Georgia_-_FAO_Report_-_DFD-G-00-08000311-00

GEORGIA
AGRICULTURAL-BASED LIVELIHOODS ASSESSMENT
AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMME FORMULATION MISSION
OCTOBER, 2008
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

2
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information
product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations or of the International
Fund for Agricultural Development concerning the legal or development status of
any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The FAO assessment mission and this report was made possible through support
provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under the
terms of Award No. DFD-G-00-08000311-00. The opinions expressed herein are
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency
for International Development.
The FAO mission team consisted of: Don Davis (FAO International Expert, Mission
Leader), Joseph Nagy (FAO Staff, Economist), Andriy Rozstalnyy (FAO Staff,
Livestock Specialist), Nizam al Hussainy (FAO International Expert, Agronomist)
and Zviadi Bobokashvili (FAO National Expert, Horticulture Specialist).

3
Acronyms and abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank
ASF African swine fever
CBO Community-based organization
CNFA Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EC FAO Emergency Coordinator
ERCU Emergency and Rehabilitation Coordination Unit
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FFS Farmer Field School
FMD Foot-and-mouth disease
GAP Good agricultural practices
GDP Gross domestic product
GNI Gross national income
GOST Gosudarstvennyy standart, or state standard
HPAI Highly pathogenic avian influenza
ICPM Integrated Crop and Pest Management
IDP Internally displaced person
IP Implementing partner
IPM Integrated Pest Management
JNA Joint Needs Assessment
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
MT Metric tonne(s)
NSFSVPP National Service for Food Safety, Veterinarian and Plant
Protection
NGO Non-governmental organization
RFA Revised Flash Appeal
RIF Research Institute of Farming
SIDA Swedish International Development Assistance
TCE Emergency Operations and Rehabilitation Division
TCP Technical Cooperation Programme
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WB World Bank
WFP World Food Programme

4
Contents
Acronyms and abbreviations ....................................................................3
Executive summary ..................................................................................6
PART ONE – Assessment and Programme Overview .................................8
A. Introduction .......................................................................................8
B. Background and the national economy ...............................................9
B.1 Agriculture and water resources....................................................... 10
C. Emergency challenge: country context, recovery strategy and
rationale for the proposed programme .............................................13
C.1 Critical issues facing the agricultural sector in the affected area........... 13
C.2 Sector impact................................................................................ 15
C.3 Recovery strategy.......................................................................... 16
C.4 Agencies involved in the sector........................................................ 17
C.5 Rationale for the strategy adopted ................................................... 19
D. Damage and needs assessment ........................................................20
D.1 Assessment methodology ............................................................... 20
D.2 Summary of assessment findings..................................................... 20
E. Programme summary .......................................................................22
E.1 Programme development objectives ................................................. 22
E.2 Summary of programme components ............................................... 23
Component I: Agriculture Rehabilitation ............................................. 23
Component II: Livestock Rehabilitation .............................................. 24
Component III: Horticulture Rehabilitation.......................................... 25
Component IV: Programme Implementation Support ........................... 26
E.3 Summary of programme costs......................................................... 27
E.4 Expected programme outcomes ....................................................... 27
F. Appraisal of programme activities ....................................................29
F.1 Institutional aspects ....................................................................... 29
F.2 Finance/credit................................................................................ 33
F.3 Environmental aspects.................................................................... 33
F.4 Social aspects................................................................................ 34
G. Implementation arrangements and associated financing..................34
H. Programme risks and mitigating measures.......................................35

5
PART TWO – Detailed description of programme components ................36
A. Introduction .....................................................................................36
A.1 Programme implementation and training arrangements...................... 36
A.2 Training........................................................................................ 37
B. Programme by Component ...............................................................37
Component I: Agriculture Rehabilitation..........................................37
Subcomponent I.1: Provision of Spring and Winter Wheat Seed, Mineral
Fertilizer and Fuel................................................................................ 39
Subcomponent I.2: Emergency Supply of Farm Machinery........................ 42
Subcomponent I.3: Support to the Seed Subsector.................................. 44
A. National Seed Sector Review............................................................. 44
B. Assistance to the Research Institute of Farming and laboratories........... 45
Component II: Livestock Rehabilitation............................................47
Subcomponent II.1: Emergency Supply of Animal Feed............................ 48
Subcomponent II.2: Emergency Assistance to Prevent TADs ..................... 52
Subcomponent II.3: Pasture Improvement, Feed Production and Restocking of
Livestock............................................................................................ 54
Component III: Horticultural Production..........................................57
Subcomponent III.1: Vegetable Seed Provision for Kitchen and Production
Plots .................................................................................................. 58
Subcomponent III.2: Orchard Rehabilitation ........................................... 60
A. Provision of Inputs and IPM Training to Orchard Farmers...................... 60
B. Fruit Tree Nursery Development ........................................................ 62
Subcomponent III.3: Horticulture Sector Review & Rapid Hydrology Survey 64
A. Horticulture Sector Review................................................................ 64
B. Rapid Hydrology Survey ................................................................... 64
Component IV: Programme Implementation Support .......................64
Subcomponent IV.1: Emergency & Rehabilitation Coordination Unit (ERCU) 64
Subcomponent IV.2: Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................... 65
Annex 1. Detailed programme costs .......................................................72
Annex 2. Supporting documentation & specifications by component ......80
Annex 3. Plan of implementation by programme component................119
Annex 4: Maps......................................................................................125
Annex 5: List of persons met by FAO mission .......................................130

6
Executive summary
A Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Agriculture-based Livelihoods
Assessment and Rehabilitation Programme formulation mission was fielded in
Georgia between 15 September and 5 October 2008 and visited areas affected by
the August 2008 conflict.
The mission was completed concurrently with the United Nations Flash Appeal
Revision preparation and the Joint Needs Assessment (JNA), and provides an in-
depth description of FAO’s component of the Revised Flash Appeal (RFA)
(US$10.64 million) as well as additional proposals for rehabilitation of the
agricultural sector as identified by the JNA. The timeframe of the programme
proposed in this report runs from November 2008 to November 2010.
It is clear that livelihoods across the affected areas have been, and will be,
severely impacted by the recent conflict. Significant loss of productive assets will
hinder agricultural production capacity and the missed opportunity (in whole or in
part) to earn income from the 2008 harvest will reduce the capacity of rural
populations to invest. When considering the substantially increased need for
investment to repair damage and losses, it would appear that these communities
will require assistance for some years to come.
It must be a priority for the Government of Georgia and international donors to
return these populations to production and income generation as quickly as
possible, in order to reduce their reliance on humanitarian aid in the future.
The survival of tens of thousands of head of cattle over the coming winter is
threatened, due to limited access to water and animal feed. Unless
substantial support can be provided to feed these animals over the winter
mass slaughtering is likely to occur. This may generate additional food or cash
for affected populations in the short term, but will seriously reduce one of the
key rural assets many families depend upon for ongoing food security and
small-scale income generation. Cattle losses have been incurred as a direct
result of the conflict (through abandonment and theft) and efforts should be
made to restore lost livestock and replace this vital rural asset.
Most livestock in conflict-affected areas are weak and highly vulnerable to
disease. If not addressed, a transboundary animal disease (TAD) or
zoonotic disease outbreak may easily spread to other areas with severe
consequences for the livestock population across the country. Livestock will
also be particularly at risk of disease during the upcoming winter if
appropriate measures are not taken.
The livestock production system is extensive, being based on grazing but with
minimal supplementary feeding. Development and cultivation of natural
pasture is not practiced and previously cultivated pasture is not properly cared
for. With production of forage and silage for winter also limited, owing to a
lack of appropriate inputs, support for pasture rehabilitation and
community-based forage and feed production will be necessary for longer
term sustainability.
Because of shortages of readily accessible capital, farmers are likely to
struggle to purchase inputs for the spring 2009 planting season. The
irrigation infrastructure has also been damaged or closed (and is likely to
remain so for the foreseeable future) and will severely impact the spring
planting season. Short-term support for rainfed agriculture will be critical to
avoid a major impact on income generation.

7
Alternative means of irrigation must be identified and developed with some
urgency. If irrigation water is not available by spring, it will also impact on
orchard viability and associated income generation opportunities next year.
The fruit growing sector is the most significant source of income for a large
number of households in the conflict area. The conflict compromised some 80
percent of the fruit production over some 10 000 ha. If not addressed in the
very near future, many fruit trees may not survive affecting the livelihoods of
the most vulnerable small scale farmers.
A shortage of agricultural machinery as a result of damage or theft will
constrain the capacity of farmers to undertake crop cultivation, especially for
the proposed expansion of rainfed agriculture. Efforts should be made to
replace lost tractors, combines and implements and to provide this machinery
to producer groups for use by farmers in the area. Similar efforts should be
made to repair facilities and replace other agro-industrial assets.
Almost all rural households grow vegetables in kitchen gardens, which can be
irrigated from wells. Supporting kitchen gardening with improved vegetable
varieties will offer improved nutritional security, income generation
possibilities, intercropping opportunities and reduce malnutrition.
Finally, the conflict and the development of recovery plans by the FAO mission
have brought to light a number of gaps. These include the lack of local seed
multiplication farms and seedling nurseries to supply replanting or
expansion efforts, and a limited number of value adding enterprises making
farmers dependent on a very small number of buyers for most agricultural
commodities. Longer term enterprise development efforts, starting with sector
analyses to improve value-chains should be undertaken to address these
weaknesses, which will mitigate future disruptions and increase resilience to
both man made and natural disasters.
On the basis of the mission’s findings, the proposed programme thus covers three
main subject areas: (a) support to rainfed agriculture; (b) support to livestock;
and (c) support to irrigated agriculture (horticulture). The provision of
institutional support will take place across all three areas. These areas have been
incorporated and integrated into a two-year recovery programme that addresses
priority immediate and medium-term needs, and prepares the way for future
development.
Programme implementation will be supported by an FAO Emergency and
Rehabilitation Coordination Unit (ERCU) based in country.
In 000s US$
Components Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
I. Agriculture Rehabilitation 12,039 - - 12,039
II. Livestock Rehabilitation 14,978 - - 14,978
III. Horticulture Rehabilitation 5,671 - - 5,671
IV.
Program Implementation
Support
998 534 57 1,589
Total Programme Costs 33,686 534 57 34,276

