?
Answer: Yes, in the form of food –
milk, cheese, fermented milk. Also,
for sale.
Susanna : pigs
gave 4 , runaway 1 , remaining 3
Taken as food.
Bought concentrated food as addition
to received
Question: Did nutrition/ food security
improve?
Answer : from potatoes – no
from cows – yes
- distribution of help on basis of
priority (2 rations) depended on
allocated budget
For example : potato + pigs
potato + cow
chicks + pigs
Question: What was the gain from
cows?
Answer: - Yes, in the form of food –
milk, cheese, fermented milk.
42. 43
• От коровы 2 телёнка (остался 1 – ему 1 год, другой
умер)
Очень довольна!
Дина Бигвава
Поросята – 4 шт
• Продали – нет
• Использовали – в пищу
• Помогли родственникам
Очень довольны!
1 группа – 13 человек
• Выдан 1 мотоблок, большое количество членов в
группе.
• Из-за этого не успевают использовать вовремя, все
члены не укладываются в агро-технические сроки
Вопрос: Кто делает ремонт?
- Всеобщим обсуждением решено – коллективно.
Пожелания бенефициариев – использование более мощного
мотоблока.
- из-за особенности почвы
(глина) проблема с
обработкой земли
Обсуждение с
бенефициантами
- also , for sale
Susanna : pigs
gave 4 , runaway 1 , remaining 3
Used/cooked with food.
Bought concentrated food as addition
to received
Very glad!
Manana –
Cow - 8 liters
-Cheese, sour-cream, also, what
we ate, we also sold.
-From cow came two calves –
remaining 1 , he is a year old , the
second died)
Very glad!
Dina Bigvava
Pigs – 4
- Sold – none
- Used – in food
- Helped relatives
Very glad!
1 group – 13 people
- given 1 mini-tractor, large number of
people in group
- Because of this, they cannot use it in
43. 44
time; all members of group do not
have time during the agro-technical
period.
Question: - Who conducts
maintenance?
Answer: - Unanimously decided –
collective effort
Wishes of beneficiaries – use of a
sturdier motor-block
- because of special features of
the soil (muddy) problem lies in
the cultivation of soil
Discussion with beneficiaries
Beneficiary Cостояние ДО
получения помощи от
ПП
condition before
receiving help from PU
Состояние ПОСЛЕ получения помощи от ПП
Condition after receiving help from PU
This is a collective answer done on the board individually one by one
1 Ничего'
Nothing
Ничего
Nothing
2 Ничего
Nothing
Поросята, мини-трактор(хорошо, я довольна)
Pigs – mini tractor (good, am happy)
44. 45
3 Ничего
Nothing
Мини-трактор – хорошо. Картофель – нет
mini tractor – good , potatoes - not
4 Ничего
Nothing
Трактором доволен, но не используется всеми
Happy with tractor, but it is not used By everyone
5 Ничего
Nothing
Поросята – очень довольна
Pigs – very glad
6 Ничего
Nothing
Корова – очень довольна
Cow – very gad
7 Ничего
Nothing
Картофель – не удался
Potatoes – did not succeed
Коллектив мини-трактор
Collective mini-tractor
2005 Отлично
excellent
Работает
working
2006 Хорoшо
good
Работает
working
2007 Хорошо
good
Работает
working
2008 Good condition working Просьба о выдаче
ещё одного
мотоблока
Request for
donation of
another motor-
block.
А также используются прицепы в качестве Also, the trailers as a mode for transporting
45. 46
средства для перевозки урожая, удобрений, дров,
и т.д.
Вопрос: - Можете ли вы сами содержать
себя?
Ответ: - выживет, кто сможет, но с
большим трудом.
Вопрос: - Есть ли ещё нуждающиеся. В
чем они нуждаются?
Ответ: - В деревне очень много
нуждающихся. Они обращались за помощью
ПП, но не получили. Одна, очень нуждающая ся
просила корову (бенефициант, не включённый в
программу) в заявлении, но не получила ее и
осталась «бедной» , как и раньше
harvest, fertilizers, firewood, etc .
Question – can you sustain yourselves?
