Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 129667 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT TF-14029 ON A SMALL GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF USD 2.8 MILLION TO THE Kyrgyz Republic FOR Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) September 7, 2018 Agriculture Global Practice Europe And Central Asia Region ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ABCC Agribusiness Competitiveness Center ADI Agency for Development Initiatives AISP Agricultural Investments and Services Project APAP Agricultural Productivity Assistance Project APNIP Agricultural Productivity and Nutrition Improvement Project ASSP Agricultural Support Services Project CDA Community Development Alliance CSF Community Seed Fund FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IPM Integrated Production Management JSDF Japan Social Development Fund NSC National Statistics Committee of Kyrgyz Republic NGO Non-Governmental Organization PUCSF Public Union of Community Seed Funds SHG Self-Help Group TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET ....................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 4 II. OUTCOME ...................................................................................................................... 7 III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ................................ 18 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .. 20 V. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 22 ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ........................................................... 25 ANNEX 2. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ........................................................................... 32 ANNEX 3. RECIPIENT, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ...... 33 ANNEX 4. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS .................................................................................. 34 Donor Visibility......................................................................................................................... 34 Final Evaluation Of The Support To Community Seed Funds Project ........................................... 38 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) DATA SHEET BASIC INFORMATION Product Information Project ID Project Name P144338 Support to Community Seed Funds Country Financing Instrument Kyrgyz Republic Investment Project Financing Original EA Category Revised EA Category Partial Assessment (B) Organizations Borrower Implementing Agency Agribusiness Competitiveness Center, Ministry of Ministry of Finance Agriculture, Food Industry and Melioration Project Development Objective (PDO) Original PDO The objective of the Project is to increase the agricultural productivity of the beneficiaries in the Project areas through providing support for expansion of the Community Seed Fund system. FINANCING FINANCE_TBL Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) Donor Financing TF-14029 2,800,000 2,800,000 2,767,833 Total 2,800,000 2,800,000 2,767,833 Total Project Cost 2,800,000 2,800,000 2,767,833 Page 1 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) KEY DATES Approval Effectiveness Original Closing Actual Closing 22-Jan-2013 13-Aug-2014 07-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Date(s) Amount Disbursed (US$M) Key Revisions 07-Nov-2016 1.48 Change in Results Framework Change in Components and Cost Other Change(s) KEY RATINGS Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality Satisfactory Satisfactory Substantial RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRs Actual No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating Disbursements (US$M) 01 19-Dec-2014 Moderately Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 0.00 02 24-Jun-2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 0.30 03 10-Dec-2015 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.03 04 24-Jun-2016 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.30 05 03-Aug-2017 Moderately Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.36 ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Regional Vice President: Cyril E Muller Cyril E Muller Country Director: Saroj Kumar Jha Lilia Burunciuc Senior Global Practice Director: Juergen Voegele Juergen Voegele Page 2 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Practice Manager: Dina Umali-Deininger Julian A. Lampietti Talaibek Torokulovich Task Team Leader(s): Sandra Broka Koshmatov ICR Contributing Author: David Gordon Lugg Page 3 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES 1. Context: At the time of the initial project concept development in 2011/12, poverty levels in Kyrgyzstan were high, particularly in rural areas where 60% of households lived in poverty including 19% in extreme poverty. The share of rural household income spent on food reached up to 74%. Kyrgyzstan was severely affected by the global food price crisis and associated fuel and financial crises in 2007-8 when food prices rose by 48% on average and 109% for wheat and barley. Reliance on imports from Kazakhstan for much of its key food commodities was an additional concern, exacerbated by Kazakhstan’s closure of the border to grain exports from April to September 2008. Poverty and vulnerability to food insecurity was further aggravated by the political instability in 2010. 