8
PART ONE – Assessment and Programme Overview
A. Introduction
A Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) mission visited Georgia from 15
September to 5 October 2008 to undertake an Agriculture-based Livelihoods
Assessment and Rehabilitation Programme formulation mission in areas affected
by hostilities in northern Georgia in August 2008. The mission was undertaken
concurrently with the United Nations Flash Appeal Revision1
preparation and the
Joint Needs Assessment (JNA)2
led by the World Bank (WB), the European
Commission (EC), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the European Investment
Bank and the United Nations system. The mission was funded by the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID).
The JNA and the Flash Appeal have been well-coordinated to ensure consistency
among the humanitarian, rehabilitation and development-oriented actions, and to
promote the necessary continuum from humanitarian response to development.
This process has given greater depth and strength to the links between the two
assessments. The JNA formed the basis of a donor conference on 22 October 2008
in Brussels, and has a timeframe of three years:
Phase 1 - October 2008 – March 2009;
Phase 2 - April 2009 – March 2010;
Phase 3 - April 2010 – October 2011.
These two instruments have different scopes and foci, however: whereas the
Flash Appeal focuses on the immediate humanitarian needs of those affected
directly by the conflict, the JNA looks at the macro-economic impact and
infrastructure damages and losses, in addition to the needs of those directly and
indirectly affected by the conflict. These inter-linkages give additional importance
and relevance to the early recovery activities included in the Flash Appeal, which
are consistent with the early recovery strategy in the JNA.
This report provides a more in-depth description of FAO’s component of the
Revised Flash Appeal (RFA) (US$10.64 million), launched in October 2008. It also
provides additional details for proposals addressing the rehabilitation needs
identified by the JNA in the agriculture sector. The JNA has identified some US$80
million to rehabilitate the agriculture sector to March 2010.3
The timeframe of the
programme proposed in this report runs from November 2008 to November 2010.
The mission members reviewed available data and reports, and also undertook
extensive enquiries with the government, United Nations agencies, donors, NGOs
and other main actors operating in the conflict-affected area. At least four field
missions were undertaken into the area, including the buffer zone (under
Russian/Ossetian control) where damage was estimated and numerous interviews
held with individuals and focus group discussions in the villages visited. Further
missions were undertaken to enquire of agencies and officials in Gori town.
Estimates of losses have been undertaken using available data and surveys.
However, since statistics have been found to be unreliable, references to them
represent a digest of different sources.
1
http://ochaonline.un.org/cap2005/webpage.asp?Page=1692
2
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGEORGIA/Resources/301645-
1224598099977/GEJNA2008.pdf
3
Although the JNA covers three phases up to September 2011, the agriculture sector of the JNA
covers only the first two phases, i.e. up to March 2010, in accordance with guidance from the highest
levels of the Government of Georgia.

9
On the basis of their findings, the mission prepared its report under three main
subject areas: : (a) support to rainfed agriculture; (b) support to livestock; and
(c) support to irrigated agriculture (horticulture). The provision of institutional
support will take place across all three areas. These have been incorporated and
integrated into a two-year recovery programme that addresses priority immediate
and medium-term needs, and prepares the way for future development. However,
most of the proposed activities shall be completed within the first programme
year.
The mission is indebted to the assistance and guidance provided by the Ministry
of Agriculture (MoA), other government departments, FAO staff, international
agencies and individual Georgians at all levels.
B. Background and the national economy
Georgia is a small, strategically located country in the Caucasus. It has a diverse
terrain and abundant natural resources, such as water and mineral deposits. With
a population of 4.5 million and a gross national income (GNI) per capita of
US$2 255, Georgia is a lower-middle-income country.
The Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia was one of the most prosperous areas of
the former Soviet Union. The political turmoil after independence had a
catastrophic effect on Georgia's economy. The cumulative decline in real gross
domestic product (GDP) is estimated at over 70 percent between 1990 and 1994,
and by the end of 1996, the country’s economy had shrunk to around one-third of
its size in 1989. Today, the largest share of Georgia's GDP is produced by trade,
followed by public administration and defence, agriculture, manufacturing,
construction and transport (National Statistics Office 2007). Georgia's main
exports are metals and ores, wine, nuts and aircraft.
The collapse and privatization of the state kolkhozes and sovkhozes, and land
distribution to the rural population resulted in allocations of very small and
fragmented holdings, not conducive to commercial agriculture, especially of field
crops. This, together with the loss of its main markets in the Russian Federation,
has led to a reversion to mainly subsistence agriculture.
After the Rose Revolution of 2003, the new government promised to: reorient the
government and the economy toward privatization, free markets, and reduced
regulation; combat corruption; stabilize the economy; and bring order to the
budget. This led to a massive reduction in public service staff, resulting in
unemployment rates of approximately 13 percent in 2005 to an estimated 25
percent in 2007 (WFP Emergency food security assessment report, September
2007). In the Ministry of Agriculture, staff losses amounted to 87 percent.
According to International Monetary Fund (IMF)/WB data4
for 2007, the GDP
amounted to US$10.29 billion, or US$2 255 per capita. Its current account deficit
amounts to US$2.03 billion, or 19.6 percent of GDP. Economic growth figures rose
from 9.4 percent in 2005 to 12.4 percent in 2007, while inflation in 2007 was
running at 9.6 percent, up from 8.5 percent in 2007. Food price inflation is
reported at 40 percent in 2007.
4
International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook (WEO) database, April 2008.

10
B.1 Agriculture and water resources5
Sector background
Although agriculture’s share in nominal GDP has fallen from 32 percent in 1990 to
13 percent in 2006, the sector remains critical for the Georgian economy. First,
almost 55 percent of the labour force (including wage labour and the self-
employed) depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Second, agriculture accounts
for 24 percent of exports, although Georgia’s net trade in agriculture and food
products remains negative. Georgia relies on imports of grain, dairy, and meat
products to satisfy domestic food demand. Third, with rural poverty incidence
estimated at 41.7 percent and widening rural-urban gaps, agriculture’s
performance is critical for poverty reduction.
Georgia’s agriculture sector has grown at an average of 0.8 percent over 2002–
2006, with considerable volatility in this growth trend. This period included three
years of negative growth, including an overall contraction of 9.3 percent in 2006,
interspersed with strong but short-lived recoveries. Subsector contributions to
agricultural production have been changing, with the share of crop production
declining and that of livestock production increasing.
Within the crops subsector, grains (maize, wheat, and barley) account for more
than half the area sown, followed by vegetables. Tea and citrus production have
fallen by an annual average of 1.3 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively, over
1998–2004, while other non-industrial crops including grains, fruits and
vegetables have experienced modest output growth with considerable year-to-
year volatility in production. Household farms account for over 90 percent of the
production of grains, vegetables and fruits, but a lower share of industrial crops
such as soybean. In the livestock sector, meat, milk production, eggs and wool
production have increased by annual averages ranging from 0.1 to 0.7 percent. Of
forestland, only a small area comes under “forest production”, with the rest of the
area classified as conservation and recreation forests. Although the forest area
has not decreased, illegal logging has contributed to degradation of the forest
composition and quality.
The government’s priorities in agriculture are to develop agricultural
infrastructure, reform the management of irrigation and drainage systems,
develop viticulture and promote food quality and safety. Expected results over the
medium term include an enabling environment for agribusinesses and enhanced
competitiveness of Georgian agricultural products in international markets.
Sector issues
Transition from subsistence to commercial agriculture
Georgian agriculture is dominated by small family farms, cultivating 0.75 ha on
average and usually divided into 2–4 plots. Such small and fragmented farm plots
can only support subsistence agriculture. Farm fragmentation resulted from the
land reform programme launched in 1992, which distributed 60 percent of the
arable land to rural households for subsistence farming and retained the
remaining portion in state ownership, partly for leasing to larger market-oriented
farms. While the distribution of land for subsistence is credited with averting a
collapse of rural living standards following the break-up of the former Soviet
Union, the small and fragmented land plots have since become a constraint to
raising rural productivity and to developing a functioning land market. A new law
on privatization of state-owned agricultural land passed in July 2005 allows
360 000 ha of agricultural land that was still state-owned to be privatized in plots
5
ADB Country economic report, June 2007.