Answer – those who can, will survive, but through
much labor.
Question – are there any more people who are
needy? What do they need?
Answer – in the village there are lots of people
who are needy. They referred for help to the PU,
but availed few only. One, very needy woman
asked for a cow (beneficent not involved in the
program) in a formal request, but did not receive
one such cow and has thus remained «poor», as
before.
*****************************************************************************
2nd
Focus group discussion
Собрание № 2
Состав:
группа. А – 11 чел
Группа. Б - 7 чел
Constituents :
Group A – 11 people
Group B – 7 people
11 – картофель
3 – коровы
3 – поросята
- корм
11 potatoes
3 cows
3 pigs
fodder
47. 48
Крия – 100 – семена 30 кг
Маркосян – 400
Тулужджян – отсутствует
Авидзба – 300
Из полученных 30 кг получено 100 кг, так как
небольшой участок земли.
Из 300 кг – получено 1000 кг
Причина – поздняя посадка
- особенности почвы, в разных
местах – по-разному
- выдача мини-трактора значительно
позже
У бенефициантки
Корова – 10 литров (Крия И.)
-использовали в питании молочные продукты
( сыр, мацони)
Вопрос: помогла ли вам помощь, выданная
ПП ?
- улучшилось питание ( картофель,
молочные продукты, мясо)
- в первый год выдачи мотоблока не
использовал., но в течение
следующих 2-х лет используют,
проводили ремонт.
Есть проблема!
Markos'yan – 400
Tuludjidjia'n – n/a
Avidzba – 300
From the received 30 kg , 100kgs have been
received, as there is not a large piece of land . (?)
From 300 kg – received 1000 kg
Reason – late harvest
- Characteristics of soil, in different places –
different.
- distribution of mini-tractors , considerably
late
Beneficiary – cows , 10 liters (Kriya I)
- used in food – milk products (cheese ,
matzoon)
Question – did the aid given to you by PP help you?
- better nourishment (potatoes , milk products
, meat)
- during the first year , the given motor-blocks
were not used, but over the next two year
period , were utilized ; repair was conducted
There is a problem!
In a group of 11 people, technology is not utilized to
its maximum utility and/or at the appropriate times.
The spare parts given out with the mini tractors are
Not sturdy, and require change. In the group there
are single women, who do not know how to use the
mini tractor, and others just cannot use it.
Question – was the help afforded at the right time?
Yes, but the emergency was at time.
There are people who were not offered help, but
48. 49
В группе 11 человек не могут использовать
технику вовремя.. Из зап.частей, которые в
мотоблоке очень не прочные, требуют замену.
В группе есть одинокие женщины, которые не
могут пользоваться мотоблоком, а некоторые
не умеют
Вопрос: вовремя ли была оказана помощь?
Да, по необходимости очень была кстати.
Есть люди, которым не была оказана помощь,
но очень нуждались. Есть бенефициантка,
которая помогла соседу, который очень
нуждался, посадочным материалом
(картофелем)
-на выданную помощь расширили своё
хозяйство. Очень довольны, благодарны.
- использовали в пищу мясо (свинину), так
как идёт вынужденное уничтожение свиного
поголовья из-за эпидемии.
needed it urgently. There is a beneficiary, who
helped her neighbor, who was desperately in need of
help, with plaguing material (potatoes) .
- From the given aid, people extended their
households. Very happy, very grateful.
- Used in food, eat (pork), as there is being
conducted an extensive forced eradication of
pork meat due to an epidemic.
Tour of Gali business programme
10.09.07-We have visited 6 business programs in Gali town.
1) Wedding singers-GA.11
2) Car repairer-GA.21
3) Advertising center –GA.37
4) Shop-seller-GA.44
5) Baker (wedding cakes) – GA.27
6) Carpenter _GA.20
GA.11 –Akhalaia Berdia __wedding singer
N: are you satisfied with the kit you received from PU?
B: yes, they did such a good thing for me and my family. Thanks a lot! You have really done a great job
for us.
49. 50
N: you didn’t go to other organization for support, or to bank for some micro credit, why?
B: It is expensive for me. I wouldn’t be able to pay them back.