2. Improved agricultural productivity was seen as one of the fundamental elements in addressing these problems and as an important instrument in poverty reduction. The agriculture sector contributed between 30 to 40% of the country’s GDP and provided employment for more than 50% of the working population. However, productivity was very low with average yields of only 15.8 t/ha for potatoes, 2.2 t/ha for wheat, and 15.6 t/ha for vegetables, generally less than yields achieved in neighboring countries. The Joint Country Support Strategy of 2007 identified agriculture as a key driver of economic growth and poverty reduction with increasing agricultural productivity and improving market mechanisms as essential building blocks. 3. To achieve agricultural productivity improvements, the project approach taken was to focus on provision of agricultural inputs (a package of seed and fertilizer) using a Community Seed Fund (CSF) system, coupled with training and extension services in crop production management for participating farmers and home gardeners to improve their knowledge and skills. High prices or lack of these components of productivity are listed by farmers as among the most serious problems they face. Other important factors affecting productivity, such as improved irrigation, were being covered under other Bank-administered projects. 4. The Support to Community Seed Funds Project (SCSFP) followed on from previous bank projects including the Agricultural Services Support Project (ASSP) and the Agricultural Investments and Support Project (AISP). These projects successfully introduced the concept of Community Seed Funds and a similar program supporting Self-Help Groups composed primarily of women. The CSF methodology involves a revolving scheme whereby high-quality certified crop seeds (and other inputs) are provided to vulnerable rural households, with the requirement that the value of the seed is repaid after harvest and then redistributed to another group of needy farmers for planting in the following year. Each CSF typically consists of between 15 and 30 farmers. The similar SHG program focuses specifically on provision of high- quality vegetable seeds for domestic gardening, although groups are smaller, typically 5 to 7 members. Following the ASSP and AISP, the CSF and SHG programs were then continued under the Agricultural Productivity Assistance Project (APAP). Initially, the JSDF-supported SCSFP was expected to complement and run in parallel with the APAP, and to start before the completion of the APAP, but delays in the start-up of the SCSFP meant that the effectiveness date came after the closure of APAP. 5. Project Development Objective (PDO): The PDO was to increase the agricultural productivity of the beneficiaries in the project areas through providing support for expansion of the Community Seed Fund system. 6. Key Expected Outcomes and Outcome Indicators: Initially, the key outcomes and outcome indicators were: (a) Increase in yields in the participating farms for selected key crops of 15%; b) at least 30% of beneficiaries have moved from subsistence farming to selling surplus of their output; and (c) CSF system (in terms of number of members) enlarged by 15%. At the request of the recipient, the project was restructured on December 12, 2016. The outcome indicators Page 4 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) were revised and simplified to comprise one major outcome indicator: (a) average increase in yields in the participating farms for selected key crops (with a target of 15%). The second outcome indicator was dropped since the 2015 baseline survey indicated that almost no households fitted the definition of subsistence farmers, with almost 100% of rural households selling surplus products to buy other goods and services. However, the amount of increased sales was retained as an output indicator. The third outcome indicator of CSF membership was dropped since it is actually an output indicator, but was retained as an output indicator. 7. During restructuring, a number of additional changes in the output indicators were also made as follows: a) The indicator “additional NGOs have been trained and have started CSF and self-help group formationâ€? was dropped as non-relevant. Training of other NGOs for CSF and SHG formation was originally envisioned to back up the Public Union of CSFs (PUCSF) since the PUCSF was reaching its capacity limits due to involvement in several other projects. However, subsequently the PUCSF became involved only in implementation of this project and the need for contracting other NGOs was no longer there, although three target NGOs were trained b) The indicator “gross output increase of at least 15% achieved on the beneficiary farmsâ€? was dropped. The project objective was to increase productivity, for which yield is used as the best proxy. The gross output is similar but has a price factor, which is beyond the project’s control. c) The indicator “CSF and women groups system expanded by mobilizing at least 4,000 new membersâ€? was revised and simplified to “CSF and SHG membership expanded by mobilizing new membersâ€? to reflect the fact that both CSFs and SHGs included men and women. The target was increased by 50% (to 6,000) to cover larger membership than originally anticipated. d) The indicator “at least 4,500 tons of seeds have been timely distributed through CSF and women groupsâ€? was revised and simplified to “volume of seeds distributed through CSFs and SHGsâ€?. The target was reduced to 1,200 tons because the demand for seed potatoes (heavy) was less than expected and the demand for vegetable seeds (light) was more than expected. e) A new indicator “volume of fertilizers distributed to the CSFs and SHGsâ€? was introduced at the request of the recipient. About half of the funds used for provision of inputs to the beneficiary CSFs and SHGs was spent on fertilizers, which were