11
of no less than 3 ha. The objective is to promote economically viable land plots
for farming and facilitate the development of a land market.
Irrigation and drainage
An extensive irrigation and drainage system was built during the Soviet era. Since
independence, the system has seriously deteriorated due to poor maintenance
and institutional weaknesses. As a result, the area irrigated and drained has
shrunk. In June 2006, the responsibility for rehabilitating the main irrigation and
drainage systems was transferred to the Municipal Development Fund (MDF). MDF
is also responsible for facilitating the work on water consumer drainage and
amelioration associations that are in charge of on-farm maintenance and cost
recovery for irrigation and drainage services. The Tiriponi/Satvisi irrigation canal
system, which feeds the target programme area, is fed from an intake inside
South Ossetia. If not addressed, many annual and perennial crops may be lost.
Rural finance
Commercial banks are reluctant to lend to small farmers because they are
considered high credit risk. As a result, farmers lack working capital and resources
for making on-farm investments to raise productivity. One of the
recommendations of IMF’s Financial Sector Program update conducted in 2006 is
to develop a national strategy to address the lack of financial services in rural
areas.
Agricultural productivity
Yields output per unit of land for most crops have shown only modest growth in
recent years. In terms of agricultural value added per worker, Georgia’s
performance has been variable, while other countries in the region are showing
steady improvement. The reasons include: small-scale farmers’ inadequate use of
improved crop varieties and new technologies necessary for intensifying and
diversifying production; the poor quality of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers;
inadequate irrigation; a low rate of machinery use; and limited market access. A
study by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has
concluded, inter alia, that perennial crops, including fruit trees and grapevines,
offer some of the best opportunities for raising rural incomes, and that fresh
vegetable production can be profitable for farmers with market access.
Responding to these opportunities will require complementary public and private
investments in infrastructure (roads, irrigation, drainage) and know-how.
Public spending
The state budget expenditure for agriculture and forestry is low (0.5 percent of
GDP in 2006). As a result, activities known to have high returns to investment
remain underfunded, e.g. agricultural research and extension. Public expenditures
that help strengthen linkages between farmers and markets also need to be
stepped up.
Agricultural GDP amounts to approximately US$956 million, or 9.3 percent of the
total, yet receives only 2.7 percent of the state budget, which reflects the low
priority for agriculture in economic policy. Like most East Europe and Central Asia
(ECA) countries, the ability to produce sufficient primary agricultural commodities
to feed itself and meet export demand, in addition to wine, is not a primary
concern.
Exports of agricultural products, excluding wine, amounted to US$40.6 million, of
which US$28.8 million (72 percent) was accounted for by sugar. Imports
amounted to US$348.8 million, of which wheat and flour amounted to US$185
million, or approximately 53 percent of total imports. Georgia depends on imports
for about 80 percent (560 000 tonnes) of its annual wheat consumption. In 2006,
trade relations were plagued by politically motivated interruptions when the

12
Russian Federation imposed bans on all Georgian exports of wine, fruits and
vegetables, and mineral water.
Farming systems vary according to agro-climatic zones. Viticulture prevails in the
east, providing grapes for wine production, which the government strongly
supports. Non-irrigated areas of the central belt depend on livestock and rainfed
crops, while the irrigated areas are devoted to fruit and summer crops of maize
and vegetables. The mountain areas are predominantly subsistence livestock, but
in the west, the subtropical climate allows for a wide variety of crops including
tea. Livestock production, mainly cattle, is ubiquitous throughout the country.
Access to seed, fertilizer, pesticides, animal health and veterinary services are
very limited, with the exception of a few locations where international
organizations deliver some services through specific subcomponents. Machinery is
sparse and mainly obsolete Soviet-era tractors and equipment. Productivity of
most crops and orchards is low, as it is for livestock. Market access is limited due
to poorly developed and fragmented value chains, although the emergence of
some agro-processing industries for fruits, vegetables and milk are having an
impact in some areas. In most cases, farmers receive minimum prices for their
product. This could be overcome by farmers grouping together to obtain
economies of scale and bargaining power for both sales and purchases.
Lack of access to veterinary services and animal health products, as well as
expensive animal feed and poor quality forage have significantly reduced animal
productivity.
Poverty
Poverty in Georgia is predominantly rural – 59 percent of the total poor and 62
percent of the extreme poor. The highest incidence of poverty in Georgia occurs in
Shida Kartli Region6
(59.4 percent), with households self-employed in agriculture
facing the highest poverty risk (World Bank Social Sector Impact Assessment,
September 2008). Agriculture is, therefore, the main safety net for most of the
population.
Given a current per capita GNI of US$2 255 and figures indicating that
approximately 25% of the population surviving on less than the international
standard of US$2.00 per day7
, it would appear that there is a significant wealth
gap in the country.
With the exception of a few larger commercial farmers, most land holdings in the
conflict area range between 0.5 and 2 ha. The farming system has variations from
valley to hill, includes winter wheat as a rainfed crop, irrigated summer crops of
maize, barley and field vegetables, and orchard crops as the main source of
income along with livestock (with 1-2 head per family). With the exception of
fruits and some vegetables, much production is consumed by families who depend
on agriculture for their livelihoods.
Survey data prior to the conflict (WFP, 2004) show a marked level of food
insecurity – insufficient access to or availability of food – among a substantial
proportion of the rural population. An exceptionally high proportion of rural
household income is spent on food, approximately 75 percent, with heavy
dependence on market functioning for food purchases. Food expenditure
6
Shida Kartli is a Region (Mkhare) in Georgia. It consists of the following Districts: Gori, Kaspi, Kareli,
Java, Khashuri. The northern part of the region, namely Java, and northern territories of Kareli and
Gori, (total area of 1 393 km²) is controlled by the authorities of the self-proclaimed republic of South
Ossetia since 1992, which has subsequently been recognised internationally by the Russian
Federation on August 26, 2008, and by Nicaragua on September 9, 2008.
7
World Bank, 2003, reported on IFAD, Rural Poverty Portal

13
competes with farm input requirements, preventing households from investing in
their land, maintaining low productivity. In general, prior to the recent conflict,
poor Georgians have low dietary diversity, which is now further compromised by
rising food prices. Wheat flour accounts for 50 percent of total food consumption.
C. Emergency challenge: country context, recovery strategy and
rationale for the proposed programme
The armed conflict of August 2008 resulted in the mass evacuation of the
population from the Districts of Kareli, Khashuri, Gori and Kaspi of the Shida
Kartli Region. This area lies north of the M27 highway, which effectively forms the
southern boundary of the affected area. A buffer zone is defined by a number of
Russian check-points that form a strip between the South Ossetian border and the
rest of Georgia. Most of the affected area lies within this buffer zone, while the
affected areas outside it are referred to as the “pre-buffer” areas. The main
conflict occurred in a strip along the main road from Tskinvali in South Ossetia to
Gori.
A total of 92 villages have been identified as the affected areas with a population
of 95 000 people, or approximately 30 000 households. The area consists of about
65 000 ha of agricultural land, including 35 000 ha under irrigation. This includes
10 000 ha of orchards, with the balance devoted to irrigated field crops and
rainfed cereal production, predominantly wheat and barley for human and animal
consumption.
The conflict coincided with a peak period in the agricultural calendar, when the
harvest of stone fruit, wheat and barley was due, and with the critical period for
insect control in apples. Most of the 92 villages in the affected area were
abandoned and remain partially so at the time of writing. This has resulted in
severe losses of crops and incomes of the rural population, not only from
abandonment, but also due to deliberate damage to infrastructure and crops as
well as ongoing looting and damage to machinery, stocks and livestock.
The impact of the conflict threatens the entire future of Shida Kartli as a viable
economic region, as noted by the JNA, and is illustrated by the following analysis
of critical issues.
C.1 Critical issues facing the agricultural sector in the affected area
Security
Villages in the vicinity of the border with South Ossetia are concerned about
security issues and seem to be more vulnerable than other areas. Returnees are
mostly older people, as the younger generation is afraid of harassment from
Russians and Ossetians. Many only return for a day at a time, and only during
daylight hours. Furthermore, parts of the irrigation system have been damaged
by military activity and some areas are infested with unexploded ordnance (UXO),
in particular cluster bombs, thus making these areas inaccessible. In some
instances people are afraid to enter land due to the fear, rather than the actual
presence, of UXO. Given these circumstances, people may be unwilling to invest
money and time in the next production cycle. The scope and scale of looting is
unquantified, but is widely reported and has been significant, especially of farm
machinery, livestock and some agricultural stocks. Security and the rule of law
are therefore essential before any state of normalcy can resume.

14
Irrigation (or lack thereof)
The Tiriponi/Satvisi irrigation canal system is fed from an intake inside South
Ossetia. The water supply has always been problematic, but due to the conflict it
has been totally cut off since mid-July 2008. The consensus opinion is that it is
unlikely to be resumed, and in addition, control of the supply could be used
maliciously to further impoverish farmers on the Shida Kartli side. The uncertainty
of this situation means that there will be no more irrigation from this particular
system, and no resumption of irrigation is anticipated until a new head-works is
constructed on the Georgian side with financing from the WB. The WB estimates
that it will take three to five years before this will be functioning. These canals
have command of about 35 000 ha, which includes 10 000 ha of high-value
orchards, with the balance for irrigated summer crops of maize and vegetables.
Under these circumstances, there is great danger that a large proportion of the
orchards may die and the production of summer crops become impossible. There
are only some very small areas being irrigated from open water sources and tube
wells, while in the west of the area, irrigation is fed from the Borjomi River.
Loss of 2008 crops
The conflict came at a critical time in the farming calendar, resulting in losses of
the wheat and barley harvest of up to 70 percent, total loss of the peach harvest
and a poor and unmarketable apple crop. The loss of the wheat harvest is directly
related to food security for humans and barley for animals. Field crops are
severely damaged by drought, with about 60 percent loss of maize and severe
loss of vegetable crops. Loss of maize is important for both human food and
animal feed. Other losses, including field crops of beans and vegetables, also have
an effect on diet. Much of the apple crop has been abandoned and is lying on the
ground, and orchards are severely stressed. The apple crop is fit only for juicing
at minimal prices. This comprehensive loss of crops has resulted in a severe
reduction in cash flow of farmers, who are now unable to fund the next production
cycle, normally winter wheat, even if they had the confidence to do so.
Livestock losses
The livestock population consists mainly of cattle, which are an integral and
essential part of the livelihoods of small-scale farmers, providing both milk and
meat for consumption, cash income and family equity. A significant number of
livestock have been stolen or slaughtered. Many of the remaining cattle were left
to roam and scavenge during their owners’ absence; however, as a result of crop
losses, there is likely to be a shortage of feed for livestock through the winter.
Labour shortage
Few young persons have returned to the area, which has resulted in unharvested
apples. This also has implications for the next crop since there may not be enough
labour for land preparation, planting and crop management.
Trauma
It is evident, even to the untrained eye, that many people are shocked and
traumatized by recent events. They have difficulty projecting ahead and in
accepting that their circumstances may have changed forever. There is now a
need for clear leadership and investment to help them overcome difficulties and
to provide incentives to face the future with confidence.
Other limiting factors include:
Loss of farmer’s cash flow;
Shortage of farm machinery;
Low productivity;
Lack of animal health services;
Limited market access – broken value chains;