N: What is your monthly income, after getting the instruments from PU?
B: Before it was 1000/2000Rbs. Now 5000/6000Rr.
N: Did you leave your house, your town during the war. Where have you been at that time?
B: I went to Russia.
N: In future if there is some problems with the instruments what will you do?
B: I will repair (I will pay for reparation).
N: What is your plan for future?
B: I’m planning to buy another speaker and give classes to children.
N: You have to reimburse 10% of the sum PU spent for the kits you received. Do you know where that
money goes for?
B: To help to other poor people, for another project.
N: How much was the amount of your 10%?
B: 2820Rr.
N: Can you grow up in your business and after some fails, if there are some, get up and continue your
activity from the beginning, without foreigners support?
B: Yes.
GA: 21 – Jalagonia Mancho__ Car mechanic
N: Are you satisfied with the kit you received from PU?
M: Yes thank you very much.
N: Did the kit help you in your work? Was your income increased after getting the instruments, how
much it was before and how much is it now?
M: Yes, these instruments helped me a lot, my income was increased definitely. If it was 1500Rr.
/2000Rr. Before, it is 7000/12000Rr.
N: Is it enough for you?
M: Well I don’t complain.
50. 51
N: You have to reimburse 10% of the sum PU spent for the kits you received. Do you know where that
money goes for?
M: To help to other poor people, for another project.
N: Do you save some money for reparation of the kit?
M: Yes
N: How long it takes to repair one car?
M: It depends on which part of the car needs reparation.
N: Can you continue your activity independently, without others support?
M: Yes!
Comment: before giving the working instruments he had maximum 10/15 clients per month.
Now, 6/7 clients per day.
GA: 37 Shamugia Ruden __Advertising center
No body was present during the visit of the evaluator, from the neighbor’s shop shop/owner told that they
have gone for business to Mukhuri.
GA: 44 Dzandzava Natela: Road side Mini- Shop (with fridge support from PU) owner, seller of
different snakes and drinks.
N: Are you satisfied with the kit you received from PU?
Nat: Yes, I’m so thankful. Thank you very much for this support.
N: Could you buy a fridge yourself?
Nat: No, never. It’s too expensive for me.
N: Do you earn more money now then before or less?
Nat: Of course more!
N: How?
Nat: Now I have fresh things and cold drinks
N: Where have you been, what you were doing during the war?
Nat: In Zugdidi for 1 year.
N: Where do you live now?
51. 52
Nat: My house was burnt during the war; I stay with my only son in neighbors relatives.
N: Which languages do you speak? (To her son)
Her son: Russian, Georgian, Abkhazian, Mengrelian
N: Is your shop secured?
Na: It’s better secured now. It was robed some years ago.
Comment: She needs security alarm for the shop.
GA: 27 Lashkhia Dali Baker (wedding cakes)
N: Are you satisfied with the kit you received from PU?
D: Yes, I’m so thankful. Thank you.
N: What is your monthly income, after getting the instruments from PU?
D: Before it was 1000/2000Rr. Now more. I have more clients.
Before I had hand made oven and I was suffering. Now it’s better. To bake a cake was hard and it
took so much energy. I’m so thankful.
N: Can you continue this activity without any more support?
D. __as I have to help my children and grand children I need some more help from you. Can you give me
a meat chopping machine? I need it for Mengrelian “Ajika”?
Vincent from PU : We can not give everything to one person. There are some other people who need our
support too. I’m sorry for that.
GA.20 Ketsbaia Aleksandr __Carpenter
N: Are you satisfied with the kit you received from PU?
A: Yes thank you very much.
N: Do you have contract with any organization, or café? (There were aprox.15 chairs)
A: No, I made them to sell. I have orders for some other things like table, moving chair…
N: What is your monthly income, after getting the instruments from PU?
A: I can make even 40000Rr.in a month.
N: Are you alone in this business?
52. 53
A: No we are two.
N: And where is him (the other one) now?
A: He has gone to the Russian market to buy some thing for this business. (To Sochi)
N: What do you plan for future?
A: I want to teach to young people my profession and then to involve them into this business. To enlarge
the business. To work on big things with the team I’ll create.