important for achievement of the project objective of an increase of productivity. f) A new core indicator “farmers reached with agricultural assets or servicesâ€? was added. This indicator replaced the indicator “at least 3,800 new CSF and women group members have received seed and/or fertilizer supportâ€?. The new indicator was taken from the list of newly proposed corporate results indicators and captures also the services provided to the farmers. The target was increased from 3,800 to 6,000. g) A new indicator “client-days of training providedâ€? was added. It was not in the original results framework but it was relevant for the project to show the extent of training provided. h) A new indicator “Technologies demonstrated in the project areasâ€? was added. It was not in the original results framework but it was in line with project activities aimed at demonstrating new agronomic and other technologies to project beneficiaries to improve their agriculture productivity. In addition, a new core indicator “Farmers adopting improved agricultural technologyâ€? was added from the list of proposed new corporate Page 5 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) indicators. 8. The final list of key indicators was as follows: Outcome Indicator: • Average increase in yields in the participating farms for selected key crops Intermediate Results Indicators: • CSF and SHG membership expanded by mobilizing new members • Volume of seeds distributed through the CSFs and SHGs in accordance with the planting schedule • Volume of fertilizers distributed to the CSFs and SHGs • Farmers reached with agricultural assets or services • Number of farmers trained on subjects promoted by the project • Client-days of training provided • Share of women in the total number of beneficiaries • Increase in average volume of sales of a beneficiary household • Technologies demonstrated in the project areas • Farmers adopting improved agricultural technology • Targeted clients satisfied with agricultural services provided under the project 9. Components: The project consisted of two components: Component 1: Support for Expansion of Community Seed Fund System, which comprised three main activities: 1.A Capacity Development for Expansion of CSF system; 1.B Seed Capital for Community Seed Funds; and 1.C Training and Extension Services to Vulnerable Farmers. Component 2: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Knowledge Dissemination comprised two activities: 2.A Monitoring and Evaluation and Knowledge Dissemination; and 2.B Project Management and Administration including Procurement, Financial Management, and Audit. 10. The estimated component costs but not the components themselves were revised during the restructuring process. The change consisted of a reallocation of US$ 212,000 from Component 1 to Component 2 to cover a shortage of funds for project management. The shortage arose because of the late start of the SCSFP and completion of the APAP project that had been planned to fund some of the project management, consultancy services and training costs. After the closure of the APAP, all these costs had to be covered under the SCSFP. Table 1: Components and estimated component costs, SCSFP Component Initial Revised (US$) (US$) 1: Support for Expansion of Community Seed Fund System 2,511,800 2,299,800 2: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Knowledge 288,200 500,200 Dissemination Total 2,800,000 2,800,000 Source: ABCC 11. Under component 1, two new additional activities were introduced during restructuring: (a) Provision of seed cleaning machinery for CSFs: Because seed cleaning machinery was not always readily available, many CSFs indicated that they faced difficulties with cleaning harvested grain to produce seed for the next season and for the next round of seed recipients in terms of cost, time and quality. While the available Page 6 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) funds were not sufficient to provide all CSFs with seed cleaning machinery, it was agreed to provide at least one seed cleaning machine for each oblast. Criteria for selection of beneficiaries of such equipment, and terms and conditions of the use and ownership of assets were developed by the Agribusiness Competitiveness Center (ABCC) jointly with the Public Union of Community Seed Funds (PUCSF) and became part of the Project Operational Manual. (b) Based on demand from SHGs, plastic sheets and metallic frames for construction of plastic tunnels (tunnel greenhouses) were also provided primarily for seedling production from vegetable seeds provided by the project. 12. Implementation: Project implementation was entrusted to the Agribusiness Competitiveness Center (ABCC) which successfully implemented the Bank’s Agribusiness and Marketing Project (ABMP) as well as the APAP. The ABCC was founded by the Government of Kyrgyzstan (GOK) in 2005 under a World Bank-financed project, with its primary task to promote development of the private agribusiness sector. ABCC is now an independent agency with its own charter and accounts reporting to the GOK. It is supervised by a Steering Committee, which provides strategic guidance for project implementation, as well as ensuring that key issues that need to be resolved are brought to the attention of the Government and their resolution facilitated. The members of ABCC’s Steering Committee included representatives from the Ministries of Agriculture and Food Industry, Finance, and Economy; Chamber of Commerce and Industry; and private sector representatives. For SCSFP, the ABCC was responsible for contracting and supervising agencies and consultancies to implement the CSF and SHG programs and associated training activities, monitoring and evaluation, procurement and financial management. Specifically, the Public Union of CSFs (PUCSF) was contracted to implement the CSF program; the Agency for Development Initiatives (ADI) the SHG program; and individual trainers were contracted to carry out the training program. 