15
Limited input supplies;
Lack of technical advice or support – extension;
Lack of strategy for agriculture.
C.2 Sector impact
Agricultural production in Shida Kartli accounted for 12 percent of the national
GDP prior to the conflict. The conflict has caused significant damages to the
agricultural sector amounting to millions of United States dollars. The conflict will
have further indirect effects on food security due to expected economic
contraction.
Although farmers abandoned and fled their farms during the conflict, leaving
behind livestock, food stocks, machinery, tools and other farming assets, it is
estimated that approximately 80 percent have returned at the time of writing.
Residents of the villages are mainly the elderly and the very young. The
economically active population is simply too frightened to return permanently,
and only return temporarily, on a daily basis. Nevertheless, repopulation of the
affected area is strategically crucial since it depends on a secure environment.
The seasonal cereal crop in villages located in the buffer zone has been largely
lost. Without the immediate provision of seeds, there will be no winter crop;
further, without suitable seeds and irrigation, a 2009 spring crop is unlikely.
Estimates from agencies working in the field and team observations as well as
interviews with local people are in harmony in estimating overall crop loss at
between 60 and 70 percent, but this varies between areas and crops. As
expected, damage was worst in Gori District. Overall, Sakrebulos in Gori District
reported crop losses approaching 80% for the 2008 harvest season due to
damage sustained, inability to irrigate, lack of proper late-stage cultivation
practices (such as spraying), and failure to harvest on time.8
Fruits and vegetables are the main cash crops of the area, much of which has
been lost. The peach harvest coincided with the conflict, resulting in almost total
loss. The apple crop, although plentiful, has suffered from codling moth and other
pest infestations during the conflict period, resulting in serious deterioration in
quality. The result is that the crop that can be recovered, given the labour
shortage, is fit only for juicing at US$0.03 per kg, as opposed to US$0.15 per kg
for a quality product. Much of the crop has fallen to the ground and many of the
apple trees are stressed due to lack of water.
The standing maize crop is particularly variable depending on available irrigation
and time of planting. Irrigated crops are in good condition, while some others
have a degree of reduction around 20 percent. However, those without irrigation,
or late-planted crops, are not worth harvesting, except for animal feed.
NGOs working in the affected area estimate that up to 40 percent of the farms
have taken crop credit from monetary financial institutions (MFIs) and banks,
having pledged land or moveable assets such as collateral security. Most of them
now face ruin due to loan defaulting, while the lending agencies will suffer severe
losses, since some of the collateral may have either been destroyed, looted or
have lost value.
Agricultural and livestock productivity is generally low as a result of, inter alia,
lack of purchasing power to buy inputs, lack of quality seed supply, outdated
8
Figure from Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs (CNFA) Rapid Damage Assessment of Shida Kartli
Region, September 2008, based on primary data collection at sakrebulo level.

16
technology, inadequate husbandry and lack of knowledge. Livestock are
genetically degenerate, which is exacerbated by poor nutrition and health care.
There are general gaps in the value chain of agricultural products, which result in
a lack of incentive for farmers to invest in improved productivity. Similarly, the
distribution of inputs is sparse so many farmers have poor access to them.
Financial liquidity in the form of agricultural credit is essential if the industry is to
revive, but again, this depends on stability and viability, which in turn depends on
value-chain incentives.
The future of agricultural development may be positively influenced by the
shortages of world food stocks with concurrent rises in production and marketing
costs. This could reduce the flow of imports and provide a stimulus for import
substitution that will directly affect farmers in the affected areas. In addition, the
rise of the middle class in the cities will provide a demand for better quality
products for which they would be willing to pay a premium.
Failure to address the present emergency and development needs could result in
massive depopulation of the area as a result of urban migration. This in turn could
place considerable strains on infrastructure and social services in the urban areas,
with other social consequences of unemployment. Furthermore, given the post-
war political tension, it is likely of interest to Georgia to maintain a healthy and
prosperous population in the area as a buffer to further encroachment from the
north and to prevent a drain on public finances.
C.3 Recovery strategy
Overall, the proposed strategy aims to rebuild the lives of the affected population
and their assets to pre-war status from which further, longer-term development
assistance can be designed and delivered. Given the dependence of the affected
population on agriculture for their livelihoods, the strategy will be largely based
on this sector.
The underlying problems of the affected area of poverty and unreliable irrigation
are long-standing and chronic, however, and have only become exacerbated and
acute as a result of the conflict.
The envisaged programme will reflect the immediate needs of the affected
population through the provision of inputs required to enable them to resume
their production cycles and to preserve assets. Longer-term proposals will reflect
the need to improve productivity and to offset, to some degree, the effects of the
curtailment of irrigation. This will not require a change to the farming system, but
rather, a change in emphasis from irrigated summer crops to the expansion – into
the former irrigated areas – of rainfed winter and spring cereal crops. In addition,
assistance to annual crops does not entail large investments, structural or
otherwise, as may be the case for perennial crops such as fruit trees. In the very
short term, the annual cropping system may be switched from irrigated to
rainfed, where feasible, and reversion to irrigated crops can take place as and
when reliable irrigation resumes. This should provide an incentive for people to
return to the area and will protect livelihoods.
Support will also be provided to the areas that will continue to be irrigated, but
will concentrate on more efficient use of water and inputs, together with other
improved technologies to improve overall productivity of crops and livestock.
Assistance will be given to the development of institutions that have been
identified as necessary to support the programme, such as extension and
veterinary services as well as measures for improving value chains.

17
Small-scale kitchen gardening will also be supported as an important contribution
to improving diet and livelihoods.
A rapid hydrology survey will be undertaken to ascertain the possibility of
undertaking a drilling project for tube wells, especially for orchard production and
rehabilitation.
It is anticipated that the overall agricultural recovery programme outlined in this
report will be complementary to other programmes in support of infrastructure
rehabilitation. This should help provide a variety of employment opportunities to
supplement incomes.
C.4 Agencies involved in the sector
The Government of Georgia, with its international partners, have launched an
appeal, which has received generous pledges to address emergency needs and
early recovery in areas affected by the conflict. FAO’s Agriculture-based
Livelihoods Assessment and Rehabilitation Programme formulation mission carried
out its activities in close collaboration and liaison with the following initiatives and
institutions.
Georgia Crisis Flash Appeal
As part of the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP), the Georgia Crisis Flash
Appeal was launched in August 2008 to cover emergency needs in six sectors for
a period of seven months. FAO participated in this Appeal, and together with WFP,
are leading the Food Security Cluster.
Based upon improved assessments and access, humanitarian organizations
working in Georgia produced a Revised Flash Appeal (RFA) in October 2008.
Refinements to food security, health and nutrition, protection, and shelter
activities in particular were made, as well as the introduction of a range of early
recovery initiatives. These refinements paralleled and informed the Joint Needs
Assessment (JNA), which was conducted in early September at the behest of the
Georgian Government by, amongst others, the UN system, the World Bank, and
the European Commission.
Though the Flash Appeal is not limited solely to recent conflict areas, the planning
assumption is for an estimated 127 499 internally displaced persons (IDPs) and
returnees in the country.
Joint Needs Assessment (JNA)
At government’s request, a joint team led by the World Bank Group with the
participation of experts from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European Commission, the
European Investment Bank and the United Nations undertook a JNA, with FAO
leading the agricultural sector. The JNA mission prepared a three-year plan for
post-conflict recovery across sectors in the affected areas.
World Bank (WB)
WB has assisted Georgia with a Poverty Reduction Support Operation (PRSO)
based on the Economic Development Poverty Reduction Programme (EDPRP)
through budgetary support. The recent WB Country Partnership Strategy (CPS)
for fiscal year 2006-9 is designed to assist Georgia in implementing the second
phase of reforms. The CPS builds on the EDPRP, as well as emerging government
strategic thinking on the development framework. In doing so, it targets several
goals:

18
Generating growth and job creation by removing barriers to private sector
development and improving infrastructure, finance and markets.
Enhancing human development and social protection through improved
education, health, social protection and community services.
Strengthening public sector management and budgetary processes to
reduce corruption and enable Georgia to better plan and meet its own
development goals.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
The IFAD programme in Georgia includes a rural development subcomponent and
a mountain areas development subcomponent that encompasses Armenia and
Azerbaijan as well as Georgia, jointly funded by the World Bank. It is expected
that the credit component of the Rural Development Project will be made
available for recovery in the conflict-affected areas.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
FAO has implemented some 18 projects since 2000 under its Technical
Cooperation Programme (TCP), the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS)
and other trust funds. FAO emergency involvement included reaction to a severe
drought during the 2000 growing season which had a devastating impact on crop
production in the eastern, central and southern parts of Georgia, resulting in the
almost total failure of forage, cereal and potato harvests. A Drought Rehabilitation
Programme, part of FAO’s Appeal for Georgia in 2000, was implemented
distributing potatoes and potato seeds to affected farmers, and supporting the
resumption of quality commercial seed production. As a result farmers were able
to meet their food consumption needs and earn income through the sale of
surplus production in the market. This income helped investment in farm
mechanization, the lack of which had posed a major constraint to crop production.
The high quality seed provided by the Drought Rehabilitation Programme also
substantially improved farmers’ seed stocks in subsequent years.
Asian Development Bank (ABD)
Since Georgia became a member in 2007, ADB provided its first-ever public sector
loan to Georgia to help rehabilitate water supply, sanitation, waste management
and road transport services, and rebuild other infrastructure that may have been
damaged in the recent conflict with the Russian Federation. ADB’s US$40 million,
32-year concessional loan is being extended to Georgia’s Municipal Development
Fund (MDF), which will in turn provide funds to local governments to rebuild
infrastructure, and improve the quality, coverage and continuity of critical urban
services.
European Commission
European Commission assistance to Georgia from 1992-2006 amounted to almost
€506 million. The European Commission is actively supporting various economic
rehabilitation and peace/confidence-building activities in the Georgian-Abkhaz
and Georgian-Ossetian zones. The European Commission has supported initiatives
aiming to improve the living conditions of the population affected by the conflict
while creating conditions for the return of IDPs, as well as facilitating progress in
a constructive dialogue between opposing social groups. The European
Commission is the largest donor in the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The ongoing and planned programmes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia financed by
the European Commission include humanitarian assistance, economic
rehabilitation, confidence building, democratization and human rights.
Under the European Neighbouhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) there is an
allocation for Georgia for 2007-2010 of over €120 million to focus on reform
priorities agreed in the ENP Action Plan. The principal objective of the ENPI is to
create an area of shared values, stability and prosperity, enhanced co-operation

19
and deeper economic and regional integration by covering a wide range of co-
operation areas.
Swedish International Development Assistance (SIDA)
As part of its programme, SIDA is providing assistance for economic growth for
the agricultural sector. Development cooperation in agriculture is designed to
promote sustainable economic growth to help the poor fend for themselves. It is
also a sector with great export potential, which has not been tapped since the
collapse of the former Soviet trade structures. One of the largest of SIDA’s
subcomponents in Georgia, within the milk and dairy industry, is designed to
reduce poverty in the rural areas of Kakheti and South Ossetia. It achieves this by
helping to develop sustainable milk production for smaller farms and by setting
up markets where farmers can sell their products. The subcomponent, which is
being run by the Swedish firm GRM International, also includes capacity
development for the Georgian MoA.
Support for agricultural development will increase in the coming years to cover
more segments of the agricultural industry, which will include training of
producers in good agricultural practices (GAP) and market economy processes,
the harmonization of institutions, standards and regulations with those of the
European Union (EU), as well as food-handling safety.
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)
The SDC’s new Cooperation Strategy for South Caucasus 2008–2011 pursues the
overall objective of reducing economic disparities and supporting the transition
process in the South Caucasus. The three domains of intervention are economic
development and employment, macroeconomic policy support, and recovery and
reconstruction.
The SDC recently commissioned two projects in Samske-Javakheti and Kverno-
Kartli based on the concept “Making Markets Work for the Poor”, valued at SF6
million (Swiss Franc).9
C.5 Rationale for the strategy adopted
Since agriculture is the economic and social safety net of the rural poor, any
recovery strategy has to include support to agriculture. Given the current small
farm size and low productivity coefficients, there is ample scope for improvement
given the right stimulation and incentives in the form of market access, which the
programme seeks to address. Improving productivity per unit area as well as
returns to labour should increase household incomes while stimulating the rural
economy in general. This is in keeping with the government strategy to improve
private sector efficiency and investment.
The Poverty Reduction Strategy programme (PRSP) has embarked on a number of
structural reforms aimed mainly at reducing the public sector and encouraging
privatization of the economy. Despite repeated attempts with assistance from
donors, the MoA has been unable to adopt a strategy for agriculture. The nearest
approach to a policy or strategy can be gleaned from the PRSP under the
following broad headings:
Food safety
Privatization of the veterinary service
Privatization of a consolidated inspection service
Development of Alpine regions
9
Approximately US$5.26 million.

20
Promotion of agricultural credit unions
Poverty reduction in Lower Kartli
Reform of the Ministry of Agriculture
This has resulted in privatizing or minimizing some of the services to agriculture
formerly provided by the public sector, leaving a vacuum that has yet to be filled.
The effects of economic reform are yet to be felt by the 30 percent of the
population below the poverty line.
The target population of the conflict-affected areas who were already poor have
been further impoverished by physical constraints exacerbated by the effect of the
conflict.
The proposed programme is therefore aimed at enabling beneficiaries to both
regain and improve their livelihoods, by stimulating the rural economy to
generate a sufficient demand for goods and services.
D. Damage and needs assessment
D.1 Assessment methodology
The mission visited a number of affected areas, including the buffer zone (at the
time under Russian/Ossetian control), where damage was estimated and
numerous interviews held with village leaders, individuals and focus group
discussions in the villages visited. In addition to extensive observations and
discussions with farmers, using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods, the
mission also visited a number of national and international institutions in the
affected areas. Furthermore, the mission collated significant amounts of
secondary data and made full use of alternative assessments in the country. The
mission, in particular, made extensive use of the WFP Emergency food security
assessment report in addition to other data at the national and local levels.
Unfortunately, restrictions and security concerns prevented the mission from
conducting a comprehensive assessment in all of the affected areas, which may
render the mission findings second best. However, all efforts were made to fully
use findings from other assessments, observations by NGOs, government officials,
other international agencies and farmers, as well as direct observations and
secondary data, including the Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs (CNFA) Rapid
Damage Assessment of Shida Kartli Region, first published on 22 September.
The crop loss estimates shown in Table 2 are based on the average production
levels of the past four years as a baseline, with damage adjustments made from
mission observations and secondary data and reports.
D.2 Summary of assessment findings10
The impact of the conflict on plant production
Total conflict-affected agricultural land area is estimated on the basis of districts
affected, totalling over 40 000 ha. Yields and the type of crops planted, both
annual and perennial, are based on the average of the past four years in the
affected areas. The losses mentioned in Table 2 are mission estimates using the
methodology outlined in the previous section.
10
See also the Critical issues section above.

21
Table 2. Impact on crop production using baseline of average production
levels between 2003-7
2008 summary of estimated crop losses
Crops
Estimated
2008
harvest
('000
tonnes)
Losses
(%)
Expected
harvest
after
conflict
('000
tonnes)
Harvest
losses
('000
tonnes)
Unit
price
(US$/
tonne)
Total
losses
(US$'000)
Vegetable 91.00 75 22.75 68.25 350 23 888
Bean 2.85 65 0.9975 1.8525 2 200 4 076
Barley 6.825 80 1.365 5.46 700 3 822
Wheat 21.125 70 6.3375 14.7875 350 5 176
Maize 26.087 60 10.4348 15.6522 600 9 391
Apple 44.325 80 8.865 35.46 700 24 822
Pear 4.475 80 0.895 3.58 600 2 148
Peach 1.525 85 0.22875 1.29625 700 907
Plum 5.7 80 1.14 4.56 450 2 052
Quince 0.7 20 0.56 0.14 700 98
Cherry 1.575 0 1.575 0 500 0
Other
fruits11 2.4 30 1.68 0.72 700 504
Walnut 0.9 15 0.765 0.135 2000 270
Grape 14.8 25 11.1 3.7 350 1 295
Perennial
grass 4.425 25 3.31875 1.10625 300 332
Potato 17.9795 10 16.18155 1.79795 700 1 259
TOTAL 80 039
Source: Mission findings and local reports.
A number of trees and woodlands have also been damaged together with some
infrastructure, roads, irrigation canals and bridges. In addition, large numbers of
farm machinery have been looted or destroyed beyond repair. The MoA alone
reports that 35 of their tractors and complementary equipment were looted in the
Shida Kartli Region. It was not feasible to precisely quantify private farm
machinery losses. However, the CNFA assessment estimates indicate that around
350 agricultural machinery units were stolen or destroyed in the Districts of Gori,
Kareli and Kaspi alone, indicating the severity of loss.
The main irrigation systems are controlled from regulators in South Ossetia (SO).
In these circumstances, the supply of water could be used destructively to further
impoverish the farmers south of the border, increasing the risk for crop and
livestock production. Disputes over irrigation water have been an ongoing
problem in the area, and which were brought to a head by the conflict. It is not
expected that SO will supply water irrigation water in the immediate future, and
neither should this be relied on for 2009. An alternative scenario is that water
might be controlled in such a way as to cause further harm to Georgia.
The result of this situation is that spring and summer crops, maize and vegetables
are now very high risk or non-viable crops, and perennial crops, namely, fruit
trees of peach, apple and plums, are increasingly at risk from a shortage of water.
11
Including Tkemali, Cornelius cherry and Medlar.