Comments by Ms. Nana, Business agent from Gali PU office: businesses in Gali are profitable. Some of
the business clients hide their monthly income. Calculations during the monitoring show that they have
much more income than they
Say.
Interview key participants in the project: staff of PU
1 Social workers Agronomist
Activity - Social quest.
- Selection of beneficiaries.
- Providing support. Monitoring.
- Marketing.
- Writing reports.
- Psychological research
- Moral and physical support
- Observation of the beneficiaries’
family life
- Discussions with the Head of
administration
- Revealing of the causes of failures
- Monitoring
- Preparation of the technical
recommendations
- Preparation of the agricultural
presentations
- Marking quality of product and seeds
- Consulting beneficiaries
53. 54
Expected date of
implementation
- Not fixed working hours.
Sometimes from 8am to 7pm.
- Talk to beneficiaries - 1 week
- Social quest – 2 months
- Selection of beneficiaries - 10-15
daysб
- Providing support - Step by step
- Monitoring - July-August-
September
- Marketing - Up to July 2007
- Writing work report - In the end of
the program
-Jan-February - Selection of
beneficiaries
-Dec-Jan - Selection of beneficiaries
-Mart-October - providing support
- 3 stages of monitoring
- Preparation of the technical
recommendations during the year
- Preparation of the agricultural
presentations during the year
- Marking quality of product and seeds
- Consulting beneficiaries on demand or
necessity
When actually
implemented
- Always at time, as on plan. I
never was responsible for delay
of the work
- All plans have been done except
final monitoring and report of the
work during ECHO-III
- Fulfilled partly as per plan
If not implemented
what were the
reason
- Never happened
Evaluation in
ECHO I - ECHO II
- Yes, in all phases
- During I and II phase monitored
- No special differences
54. 55
and ECHO III cooperative groups. I was
responsible for establishing and
control of all the work, received
information regarding all the
villages, but during the III phase I
worked only in Ast.
II. Monitoring report
Social workers Agronomist
What was monitoring plan? - To select more needed
beneficiaries
- Every kind of activity has 3
monitoring.
- The number of monitoring
are determined at the
beginning of the program.
- Daily verbal report to a
coordinator regarding
monitoring which were done
repeatedly.
- Monitoring should be done in three
stages for the observation of the
program’s results.
Actual monitoring done - Different committees
- To select most needy
beneficiaries with the elements
of motivation, hard working
and dynamism in phase I and II.
Phase III – in process
- By this time 2 monitoring were
done
55. 56
(Final monitoring will be done
in the future).
Whether monitoring was
done as per schedule?
- Yes, always
- In the beginning of each week
we are planning the work and
working depending on this
plan.
- Of course
- Checking and the discussions
of the results were done weekly
as per coordinator’s plan.
- At time and schedule
- Most of the problems were weather
related and also were created by
difficulties for the people to get a
chance to use a mini tractor due to the
big number of the members of the
group. This problem was solved by
dividing big groups into two parts and
providing some extra mini tractors.
Whether problems identified
during monitoring period,
what steps were taken to
mitigate the problem.
Results of the interventions
in reference to
agricultural/business kit.
Technical and others
- During control new problems
are exposed and all of them can
be solved. And it is good for us
as this experience giving us a
chance to learn and develop.
- You can’t predict the problems.
It could be bad weather.
We didn’t done research
why did we get such a bad
result with potato. It could be
bad quality of seeds or we
need different kind of seeds
special for our climate. I’m
sure that we must start potato
- Weather related problems
- Difficulties for the people to get a
chance to use a mini tractor due to
the big number of the members of
the group.
- This problem was solved by dividing
big groups into two parts and
providing some extra mini tractors.
- Some technical and other
recommendations were not a
success.
56. 57
plantation much earlier.
- Mainly technical problems: late
distribution of potato,
difficulties with purchasing of
milking cows (cost of the
milking cow is over budget )
- As the main problems are
agronomical: planting
schedules advices on
cultivation, plant treatment
and livestock purchase was
assisted by agronomists.