13. Beneficiaries: At the time of the grant proposal in 2012, the grant aimed to support rural people who live in poverty or extreme poverty levels and whose incomes were negatively impacted by rising food and fuel prices and financial crisis. Subsequently, even though the effect of the food and fuel price crisis subsided as the driving cause of poverty, the target group of the project remained the same: poorer and not-so-well-off groups of rural people. These people were organized into two types of groups: CSFs and SHGs. The CSF comprised farmers who were growing crops in larger areas on their land shares outside of the villages mostly growing field crops such as wheat, barley, potatoes and alfalfa. The SHGs comprised mostly women who were interested in growing various vegetables on a smaller scale on their household plots. Beneficiaries of both groups were selected according to eligibility criteria based on their income status, size of land shares, etc. as was described in the Operations Manual. Other indirect beneficiaries included organizations involved in the implementation of the project: (i)Public Union of Community Seed Funds which implemented activities related to support of individual CSFs, (ii) Agency for Development Initiatives, which implemented activities related to support of SHGs, (iii) extension service specialists/individual trainers that provided training sessions to CSF and SHG members, (iv) suppliers of seeds and fertilizers who won the contracts with the project. II. OUTCOME Assessment of Achievement of each Objective/Outcome 14. The PDO was to increase the agricultural productivity of the beneficiaries in the project areas through providing support for expansion of the Community Seed Fund system. The main outcome was evaluated by assessing the average increase in yields in the participating farms for selected key crops as a proxy for agricultural productivity. Page 7 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 15. The theory of change assumed in the project design was that forming the members of rural households into CSFs and SHGs, providing them with high quality certified seeds and fertilizers, and then training them in integrated production management techniques (such as cropping planning, soil preparation, planting, fertilizing, weed and pest control, irrigation, and protection against adverse weather) would allow them to achieve increase in yields. Working and training in groups, as well as field day events would allow the knowledge gained from the training to be reinforced by peer learning and exchange of experience. 16. Increase in agricultural productivity. Agricultural productivity increases resulting from the project were evaluated by assessing yields of the key crops for which seed, other inputs and training were provided. Three comparisons were made: (a) yields achieved by CSF farmers with the project compared with yields they achieved in the year before the project; (b) yields achieved by CSF farmers in comparison with their non-beneficiary neighbors; and (c) yields achieved by CSF farmers in comparison with oblast yield statistics in the same year from National Statistical Committee (NSC) data. These comparisons enable assessment of yields under the same agro-ecological and climatic conditions and reflect year- by-year variations. Table 2: Average yields of CSF members before and after project and compared with non-CSF members, t/ha Number of CSF members CSF members Non-CSF Official Crop CSFs a/ b/ members c/ statistics d/ Spring 2015 Potato 20 18.1 23.3 17.5 15.2 Spring 2015 Barley 2 1.27 2.30 1.42 1.75 Fall 2015 Wheat 19 2.18 2.54 2.04 2.45 Spring 2016 Barley 50 1.79 2.44 1.79 2.25 Spring 2016 Potato 23 16.9 22.3 15.2 16.6 Spring 2016 Maize 5 5.02 7.77 5.12 6.24 Spring 2016 Alfalfa 7 5.69 7.75 4.36 n/a f/ Spring 2016 Sainfoin 9 3.74 4.17 3.96 n/a Fall 2016 Wheat 29 2.15 2.83 1.92 2.36 Spring 2017 Barley 71 1.72 2.48 1.71 2.38 Spring 2017 Potato 44 17.0 25.6 17.3 17.0 Spring 2017 Wheat 28 2.04 2.84 1.93 2.6 Spring 2017 Alfalfa e/ 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a Spring 2017 Sainfoin e/ 15 n/a n/a n/a n/a a/ in the year before the project; b/ with the project after provision of seed and fertilizer; c/ based on survey of 10 non- participating farmers in same villages; d/ official statistics for average yield in participating oblasts; separate data for sainfoin and alfalfa are not collected by NSC; e/ final member numbers and yield data are obtained in second year after planting. Source: PUCSF and ABCC Page 8 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 17. Average yields were 39% higher1 than the CSF farmers achieved in the year before the project, 44% higher than non-CSF farmers achieved in the same year, and 25% higher than the official statistics. These averages substantially exceed the target of a 15% yield increase. There were a few exceptions, including two barley CSFs in Talas in 2016 that had very low yields due to a heavy late snowfall affecting the area where the CSFs were located, and in one CSF in Issyk- Kul in 2017 where some farmers were affected by hail. 18. Initially, the yields were proposed to be compared with data from the 2015 baseline survey. However, the baseline values were unrealistically high especially for grain crops, either due to an unrepresentative