22
The impact of the conflict on livestock
According to the estimation carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture,
approximately 12-14 percent of the cattle population of Shida Kartli was lost
during the war. Shida Kartli had 69 900 cattle, of which 41 600 were dairy cows12
.
Table 1 summarizes major direct consequences of the conflict on cattle population
in the Shida Kartli Region. The estimated losses take into account the average
annual growth rate and current population figures. Taking into account the long-
term trends in herd growth, it is estimated that, as of 27 September 2008, the
cattle herd population in Shida Kartli was reduced by 14.3 percent. The value of
losses is estimated using current market prices for cattle.
It should be noted that the figures in Table 1 are broad estimates based on
secondary data and various reports, which should be read carefully and only in
relative terms, describing the magnitude of losses rather than exact numbers
(expressed in United States dollars at market prices). If only short-term and
direct impacts are considered, and only in the cattle sector, the total loss in value
amounts to approximately US$10.4 million. This loss mainly affects small-scale
farms, and corresponds to a total loss of approximately 13 600 cattle.
Table 1. Estimated impact of the conflict on the cattle population in the
Shida Kartli Region
% No. of head Unit price US$ Total US$
Total cattle -14.30% 13 640 10 444
Milking cows -12.40% 7 820 857 6 702
Calves and bulls N/A 5 820 643 3742
Source: Mission findings and local reports.
E. Programme summary
E.1 Programme development objectives
The overall objectives and purpose of this programme is to assist resource-poor
and vulnerable households in the conflict areas to restore their livelihoods and
levels of income to the pre-conflict state, by providing necessary interventions for
the consolidation and sustainability of these livelihoods in the medium term.
This will include emergency assistance with animal feed to reduce potential losses
over the coming winter and the provision of machinery, seeds and mineral
fertilizers for the next spring planting season. This will be followed by the
distribution of vegetable seeds and mineral fertilizers for the 2009 season. These
emergency measures are followed by a number of recovery interventions
designed to support farmers through the recovery phase and lay the foundation
for long-term development.
12
Statistical Department, Ministry of Economic Development/Agriculture, Georgia, 2007.

23
E.2 Summary of programme components
The proposed programme will consist of four components:
Component I: Agriculture Rehabilitation (Annual and Perennial Crops) -
US$12m
Subcomponent I.1: Emergency Provision of Spring and Winter Wheat
Seed, Mineral Fertilizer and Fuel
Farmers in the conflict-affected areas do not have access to spring wheat seed
and lack fertilizers and fuel. Agricultural equipment stocks have been drastically
diminished due to widespread damage and looting. Critically, the conflict has cut
off access to irrigation, which will require switching to rainfed agriculture in the
2009 planting season. The main purpose of this activity is to increase the food
security and livelihoods of the affected population through the production of
wheat – a staple food crop – by the provision of improved varieties of spring and
winter wheat seeds, fertilizers and subsidized fuel. It is expected that by autumn
2009, as a result of the implementation of the programme, a minimum of
5 000 ha land in Gori District will be cultivated under rainfed spring and winter
wheat, producing at least 30 000 MT (3 tonnes/ha in two crops) of wheat.
Subcomponent I.2: Emergency Supply of Agricultural Machinery
The objective of this subcomponent is to increase food production and hence
improve food security through the use of mechanical cultivation by providing (on
an emergency basis) tractors, seed drills, disc harrow, trailers, sprayers and
combines to farmers for cultivating spring and winter wheat, fruits and vegetables
in the conflict-affected areas. This machinery will replace the 35 MoA tractors
looted during the conflict, and will serve 20 000 small-scale farmers in the Shida
Kartli Region.
Resumption of tractor cultivation of land, planting by seed drill, and harvesting by
combine will boost livelihoods option and agricultural productivity of the region,
and will have positive impact on the lives and livelihoods of the people. Thirty
tractors with all accessories and five combine harvesters will be procured and
distributed to mitigate the lack of farm power in the affected areas.
Subcomponent I.3: Support to the Seed Subsector
A. National Seed Sector Review: The programme under this activity shall
review the seed subsector, identify bottlenecks, including seed legislation and
policy, and prepare an appropriate investment programme to develop the cereal
seed sector to better reflect the current and prospective demand for seeds in the
country. The output of the seed sector review will be: (i) a comprehensive
analysis highlighting impediments to the development of an efficient seed sector
in Georgia; (ii) a revised seed legislation and policy to reflect a market-based
seed sector; and (iii) a detailed investment plan to develop an efficient seed
subsector with clear roles and responsibilities for state institutions and the private
sector.
Technical assistance shall be provided to the Government of Georgia in reviewing
the seed sector, current national seed policy and legislation; if appropriate,
relevant amendments shall be suggested in support of a medium- to long-term
agricultural strategy. A seeds specialist, a legal specialist and an agricultural
economist supported by government counterparts and national consultants will
undertake these tasks.
B. Assistance to Research Institute of Farming and laboratories: The main
purpose of this activity is to rehabilitate the basic technical and operational
capacity of the concerned research institutes to produce foundation and pre-basic

24
seeds, and to ensure quality control according to standard certification
procedures. Necessary expendable and non-expendable equipment as well as
training and other technical assistance will be provided to the Research Institute
of Farming, the Institute of Biotechnology and Biochemistry, and associated
laboratories. Much of these activities will build on current and past efforts to
improve the efficiency of these institutions.
Component II: Livestock Rehabilitation - US$15m
The overall objective of the component is to strengthen sustainable livelihoods
and food security of vulnerable and resource-poor households in the conflict areas
by preventing de-stocking and enhancing livestock productivity.
Subcomponent II.1: Emergency Supply of Animal Feed
The conflict prevented many farmers from harvesting their crops and storing hay
and crop residues, which are usually combined with concentrates to feed cattle
during winter. Many cattle and other livestock in the conflict area are already very
weak, and if not addressed, many cattle will perish during the winter. This
subcomponent aims to prevent the loss of a major source of nutrition, income and
store of value during the harsh winter months by providing some concentrate feed
to some of the most vulnerable and resource-poor households in the conflict-
affected areas. This will diminish the need for a more cumbersome and risky
restocking process in the future. Some 10 000 most vulnerable and food-insecure
households with livestock will each receive 350 kg of concentrate feed together
with technical advice/training in feed preparation, feeding and other improved
management issues. Cattle of selected households will also be dewormed prior to
feed distribution
Subcomponent II.2 Emergency Assistance to Prevent Transboundary
Animal Diseases (TADs)
The primary objective of the assistance is to improve surveillance on major TADs
and enhance biosecurity to minimize the risk of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD),
African swine fever (ASF), highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and other
disease incursion and spread. Preventing the likely loss of livestock from TADs
and other livestock diseases following the conflict will certainly enhance
household food security and prevent the spread of diseases to other areas in the
country as well as reduce the likelihood of very costly restocking process.
Subcomponent II.3 Pasture improvement, support for community-based
feed production and restocking of livestock
The primary objective of this subcomponent is to improve the feeding of existing
livestock through pasture rehabilitation, associated training and community-based
feed production, with a subsequent restocking of livestock that were lost through
looting, abandonment or starvation, or which were slaughtered either due to lack
of available fodder or to address cash flow crises. The combination of these
actions will help secure the livelihoods of vulnerable rural families, by providing
alternative sources of livelihood and nutrition, and will help ensure the livestock
restocking activity is both sustainable and risk mitigated.
Specifically, approximately 5 000 households in the conflict affected areas will
benefit from support to pasture rehabilitation, with a consequent improvement in
security of grazing, as well as local animal feed production through production of
forage. In addition, an estimated 1 500 most vulnerable and food insecure
households in the programme area will receive one cow (of Georgian origin,
procured from other areas of the country), and relevant training in improved
livestock management, including fodder and feed preparation, storage and
disease control. The first offspring of the livestock in the following year will be

25
given to other eligible households in the conflict area. A total of 15 000 cattle in
the target area will also be vaccinated to mitigate against the spread of TADs and
to improve general animal health in the region.
Component III: Horticulture Rehabilitation (Kitchen Gardens and
Orchards) - US$5.7m
Subcomponent III.1: Vegetable Seed and Fertilizers for Kitchen Gardens
This activity aims to improve the livelihood and nutrition intake and diversification
of some 10 000 small household farmers in 90 villages of Shida Kartli Region by
enhancing the quality and yield of vegetable crops through the distribution of
quality seed packages of recommended and improved varieties together with
fertilizers.
The conflict has severely damaged the main vegetable crops, tomato and
cabbage. The quality of these vegetables is low and inappropriate for seed
production. If not addressed, most households will not be able to produce
sufficient vegetables during the next season, which will result in increased food
insecurity and malnutrition. The provision of quality vegetable seeds and some
fertilizers together with training in improved vegetable technology will have
significant impact on food security, nutrition and livelihoods of some 10 000
vulnerable households in the affected area. Each beneficiary will received 100 kg
of fertilizers and 300 grams of improved vegetable seed varieties. The programme
also envisages capacity building in improved vegetable production techniques to
enhance productivity and quality of production. If successful, the beneficiary
households in 90 villages of Gori and Kareli Districts would have improved and
diversified their sources of income and nutrition.
Subcomponent III.2: Orchard Rehabilitation
A. Provision of Inputs and IPM Training to Orchard Farmers: The main
purpose of this activity is to rehabilitate orchards, increase the availability of fruit
locally and thus enhance a source of income for some of the most vulnerable
households in Shida Kartli. The fruit growing sector is the most significant source
of income for a large number of households in the conflict area. The conflict has
compromised some 80 percent of the fruit production, which covers 10 000 ha. If
not addressed in the very near future, most of the fruit trees may not survive,
and harvest in the coming years will be significantly low.
The programme under this subcomponent will provide necessary inputs to
rehabilitate orchards of some 5 000 vulnerable and food-insecure rural
households in the affected areas. Each beneficiary household will receive a
package of 150 kg fertilizers and a series of training sessions on Integrated Pest
Management (IPM), Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), the preparation and use of
organic fertilizers, improved fruit production technology and marketing. The
programme under this subcomponent will also provide intensive capacity building
in fruit production to some ten farmers, which will also serve as demonstration
plots to other farmers in the target area.
B. Fruit Tree Nursery Development: A large area of orchards were destroyed
as a result of the conflict, which are the main source of livelihoods in the affected
area, and a major source of foreign exchange earnings for the country. Therefore,
any rehabilitation of livelihoods requires investment in the recovery of orchards in
the affected areas. Some of the damaged trees will have to be replanted to
ensure a viable source of livelihoods in the medium to long term. The programme
under this subcomponent aims to establish 25 small, household-based nurseries
(producing roughly 5 000 seedlings per year per nursery at full capacity) to
supply local and improved varieties of fruit seedlings to the affected areas. The