Whether the technical
advices were adequate or not
- In some cases not enough
- Enough
- It was done in writing and also
orally during distribution of
collective technical support
- As agriculturist I may say “Yes”, it
was enough
III Monitoring: participatory group meetings with beneficiaries
Social workers Agronomist
Whether there were
regular group meetings?
-Yes, with coordinator
- In phases I and II meetings were
held on a regular bases, during
phase III it was more self-
regulated in groups
- The meetings were held on the
managers’ demand - when it had
been planed in advance or there
were some problems to solve.
- Not regularly
57. 58
- The discussions took place during
setting up the groups and during
the meetings, which regulated the
rules of using the collective
ownership items.
The groups normally gather if
necessary to solve the showing
up problems.
- In the 3d phase the meetings are
not held on a regular base, people
gather only in case of necessity to
consider new problems insoluble
independently.
Attendances of the group
meetings (%)
- 100%
- Up to 80 %
- Up to 80 %
- Up to 80 %
- Up to 80 %
- Up to 80 %
- Up to 80 %
- 60-80%
- 80%
Topics discussed in the
group meetings?
- What had been done by that time
and what the next step was?
- The rule, regulating proportional
use of the mini tractor so that
every member of the community
could use it equally.
- Solving technical problems
- Using instructions
- Establishing a friendly
relationship among the members
of the groups
- Making a fund for the
- Using collective property item
58. 59
maintenance
- Electing an executive person
- Solving moot points (disputable
situations)
- Breakage points solutions
- Discussing agricultural matters
Were there any
disseminations of
discussion to PU project
unit office, if disseminated
what steps were taken
- In our region two groups decided
not to use mini tractors in their
households, instead they
suggested using the bulls, and it
made the work in the
mountainous regions much easier.
At the moment they are quite
happy. So at times we solve our
problems on our own and let our
coordinators know.
- The problem was disseminated to
PU and was discussed with the
coordinators , so the decision
was taken in cooperation
-Yes, the results of the group
discussions were disseminated to
the PU meetings which took place
daily. The strategy was carried out
at the same meeting.
-All the problems were brought to
the notice of the Head of the
program and the coordinators. All
the work done in the groups was
registered in the final reports.
- Yes, the problems arose
periodically. Normally they were
solved or were discussed at the
meetings and the managers took
- Yes, they were. Any problems were
discussed at the evening meetings.
- All the problems were proclaimed
during the meeting with the
participation of the coordinators or
were registered. Answers to a
problem were recommended at the
group meetings.
59. 60
notes of them.
IV About KITs
How far the you are satisfied with quality of kits supported by PU
Name of the
PU “Kit”
Rank (excellent, good, satisfactory, bad,
very bad)
Exsplain
Social workers Agronomist Social workers Agronomist
Cow Good
average
Good - All kinds of the
livestock
including sheep
and goats. The
results are good.
- It’s difficult to
consider a
condition of the
livestock as a
very good one.
The budget
doesn’t allow.
Bee-keeping is in
better situation.
Sheep - Good
- Excellent
- excellent
Good
Goat - Good in all phases
- very good
Good
Pig - phase I -
good,
- phase II-
good,
- phase I -
good,
- phase II -
good,
- average
Good
60. 61
Poultry chicken - phase I– bad
- good
---- - Because of the
epidemic
situation chicken
were not
distributed
Bulls
7
- 3 phase good
- Good
- Excellent
- good
Good - Distributed only
in the 3d phase
Bees - Phase III -
excellent
- Good
- Good
- Good - Good results in
all phases
Maize - All phase –
average
- Good
- good
----
Potato - 1 phase –norm,
- 2 & 3 bad
- bad, bad,
- average
- Good - The quality of
potato was not
inspected.
- Weather
condition.
- This sort doesn’t
do for the climate
of Abkhazia.
Vegetables - Good
- Good
----
Fertilizer - Good
- Good
- Standard
- Good
61. 62
Seed (variety?) satisfactory
Fence - Good - Good - Most of the
beneficiaries
would like to
have a new
collective petrol-
saw, which will
help them to work
in the garden,
clean it from the
weeds and save
time and energy
of the
beneficiaries.