sample of farmers or calculation errors. For example, the reported baseline yield for barley was 2.73 t/ha while NSC average yields were 1.27 t/ha in 2014 and 2.13 t/ha in 2015. Similarly, the reported baseline yield for wheat was 2.88 t/ha while the NSC reported only 1.69 t/ha in 2014 and 2.37 t/ha in 2015. The 25-year average wheat yield (1992-2016) is only 2.2 t/ha based on FAO records. Recognizing the problem, the baseline data were re-calculated by the contracted company and were found to be 1.52 t/ha for wheat and 2.04 t/ha for barley. However, it is very clear from these figures that using a one-year baseline figure averaged over all regions does not adequately reflect annual climatic fluctuations and local agro-ecological variations and should not be used. Conversely, the approach described in the previous paragraphs is much more useful and realistic in assessing yield improvements and should be used. 19. For SHGs, the vegetable crop yields achieved by SHG members were compared with non-member yields in the same years. Typically, yields averaged two or three times the yields achieved by non-members, an outstanding result. However, potato yields were much below average in 2015 due to problems with poor seed potato quality that emerged during the growing season and when the potatoes were harvested. Potatoes were not provided in 2016, while yields averaged 18.4% higher in 2017, higher than the target of 15% but still disappointing. Average yields are summarized for the ADI SHGs in Table 3. Table 3: Yields (t/ha), Self Help Groups, 2015-2017 Crop 2015 2016 2017 Area Average Non-member Area Average Non-member Area Average Non-member (ha) Yield Yield (ha) Yield Yield (ha) Yield Yield Tomato 16.28 27.3 24.2 15.50 31.1 13.5 15.14 40.9 18.1 Cucumber 19.73 26.6 10.9 15.72 33.6 12.9 12.40 39.7 16.6 Carrot 18.00 19.3 12.0 12.42 24.5 8.9 10.70 44.6 17.7 Cabbage 10.37 23.1 8.7 7.91 19.4 9.0 2.95 24.0 10.0 Onion 6.63 40.9 11.2 3.10 38.0 17.6 Red Beet 5.15 22.0 5.8 7.10 37.6 18.3 Pepper 2.60 52.2 32.1 Potatoes 13.54 13.8 31.1 3.20 16.1 13.6 Total/ 77.92 23.5 10.2 63.33 28.6 10.2 57.19 36.6 18.0 Average Source: ADI and ABCC 20. Number of beneficiaries and expansion of the Community Seed Fund system: The SCSFP supported 221 CSFs with a total membership of 5,657 and an average of 26 members per CSF. The CSFs were established in 396 villages located in 37 of the 40 districts (rayons) in all oblasts of the country, thus ensuring widespread coverage of the project. The 221 CSFs supported under the project represent a significant expansion from the 292 CSFs formed under AISP and 95 1 Average of all CSF yields Page 9 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) under APAP. The SCSFP also established 698 SHGs in 160 villages located in 33 of the 40 rayons with total membership of 4,774, averaging 6.8 members per SHG. Overall, there were 10,431 direct beneficiaries, well in excess of the target of 6,000, of which 4,923 were women (47.2 %) in line with the 45% of women beneficiaries targeted under the project. Table 4: Number of beneficiaries of CSFs and SHGs Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017 Total Number of CSFs 20 19 62 29 91 221 Members 546 438 1524 534 2615 5,657 Women 66 90 186 99 365 806 Number of villages 52 36 106 47 155 396 Number of SHGs 325 a/ 177 196 698 Members 2,214 1,260 1,300 4,774 Women 1,960 1,072 1,088 4,120 Number of villages 79 39 42 160 a/ In 2015, contracts with the Agency for Development Initiatives (ADI) – 252 SHGs - and Community Development Alliance (CDA) – 73 SHGs - were carried out. For CDA, the project provided only vegetable seeds and seed potatoes, while the CDA operations were funded by the UN Women Regional migration program. This program was not continued in following years. Contracts were carried out only by ADI in 2016 and 2017. 21. In addition to the initial members provided with seed, the value of the seeds was repaid and seeds re-distributed to a new set of beneficiaries for planting in the following season. For the CSFs, there were 3,291 secondary beneficiaries from the 2015 and 2016 crops, and a further 5,540 beneficiaries anticipated from the 2017 crop. For SHGs, from the 2015 and 2016 crops, 248 new SHGs were formed with a membership of 1,795 people including 1,580 women in the following year. The returned funds were used to purchase a similar range of field crop and vegetable crop seeds as originally provided. although in a few cases, some CSFS and SHGs purchased small amounts of different seeds such as cotton and cabbage seed as allowed under their charter. In total, 15,517 primary and secondary beneficiaries received seed with more beneficiaries expected in spring 2018. Overall Outcome Rating: Satisfactory 22. Based on the substantial yield increases achieved by the project CSF beneficiaries of more than 40% compared with non-beneficiaries, and SHG vegetable crop yields at least double compared with non-beneficiaries, the overall outcome is rated satisfactory. The project also reached more than double the number of beneficiaries targeted. It should also be noted that beneficiaries were generally very happy with the quality and performance of the seed provided, and frequently indicated that a good increase in yields had been achieved with project support. Around 98% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the outcome from the impact assessment conducted at the end of the project. Other Outcomes and Impacts 23. Support to vulnerable households: The project aimed to support rural people who lived in poverty or extreme poverty and whose incomes had been negatively impacted by rising food and fuel prices and the financial crisis