26
nurseries will not only be used for rehabilitation purposes next year, but it is
hoped, will also function as a viable business entity, supplying nurseries to
farmers for many years to come.
Within the second programme year 125 000 dwarf and semi-dwarf fruit trees
would be produced, four farmers associations will have received training in
nursery technology and management and established in four villages in the
conflict area.
Subcomponent III.3: Horticulture Sector Review and Hydrology Survey
A. Horticulture Sector Review: The programme under this activity shall review
the horticultural subsector to identify bottlenecks, including marketing and policy
environment, and prepare an appropriate investment programme to develop
value chains targeting impediments to developing a financially viable horticultural
sector in the country. The value chain analysis and investment plan shall not only
target domestic markets, but also international markets, in particular the EU
market for fresh and processed fruits and vegetables. The output of the
horticulture sector review will be: (i) a comprehensive analysis highlighting
impediments to the development of an efficient horticultural sector in Georgia; (ii)
a detailed definition and development of value chains for products with
comparative advantage in national and relevant international markets; and (iii) a
detailed investment plan to develop an efficient value chain with relevant advisory
services along the chain, with clear roles and responsibilities for state institutions
and the private sector.
B. Rapid Hydrology Survey: The orchards in the affected areas generally
depend on supplementary irrigation during the summer from the Tiriponi/Satvisi
canal system passing through South Ossetia, which has been cut off since July
2008. Lack of irrigation water during the summer may damage some of the
orchards beyond repair. The local and exotic fruit species in the affected areas are
highly valuable both nationally and internationally. It is therefore urgent to
ensure that some of the fruit trees survive next summer and before the irrigation
system is restored. Some reports indicate that there is plenty of groundwater in
parts of the affected areas and some 120 tube wells with only ten operating. It is
necessary to establish the level of groundwater and the rate of extraction and
recharge before any investment is made in groundwater extraction, even if for a
short period of time. The programme under this subcomponent envisages a
hydrological study to establish hydrological parameters, which will guide
appropriate and environmentally sound investments in the use of groundwater.
Component IV: Programme Implementation Support - US$1.5m
An Emergency and Rehabilitation Coordination Unit (ERCU) shall be established to
implement, supervise and coordinate the proposed programme in the targeted
conflict-affected areas. The programme intends to employ the services of qualified
local and international NGOs as well as the private sector to facilitate the
implementation of specific activities under the programme. All programme
activities will be coordinated with relevant subnational government authorities
and national and international partners to fully use synergies with planned and
ongoing subcomponents and programmes. Once operational, the ERCU shall
establish mechanisms to effectively coordinate and liaise programme activities at
all levels.
The ERCU shall also establish an effective mechanism for reporting and providing
information to all relevant stakeholders, including monitoring and evaluation of
programme activities. The programme will be implemented by the ERCU under
the direct supervision of the FAO Emergency Coordinator (EC) and with technical

27
supervision from FAO technical units as required. Almost all components of the
programme will be implemented in close collaboration with the Gamgebeli (head
of the district or rayon) and the Sakrebulo (head of village) within the targeted
conflict area.
E.3 Summary of programme costs
Table 3 shows summary programme costs by component. Detailed programme
costs are provided in Annex 1. The proposed activities and the associated costs,
as summarised in Annex 1, Tables 1a and 1b are in support of both the Revised
Flash Appeal and the JNA.
Table 3. Summary costs, by component
In 000s US$
Components Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
I. Agriculture Rehabilitation 12,039 - - 12,039
II. Livestock Rehabilitation 14,978 - - 14,978
III. Horticulture Rehabilitation 5,671 - - 5,671
IV.
Program Implementation
Support
998 534 57 1,589
Total Programme Costs 33,686 534 57 34,276
E.4 Expected programme outcomes
The overall programme outcome is the early restoration and improvement of the
main source of livelihoods in the conflict-affected areas, hence ensuring food
security and strengthening peace-building efforts. Early recovery of the
agricultural sector as the main source of livelihoods for the population in the
affected areas is expected to reduce the need for protracted relief operations and
many costly rehabilitation efforts later on. The proposed intervention will also
encourage the IDPs to return to their villages and resume their productive
activities as soon as feasible and reduce the likelihood of a prolonged
displacement in other parts of the country and even destitution. Neglect of the
agricultural sector and hence the livelihoods of the affected population will
discourage the return of the population with significant repercussions for peace
and the local infrastructure, which will become too costly to rehabilitate in the
future. The proposed programme will not only rehabilitate damaged and lost
assets, but will also endeavour to improve production and productivity through
capacity building.
The likely outcomes for each component (excluding Component IV, Programme
Implementation Support) are as follows:
Component I: Agriculture Rehabilitation (Annual and Perennial Crops)
Rainfed wheat seed and other inputs will be provided to some 10 000
vulnerable and resource-poor households in the affected areas who could not
otherwise afford to plant wheat. At least 30 000MT (3T/ha) of wheat will be
produced and improved seeds will be available for at least the next three to

28
four seasons, not only to the target beneficiaries, but other farmers as well.
The self-pollinating varieties may be replanted for at least three to four
generations without significantly losing productivity.
Some 20 000 farmers, who could not otherwise do so for lack of farm power,
will be able to cultivate their land, which had either been looted or severely
damaged. Some 15 000 ha of agricultural land will be brought under
cultivation, which is the main source of livelihood for the affected and target
population. This likely to result in an aggregate output of some 45 000 MT (3
MT/ha) of wheat equivalent.
Seed legislation and policy, which do not reflect current realities, will be
reviewed and amended to better serve the agricultural sector in the medium
to long term. By the end of the subcomponent, revised seed policy and
legislation will available, paving the way for a viable and efficient seed sector,
which is vital for the development of the agricultural sector.
As part of the national seeds system development, capacities and capabilities
of the Research Institute of Farming and associated laboratories will be
strengthened to enable the production of foundation and higher generation
seeds in the country and to improve the capacity of the state authorities in
seed testing and quality assurance. At present, Georgia generally depends on
imported seeds and is therefore vulnerable to inappropriate seed quality and
volatility in the seed markets. Improved capacity in foundation seed
production and testing will be a major building block for the development of a
viable and sustainable seed system in the country.
Some 250 seed producers in ten groups will be established and trained to
produce high quality seeds and supply to farmers. These seed producer groups
will gradually become private entities working on a commercial basis to meet
the seed demands of the farmers. The formation of seed producer groups is
part of a sustainable commercial seed system.
Component II: Livestock Rehabilitation
Some 10 000 vulnerable and resource-poor households will receive
concentrate feed to see their livestock through winter months. In the absence
of concentrate feed, it is likely that many of the already weak livestock will
perish, rendering the affected households more vulnerable and food-insecure.
In addition, the provision of feed will diminish the need to engage in a highly
risky and costly restocking endeavour. These approximately 10 000 cattle will
also be de-wormed and checked by veterinary staff.
Some 1 500 vulnerable and food-insecure households will receive cattle and
training in improved livestock management to enhance their livelihoods and
improve their food security. In the second programme year, it is projected
that a further 1 500 households will also receive a calf each, improving their
food security for years to come. In addition 15 000 existing cattle in the target
area will be vaccinated to further reduce the risk of TADs.
A total of 5 000 households will benefit from pasture rehabilitation assistance
and consequent improvement in livestock access to sufficient, improved
quality pasture. Beneficiaries will also have learned improved pasture
management through demonstration plots of cultivated pasture. Forage
legume seed production will be provided through provision of inputs and
training and improve community-based fodder/feed preparation, storage and
feeding practices.

29
The capacity of the government authorities in veterinary services, farmers and
relevant NGOs will be enhanced in livestock disease surveillance, reporting,
control and containment measures, and biosecurity in livestock production at
the farm level. This intervention will reduce the likelihood of occurrence and
spread of diseases, not only in the affected areas, but also elsewhere in the
country.
Component III: Horticultural Rehabilitation (Kitchen Gardens and
Orchards)
Some 10 000 vulnerable and food-insecure households in some 70 villages of
Gori and Kareli Districts will have access to improved vegetable seeds and
other inputs to plant vegetables in spring 2009 for self-consumption and
markets. Each beneficiary household will be able to plant vegetables in 500–
1 000 m2
of kitchen gardens. This is expected to improve household nutrition
and income through the availability of vegetables for household consumption
and sale in the markets. In addition, households will receive training in
improved vegetable production techniques.
By spring 2009, some 5 000 vulnerable and food-insecure households will
have rehabilitated about 7 000 ha of orchards; without this intervention, most
of these orchards would be damaged beyond repair. Early intervention is
necessary to ensure that the orchards remain productive for the ensuing
season, hence guaranteeing livelihoods of the target population and reducing
the risk of irreversible damages to orchards. In addition, model farms of good
orchard practices will be supported through additional training, which will
serve as demonstration plots in each relevant target area.
By the end of the subcomponent, a significant number of personnel from the
Ministry of Agriculture at the district level, farmers and other stakeholders will
have received training in IPM, Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), on-farm
processing and marketing.
A total of about 25 households will receive training and inputs in establishing
home-based nurseries, each producing some 5 000 seedlings. It is hoped that
some of these farmers will be able to expand their activities and establish
commercial nurseries in the affected areas. Within the first programme year, a
total of about 100 000 seedlings will be available for planting in the affected
areas (assuming an 80 percent survival rate).
F. Appraisal of programme activities
F.1 Institutional aspects
The government regional and district structure
Georgia is organized into ten regions, each headed by a Gubernator. Each region
has several districts, which total 60 in the country. At the head of each district is
the Gamgebeli. The villages in each district are headed by a Sakrebulo, appointed
by the Gamgebeli, who may be the head of more than one village depending on
the village size. The proposed programme area is the Shida Kartli Region, which
has been affected by the recent conflict. The Shida Kartli Region comprises four
large cities, two large urban centres and 366 villages. The programme will work in
four districts within the Shida Kartli Region; Gori (150 000 pop.), Kareli (50 000
pop.), Kaspi (52 000 pop.), and Khashuri (63 000 pop.), for a total population of
about 315 000 (2002 Population census). There are an estimated 60 000 farmers
in the four districts. The programme targeted conflict-affected area in Shida Kartli