Sprayer - Good
Tools
Green house
(plastic and
carcasses)
- Good
- Very good
- Very good
- Good
- Standard
- Good
- Plastic, donated
by PU was of a
high quality
Power tiller
(mini-tractor)
- Good
- Good
- Good
- Average
- Good
- Out of the whole
distributed
quantity of the
mini tractors only
two of them
required
reparation with
our help. The
- It can’t be used
over the whole
territory.
- Not enough
money was
budgeted to buy
more powerful
62. 63
others are in
permanent use.
one.
Trailer - good - Good
Mills - Average
Pumped-
sprayer
- Good
Flow-hoses
Bulls - Good
(TA)
V Future of the project
Social workers
Agronomist
How do you like to
see to activities of
the future program
of PU in Abkhazia
- It would be good to have long - term
projects. Financial assistance should
be more imposing as the short-term
projects do not solve the main
problems of the beneficiaries; they are
only emergency help to survive.
- I would like to see the continuation of
the program in agriculture. Abkhazia
needs “the first aid”. Especially
Ochamchirsky region. People hope on
you. They need your help.
- The work, carried out in Abkhazia,
helped the poor people to solve their
problems, concerning agriculture. To
my mind the next step is to organize
the work in the same field with the
- Covering all the territory of Abkhazia
with
agricultural programs, stock-raising,
wine-growing, maize-growing,
sheep-breeding, citrus-growing, nuts
and tea- growing
- Long-term projects directed not only
to the development of agriculture, but
also to the development of the small
business.
- A zone of activity– covers the whole
territory of Abkhazia, as with PU’s
help there is a perspective of the
development of the listed projects
63. 64
collective groups, providing nominal
help and giving micro-credits,
covering all the territory of Abkhazia.
- The work in Abkhazia lends a helping
hand to the poor people. It is essential
to continue work in the same regions,
including several villages in
Gudautsky region.
- Future programs for Abkhazia. The
program should cover all the regions
of Abkhazia, increasing financial
flows.
among the needed ones.
- As far as the humanitarian help is
concerned, which is given away by
PU, I would like to see either the
elements of the development in a new
phase and it seems to me, that we
have to increase our beneficiaries’
budget for that purpose, so that they
could overcome the achieved results
and improve their financial condition.
In Georgia? - Lot of Georgians who left Abkhazia
during the war returned back now to
Galskii region and we observe their
interest.
- I have no idea about their problems
- Georgia was not damaged after the
aggression. There were no military
operations in that region.
Do you like to
work with micro-
credit?
- Yes, I think that this will help to
develop small business in all
directions
- Yes, setting up mini-farms (stock-
breeding) and developing vegetable
-growing.
- The beneficiaries’ interest is my main
concern.
- Yes, it will develop a small business in
all directions.
- By all means, as I see that it is a real
help for the
Peasants.
64. 65
How the non-
beneficiaries of the
area think about
PU’s activities?
What are their
comments about
PU?
-Some of them were not happy that we
did not include them in our programs,
saying, that there were many needy
people in their region.
- They are very happy that there is such
organization, which help their
neighbors to solve economical
problems.
- There are different opinions,
sometimes we come across with a fair
attitude and estimation. But some
people criticize the program as were
not included.
-Their attitude is full of understanding
and respect, they are very thankful to
the carried out program. The only
regret is that the economical help
causes a limited number of people.
-Most of them think positively, look
with the envy at the people getting the
economical help. The envy in a good
sense of this word.
- References are only positive.
VI Your comments
Social workers Agronomist
What are the
problems in the
working
system/areas?
- Timely problems solution
- It would be good if it would have
been a long-term program and the
budgets for the beneficiaries would
have been increased.
- Taking decisions by the coordinators
without concordance with the staff
members (in some aspects)
- The responsibilities between
agronomists and social officials are not
clearly divided
- The activity of PU is not flexible enough
- The work of PU sometimes is not so
prompt.
- In common the system is very good, but
problems frequently arise because of the
budget limitation.
- Untimely solution of the arising
problems
Any suggestions to
solve the existing
problems?
- All the problems are discussed in
common.