of 2007- 2008. In line with this goal but also to limit risk, CSF membership criteria comprised: (i) farmers that had a land share per family member not exceeding 1.2 hectares in the north and 0.5 ha in the south; (ii) capacity and willingness to repay the value of the received seeds after harvest; (iii) no overdue outstanding debts; (iv) no plans to move out of the current Page 10 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) residency area; and (v) other personal characteristics endorsed by community leaders. Members were selected at a village meeting at the outset, taking poverty level into account as well as capacity and interest. For SHGs, eligible villages were selected based on poverty criteria and in zones favorable for vegetable production with access to irrigation and without a similar project. Membership criteria included: (i) vulnerable households (based on a participatory poverty pyramid prepared by the villagers themselves and supported by local government assessments); (ii) available labor; and (iii) a land plot with irrigation. In addition, the project aimed to cover remote and mountain villages that had not previously received such support, with target villages selected based on distance from the oblast center as well as poverty level. Poverty level was not specifically monitored. However, the end-project impact assessment indicated that only 18% of CSF farmers and 13% of SHG members categorized themselves as above average before the project compared with 46% and 30% after the project. 24. Increased beneficiary knowledge and skills development: The project training programs contributed substantially to the success of the program coupled with the provision of seeds and fertilizer and the social mobilization activities. In addition, longer-term benefits are expected to accrue from the acquisition of new skills and knowledge. The training program used the Integrated Production Management (IPM) approach and was carried out for CSFs and SHGs in each year of the project. The CSFs and SHGs were grouped where feasible, with some 455 training groups including 198 CSF groups and 257 SHG groups, with each group normally comprising no more than 25 participants. A total of 7,873 people participated of which 3,887 were CSF members and 3,986 were SHG members. On average, 74% of CSF members and 92% of SHG members attended the training sessions. Overall, this number is substantially higher than the project target of 5,500 farmers trained. 25. Training was conducted by 24 contracted trainers in 2015, 28 in 2016 and 25 in 2017, including two instructors for training in home processing for the SHG groups in 2016 and 2017. To support the training, 31,450 booklets on field crop and vegetable crop production were published and distributed to the participants, and 1,200 booklets on home processing were prepared each year. 26. The IPM methodology involved a season-long learning-by-doing approach involving both classroom discussions and field observations, with demonstration sites established in parallel with farmers’ practice. In 2017, for example, five modules covering land preparation and planting: soil fertility and management; pest, disease and weed management; harvesting and storage were held for CSFs and six modules including an additional home processing module were held for SHGs. This methodology was well-received by participants and appeared particularly well-suited for the small farmer and gardeners. Overall, the total number of client-days of training was 48,448 compared with a project target of 30,000. 27. The demonstration plots (one per training group) were established on farmers’ fields or beneficiary garden plots for practical training purposes, regular observation between training sessions, and comparison with farmers’ practice. The demonstration plots included encouraging natural predators to help control pests, use of traditional disease and pest control remedies, and use of compost rather than inorganic fertilizer application as well as use of improved seeds. A comparison of yields and gross income between demonstration plots and farmers practice plots is summarized below for 2015 and 2016. Page 11 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Table 5: Comparison of yield and gross income between demonstration plots and farmers practice Using IPM Farmers’ Practice Percentage Increase (%) Crop Average Yield Gross Income Average Yield Gross Income (t/ha) (KGS/ha) (t/ha) (KGS/ha) 2015 Winter wheat 4.09 37,833 2.68 24,790 52.6 Spring wheat 3.4 27,366 2.1 17,048 60.5 Potato 23.8 197,125 18.0 149,458 31.9 Cucumber 23.7 619,600 14.3 374,000 65.7 2016 Wheat 3.2 40,176 2.4 29,512 36.1 Spring wheat 2.7 31,506 2.1 24,190 30.2 Potato 23.3 319,687 22.3 305,937 4.5 Maize 9.2 101,200 6.0 66,220 52.8 Cucumber 30.2 476,200 21.1 332,700 43.1 Source: ABCC 28. Introduction of replicable best practices: The IPM training and demonstration program was a useful tool to introduce best practices in crop and vegetable production to participants. Best practices included improved land preparation technologies and soil fertility management including use of organic fertilizers; development and use of a seasonal calendar; mulching techniques to conserve soil moisture; improved planting methods; water-saving technologies; use of folk remedies and agro-cultural methods for pest and disease control; biological pest control; use of agro-ecosystem analysis; methods to limit frost damage; suitable crop rotations; optimization of harvesting times; and economic analysis of activities. In total 13 different technologies can be identified as part of the demonstration and training program, not including the use of good quality certified seed or improved home processing technologies. Based on questionnaires at the end of the training program, participants were assessed on their understanding and adoption of the improved technologies, with an estimate of 5,013 adopters, some two-thirds of the training participants. 