30
Region has 92 villages, with 30 000 households comprising approximately 95 000
people.
Past emergency and other agricultural programmes (i.e. livestock vaccination)
were planned and implemented at the district level through the district
Gamgebeli, with the authority of the regional and federal governments. The
Gamgebeli uses the village head, the Sakrebulo, to reach village households and
to organize them for the planning and implementation of information needed to
run and monitor a programme. In order to run an effective field programme,
therefore, authorization and liaisons have to be established with the national,
regional, district and village government structures. The role of district- and
village-level governments will be as implementing partners for some of the
programme’s activities, mainly in organizing and identifying participants’ capacity,
especially for activities targeting inputs for farmers
The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)
The MoA experienced a severe downsizing of its technical staff and activities in
2005, with reported staff losses of over 80%. Many of the MoA functions, such as
advisory, veterinary and plant protection services, were to be privatized.
However, the services left vacant by the MoA did not materialize in the private
sector, resulting in a gap in advisory, input, veterinary and agronomic services
that has not yet been filled. However, the wine subsector is given more private
enterprise and government support than other agricultural sectors. There is no
seed certification system.
The current organizational chart for the MoA is shown in Figure 1. The National
Service for Food Safety, Veterinarian and Plant Protection (NSFSVPP) is the most
relevant MoA unit for this programme. Each district has three to five staff from
the NSFSVPP, of which one to three may be veterinarians and the others, plant
protection officers. In total there are between 65 and 70 veterinarians distributed
over the 66 districts of the country. There are no food safety staff stationed in the
district as yet. There is also no formal extension service with extension staff in the
field. However, the government does support specific programmes, mostly
through donors, that will target certain areas such as animal health, or a
particular plant disease outbreak, and give advice to farmers.

31
Figure 1. Georgian Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) organizational structure
Deputy
Minister
(Vacant)
Financial
Accounting
Service
Head of Unit
General
Inspection
Head of Unit
Juridical
Department
Head of
Department
Department of
Relations with
International
Organizations and
Subcomponents
Management
Amelioration
Division
Head of Division
Food Safety and
Risk Analysis
Division
Head of Division
Division of
Monitoring
of State
Obligations
Head of
Division
Department of
Agriculture
Development
Head of Department
Minister
Division of
Eurointegration and
Relationship with
International
Organizations
Head of Division
Division of
Sector
Development
Head of
Division
Division of
Legal Affairs
Head of
Division
Marketing Research
and Strategy
Development
Division
Head of Division
Agricultural
Technologies
Division
Head of
Division
Division of
Land Tenure
and
Relationship
with Regions
Head of
Division
Department of
Wine (Samtresti)
Head of
Department
Agricultural
Laboratory
Director
National Service
of Food Safety
and Veterinary
and Plant
Protection
Head of Unit
First Deputy
Minister
(Vacant)
Deputy
Minister
Deputy
Minister

32
National Service of Food Safety, Veterinary and Plant Protection
(NSFSVPP)
NSFSVPP – Veterinarians
These veterinarians do not provide veterinary services to farmers; rather, this
is done through the private sector. However, the government is responsible
and pays for anthrax, FMD and rabies vaccinations. All other vaccinations
must be administered by private sector veterinarians and paid for by farmers.
The private sector veterinary service has not developed, primarily because
farmers cannot pay the veterinary fees and most veterinaries have left the
rural areas for urban areas where commercial livestock activities are more
lucrative. The function of the veterinarians of the NSFSVPP is monitoring and
surveillance of disease incidence and organization of government-sponsored
vaccination programmes.
The Department of Veterinary Surveillance, under the NSFSVPP and based in
the capital, Tbilisi with 18 staff members, provides support for veterinarian
field staff, collects information from the districts, carries out monitoring, and is
responsible for disease control. They are also responsible for export/import
certificates of veterinary products and TAD monitoring and control. They are
responsible for implementing the FAO-assisted African Swine Fever and HPAI
projects. Laboratory facilities need upgrading.
NSFSVPP - Plant Protection
Plant Protection Officers in the NSFSVPP do not provide plant protection
services to farmers; rather, this is expected to be achieved through the private
sector. However, the private sector in this area is not developed, again,
because farmers do not have enough money to pay for such services. The
function of the Plant Protection Officers is monitoring and surveillance of
disease incidence, and organizing government-sponsored programmes.
The NSFSVPP in the capital (15 staff members) provides support for field staff,
collects information from the districts, carries out monitoring, and is
responsible for pest control. They are also responsible for phytosanitary
issues. Locust (mainly in eastern Georgia) and other disease and pest control
programmes are organized through the field staff of NSFSVPP. They rely on
other laboratories in the country but require a laboratory of their own.
NSFSVPP - Food Safety and Quality Supervision
In 2005, legislation for a food safety strategy was proposed, but it has not yet
been approved by government. The food safety programme is expected to
begin in 2009, which aims to comply with the European Union (EU) food safety
standards. Georgia lacks food inspection capacity, which may be remedied
through a capacity-building initiative for border guards, but further capacity
building is necessary to ensure efficient food safety inspection in the country.
FAO, through a Regional TCP, has initiated some activities in food safety
issues, which falls far short of the comprehensive capacity building
requirements in this area. Food safety legislation has been adopted, but
further assistance is necessary for its implementation. There are 11 food
safety staff members in total, all of whom are based in Tbilisi. There are no
food inspectors in Georgia at this time and few laboratory services. It is
envisaged that in 2009, one food safety staff will join the NSFSVPP in each
district, but it is not clear if there is the budget to implement this initiative.
Great effort is needed to implement a full food safety service by 2010/11,
requiring more specific input and resources.
The veterinarians and plant protection field officers from the NSFSVPP in the
targeted areas will be able to provide valuable assistance to programme

33
activities in terms of information about farmers, the area and critical
problems. They can assist in organizing vaccination and plant disease clinics
and act as an information source for the preparation of pamphlets and
provision of advisory services. Further information and support will be
obtained through coordination with the NSFSVPP headquarters in Tbilisi.
NGOs and private sector consulting firms
The programme will enter into specific contractual arrangements with qualified
local and international implementing partners, such as NGOs and private sector
consulting firms, to implement the proposed programme activities specified in the
programme components and subcomponents. Many qualified local and
international NGOs and private sector consulting firms operate in Georgia and
have the experience to implement specific aspects of the programme. Specific
activities within the programme will be tendered, and implementing partners will
be chosen based on capacity, experience, efficiency and efficacy criteria.
Agricultural research institutes
Coming under the Ministry of Education, agricultural research institutes such as
the Research Institute of Farming and Institute of Horticulture can provide
valuable information on technical aspects required for programme
implementation. However, these institutions require support for any involvement
in the programme, but can assist in adaptive/applied research and in an
extension/advisory capacity. The Skra Extension-Research Centre of the Institute
of Horticulture, located outside Gori, could provide information and possible
advisory services on fruit crops to the programme, but needs support.
Unfortunately, there is no comparable research institute for livestock and
livestock products.
F.2 Finance/credit
FinAgro is one of largest agriculture microfinance organizations operating in the
targeted conflict area with a portfolio of about US$1.0 million in Shida Kartli
Region, of which an estimated 40 percent is now at risk following the conflict and
the inability of some farmers to repay or service their debts. FinAgro has taken
steps to decrease the burden on farmers by increasing the length of the payback
period without penalty and has taken steps to downsize their operations. FinAgra
has obtained a Development Credit Authority (DCA) for US$2.0 million through
USAID and is looking for a donor for the funds. Other commercial banks lend
money, but mainly to larger commercial farmers. It is unlikely that many of the
small- to medium-scale farmers in the target conflict area will be in a position to
borrow money for agriculture over the next two to three years until they restore
and increase their production and sale levels and until the cropping patterns
change back to using irrigation. In addition, most of the small-scale and resource-
poor farmers do not have collateral to access credit.
F.3 Environmental aspects
The various subcomponent interventions are not expected to have any large-
scale, significant and/or irreversible environmental impacts, since the activities
are aimed at agricultural restoration without major changes to village settings or
farming systems practised in the area prior to the recent conflict. The programme
supports Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and management, both of which are
aimed at being sustainable and environmentally sound. In many cases, exposure
to good agriculture and management practices will improve on pre-conflict levels
of understanding. The programme does not envisage the use of any agro-
chemicals or other inputs that are detrimental to the environment or the eco-
system in the targeted programme area. Where possible, emphasis will be on
moving away from pesticide usage, via the introduction of more environmentally-

Georgia_-_FAO_Report_-_DFD-G-00-08000311-00

Georgia_-_FAO_Report_-_DFD-G-00-08000311-00

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Georgia_-_FAO_Report_-_DFD-G-00-08000311-00

Similar to Georgia_-_FAO_Report_-_DFD-G-00-08000311-00 (20)

More from Nizam Al-Hussainy

More from Nizam Al-Hussainy (20)

Georgia_-_FAO_Report_-_DFD-G-00-08000311-00