- Working out a common solution
-To restrict, to divide the responsibility
between an agronomist and a social
official. An agronomist should deal with
65. 66
which will help to act properly
- Frequent visits of the coordinators to
the fields
-I started working beginning from the
first phase. With the replacement of
a coordinator changes the strategy.
- Generally the work is well
organized.
- We go to the far away arias, come
back late and miss our lunch. (That
problem hasn’t been settled yet).
- We would like our salary to be
increased.
- We could achieve better results by
re-distributing work among the
employees as it used to be in the
phase II.
the agricultural aspects not with the
sociological researches.
- The organization should solve all the
problems efficiently and it should have
a financial reserve.
- Any problem should be solved without
delay not to wait for the permission
from the coordinators). Sometimes
decisions are taken late.
- Budget increasing, introduction of long
–termed programs in various spheres.
- To see the project as a long-termed one,
as in this case the perennials could be
considered as a permanent help, which
will help to solve financial problems of
the beneficiaries.
PU, Abkhazia
With the decision makers
Monitoring report
What was the
Monitoring plan?
Veronique 3 monitoring
Vincent 1.Agriculture: 2 to 3 monitoring based on a Q
2.artisans: 3 monitoring based on Q (assess the socio-economic Impact) +other
informal
Monitoring: to establish good relationship with the beneficiaries and target the eventu
problems as soon as they appear
Pierre 2-3 monitoring forecasted by kind of kits
66. 67
Whether monitoring
was done as
Per schedule?
Veronique yes
Vincent yes
Pierre Globally yes
Whether problems
identified
during monitoring
period,
what steps were
taken to
Mitigate the problem.
Results of the interventions in
reference to
Agricultural/business
kit.
Technical and others.
Veronique I know that it was decided to cancel pigs distribution because of the swine fever +
problem
of dryness for potatoes
Vincent Business: some kits were correlated.
Agro: stop distribution of some kits (pigs)
Pierre Pigs: kits were not distributed and replaced by new one because of the African Serine
Disease.
Some kits were completed (trailer for trailer, etc)
67. 68
Whether the technical
advices
for the beneficiaries
were
Adequate or not?
Veronique No reply
Vincent Beneficiaries said: Yes (large majority)
In my opinion? Improvement should be done
Pierre No bad feed back from beneficiarities – the technical advices, recommendations,
trainings can
Be improved on condition number of beneficiaries for agronomist decreases
Monitoring: participatory group meetings
Whether there were
regular
group
meetings with
the project
Officials?
Veronique Yes, for collective equipment
Vincent Yes, for collective equipment
Pierre In the frame of collective equipment monitoring (3-4 per group)
Did you keep any
attendances
and minutes of the
Veronique Monitoring data
68. 69
group
Meetings (%).
Any records?
Give records, if any.
Vincent Yes, records, monitoring questionnaire
Pierre See collective equipment monitoring
Collective groups
Are all the collective
groups
Functioning at present?
Veronique It seems that more or less they function
Vincent Most of them
Pierre Yes, to check with the last monitoring: some beneficiaries did not use the collective k
this
year
How past beneficiaries are
Using the collective
professional kits
(mini-tractor) given
during the
ECHO I and
ECHO II?
Veronique No reply
69. 70
Vincent According to size of the group = more or less effective (in some cases),
some people not using it
Pierre No time to monitor ECHO I and ECHO II groups
Do you feel the need to reduce
the number of beneficiaries from
6-11 to 3-4 in future
probable
Project?
Veronique Yes, according to monitoring conclusions we will decrease
the number
Vincent It’s already planned
Pierre Yes, obviously
Is there any need of
marketing
support to ensure
the price of
Agricultural products?
Veronique I would say yes, but people need to be prepared
Vincent Depends of the products. But certainly need as assessment
Pierre Marketing does need support. However deep survey has to be led about
market –value chain projects viability
MICRO- CREDIT
70. 71
Tagging ‘graduate’
beneficiaries
for micro- credit
with other
organizations
Or start PU’s own
micro-credit
Programme in future?