29. Introduction of varieties and species: A range of field crops (six) and varieties (17 overall) were provided to CSF farmers and eight vegetable crop types were provided to SHG members. The choice depended on farmer preference. In addition, to safeguard participants, all varieties were required to have been tested and approved for use in the specific oblast by the State Commission for Variety Testing. For field crops and potatoes, most of the seed was sourced from Kyrgyzstan seed farms and was adapted to Kyrgyz conditions while vegetable crop seeds were generally imported. Accordingly, the project enabled farmers and gardeners to grow a wider range of adapted varieties than before; for example, it was noted by participants in Naryn, a mountainous oblast, that the project enabled them to try out and successfully grow tomatoes whereas they had not grown them in the past. 30. Nevertheless, it would have been useful to have introduced a wider range of crops and varieties, possibly including field crops such as sugar beet, soybeans, white beans, and sunflower. However, crop choice was based on farmers’ preference, and in most cases, they preferred less risky crops in terms of marketing such as wheat, barley, potatoes and forage crops. For vegetable crops, other nutritious vegetable crops such as broccoli, early cabbage, cauliflower, pumpkin and spinach were in demand. However, it did not prove possible to procure seed of all the requested vegetable crops due to a limited number or lack of bids during the procurement process. There was also demand for berries, but it is difficult to verify the variety and quality of seedlings produced in Kyrgyzstan, while an attempt by ADI to import seedlings from Eastern Europe failed due to controls at the Russian border. However, it should be noted that CSF and SHG members Page 12 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) can buy other crops with the proceeds from repaid funds. 31. In addition, potatoes were disappointing in 2015 with very low yields (44% of neighbor’s yields) due to problems that emerged later resulting from poor seed quality, and only 18% above neighbor’s yields in 2017, partly attributed to the variety that was available. In one case, the delivered seed potatoes were rejected by the participants; the main reason was that the groups wanted a specific named variety (“Jellyâ€?) which was not possible to specify according to procurement rules. Accordingly, they decided to avoid the risks of using a different variety. Nevertheless, seed potatoes are in high demand, although it may be better to carefully consider whether to include this crop in future programs due to the risk of poor results. 32. Increased understanding of the value of using quality seed: An important outcome of the program was a greater understanding of the value of using good quality seed. All field crop seed was certified, treated, bagged and labelled while vegetable seeds were certified and correctly packaged. To ensure quality, seeds were analyzed by the Republican State Seed Inspectorate before and after delivery to the districts. Farmers and gardeners were very pleased with the quality and results from using the project-supplied seed, and the training and demonstration program reinforced the value of using quality seed. This was especially marked for the SHGs whereby, in the past, low quality seeds of uncertain provenance had usually been purchased in the local market with poor results, whereas all SHGs now indicated their desire to obtain good quality seeds from reputable sources. The project also assisted the CSFs to make arrangements with seed farms through its field trip program and with assistance from the PUCSF. 33. The exception was for seed potatoes provided in 2015. Although seeds were tested twice as usual and satisfactory analysis was confirmed, the seed quality did not appear good and serious problems began to emerge during growth and were confirmed when potatoes were harvested. As a result, yields were low, raising uncertainties among farmers about seed potato quality. 34. Knowledge exchange: To widen the impact and to disseminate information and experience more widely, numerous knowledge exchange activities were carried out during the project. 35. A program of field days was carried out each year at a total of 39 sites with participation of 3,800 people who were shown and informed about project activities, good practices and achievements under the project. Attendees included CSF and SHG members and other rural households; representatives of local government, Ministry of Agriculture, Embassy of Japan, and Kyrgyz Agro Bio Center; ADI and PUCSF staff; and mass media and television. Soil samples were taken from fields where the field days were to be held and tested by the Republican Soil and Agrochemical Station, with results presented at the field days. In addition, study tours to seed farms, progressive commercial farmers and variety testing farms were organized for CSF members towards the end of the season in 2016 and 2017. The visits to the seed farms and variety testing farms reportedly resulted in agreements for the CSFs to buy seeds. 