Veronique Not yet – need to be checked +coordinated with other organizations
Vincent A training with the artisans will be organized and will aim at presenting organizations
dealing
With micro-credit. These organizations will be incited to the training
Pierre For business beneficiaries – to coordinate with others IO
No plan for the moment (own micro-credit programme)
Future of PU
How do you fore-see
the next
programme in
Abkhazia and
Georgia?
Veronique To continue for farming and business programs because there are still needs but
certainly with
Adaptation as the context changed
Vincent PU shall have some legitimacy to work in Abkhazia and Georgia.
A lot of things have shall to Be done.
71. 72
But the approach should change and be adapted.
We are not any more in a “emergency
situation”, but more in a “reconstruction and rehabilitation”
situation
Pierre Can remain as long as frozen conflict situation exists
Approach, however, will need to evaluate steadily
PU’s global strategy for the coming year: shall give or not to the mission in Abkha
the
mandate to implement further projects
General comments regarding PU stakeholders
(UNOMIC, UNDP, UNIFEM, WV, ICRC, and ACH)
To what extent PU involved
other stakeholders in the
implementation process of
ECHO I, II, III?
If not, to what extent should
Other organizations (e.g.
stakeholders, local
NGOs)
Be involved?
How?
Veronique Involved concerning selection of beneficiaries. Always need more coordination but o
Depends on persons more than organizations.
PU agronomists used to organize meetings and pass information, but not always
followed by
Some organizations.
72. 73
Vincent For artisans PU used list of beneficiaries from ICRC, World Vision
Pierre - coordination: to avoid duplication, share information
- selection: according to list of beneficiaries provide by stakeholders,
local and international
What do you think,
were all the
needs of the
beneficiaries
Covered?
If not, what kind of
assistance is
Appropriate?
Veronique I’m sure that we can always do better
Vincent All – not
But we certainly improve for the majority the general socio-economical situation
Pierre - needs of human being are without limit
- problems are partly solved
In your opinion,
what are the
main lessons learned
from the
work of PU in
Abkhazia in the
Last 3 years?
Veronique As I said since my arrival I focused more on the rehab projects.
But I could say concerning
-kits (because more appropriate for beneficiaries) –
-beneficiaries = evolution as it was needed to select some outside the “most vulnerabl
ones
- (next project includes idea of “solidarity network”)
- locations = to choose some few places for better quality and less logistics problems
73. 74
Vincent -to adapt kits to the to the real needs of the farmers and artisans
-for artisans: not to focus only on very vulnerable people
-to have time: to asses to real needs
To select the beneficiaries
Pierre No reply
Kits:
How far the project officials are satisfied with quality of kits:
Local product’s quality
(excellent/good/bad)
Foreign product’s quality
(excellent/good/bad)
Veronique Vincent Pierre Veronique Vincent Pierre
Cow, pigs, bees,
Chickens etc.
No reply Cow-good;
Bees good
good No reply Sheep from Western
Georgia - OK
Seeds (variety?),
fertilizer
Seeds good
Fertilizer good
good Seed good
Potato, maize seeds Maize- goodPotato - ?
Others OK
Potatoes–poor quality
Mini-tractor, trailers etc. OK for gardening
activities
Equipments for
business
good good
74. 75
Food habit change due to intervention by PU
Before intervention of PU After intervention of PU
Food habit Veronique Vincent Pierre Veronique Vincent Pierre
No reply No informationNo reply No reply No informationMore potatoes
More dairy products
Earlier vegetable harvest
KEY STAKEHOLDERS RESPONSE
To assess the impact of these projects the evaluator would like to request some local stake holders
(UNOMIC, UNDP, UNIFEM, WV, ICRC, and ACH) to give the general comments on the following
issues:
1. FROM UNOMIG
Dear Mr. Nizam,
Please find self explanatory mail bellow.
Regards
Mahbubul Alam
----- Forwarded by Mahbubul Alam/UNOMIG on 09/21/2007 01:14 PM -----
Dear Mehbub
The mail is in response to the request of Mr.Nizam. Since i do not have his address so could you be kind
to forward it to him.
With Regards,
Major
Muhammad Manzoor Alam
ADC - CMO
----- Forwarded by UNOMIG-ADC/UNOMIG on 09/20/2007 02:49 PM -----