36. Under the training program, around 34,000 booklets on field crop production, vegetable crop production and home processing were published and a Demonstration Plot (one per training group) established on farmers’ fields or beneficiary garden plots for practical training purposes, regular observation between training sessions, and comparison with farmers’ practice. Although these were primarily for the use of participants, there was also a carry-over effect on non-participants. 37. Two booklets, one on CSF success stories and the second on SHG success stories were prepared and published. The quality is satisfactory, and booklets were made widely available to government authorities, potential donors and Page 13 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) other interested parties. Other useful publicity included the presentation of certificates to successful CSFs and CSF members at general meetings, invitation of mass media to various events including the recent handover ceremony for the seed cleaners and to field day and workshops, including the final project workshop. 38. Good quality video films and video training manuals on IPM were prepared by Agro-Lead, a local NGO, under a contract with ABCC. Topics included selection of species, land preparation and planting, soil fertility management, pest and disease control including biological methods, irrigation, harvesting and storage. These videos have been useful and will continue to be useful in disseminating knowledge among CSF and SHG members as well as other interested stakeholders. 39. Additional services provided: In response to demand from CSFs, a total of 33 mobile seed cleaners were procured in fall 2017 at a cost of around US$ 6,800 each. The cleaners are pneumatic, powered by single-phase electricity, have a capacity of 2.5 tons per hour, and are able to clean a range of field crop seeds. They appeared sturdy and suitable for use by the CSFs. The use and distribution of the cleaners was based on an approved Operational Manual. As agreed, the cleaners are on the balance of the PUCSF (as a legal entity) and are provided under a rental agreement to 33 CSFs, with rental terms of KGS 10,000 per year finalized at a meeting of the PUCSF National Council in February 2018. The CSFs were located where grain crops are widely grown, have suitable seed storage facilities, have a qualified operator available, have a suitable location for carrying out seed-cleaning operations, are willing to pay the rental cost and have the support of the local authorities. One-day practical training was provided by the supplier to the machine operators and a two-year warranty was provided. The selected CSFs are also obligated to provide services for neighboring CSFs as requested with charges determined at the oblast level – in Chui, charges are 350-400 KGS/ton while in Jalalabad and Osh the charges are based on 10% of the grain crop. 40. While it us too early to assess outcomes, the CSFs were generally positive about the cleaners, which should improve the quality of returned seed and may help sustainability. It was indicated by CSFs in the south that the cleaners produce a very low percentage of broken seeds and about 98% clean seed, much better than can be achieved at present. Conversely, two CSFs in Chui indicated that better cleaning can be achieved at local seed farms albeit with much more expensive equipment. Two other CSFs in more remote areas (in Naryn and Jalalabad) indicated their worries about whether the income from cleaning will cover the machine costs. However, the PUCSF budget approved by the National Council for 2018 covers monitoring of seed cleaner operations and adjustments in terms will be considered after harvest at the next National Council meeting planned for December 2018. 41. Consideration was also given to purchase of small grain storage structures, but this did not prove possible given the limited fund availability under the project. Nevertheless, a number of CSFs made or are making arrangements to obtain containers for storage, a very good solution. 42. In response to demand from SHGs, a welcome initiative was the purchase of material to construct plastic tunnels (plastic sheets and metal frames). The material was provided to 2,560 SHG members (all 2016 and 2017 SHG participants) at around US$ 16.70 per set and will be useful for early seedling production in the spring and to enable a longer vegetable production period. However, since the procurement had to be re-announced, delivery did not take place until March/April 2017, too late for seedling production in many areas especially in the south. Nevertheless, the tunnels were used effectively for spring seedling production in Naryn oblast, the coldest region, and for fall green leaf vegetable production in Jalalabad oblast. Overall, although it is too early to determine impact, the plastic is of good quality with a life of 5 years or more and it can still be put to good use in upcoming seasons. Some selected interviews indicated that the plastic was being used satisfactorily in 2018 and the beneficiaries were quite happy. Page 14 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 43. Sales and Income: The project had significant impact on sales of produce. Based on ADI figures, specifically for vegetables from project seed, more than 40% of the vegetable production was sold in 2015, and more than 50% in 2016 and 2017. These sales provided earnings averaging KGS 7,138 (US$ 105) per member in 2015, KGS 16,682 (US$ 245) in 2016, and KGS 17,806 in 2017 (US$ 261). The remaining production was used for home consumption, provided to relatives, or conserved for future use. Table 6: Production Sold and Amount Earned (‘000 KGS), ADI SHG groups, 2015-2017 2015 2016 2017 Crop Production % Total Production % Total Production % Amount (t) Sold Earned (t) Sold Earned (t) Sold Earned Tomato 445.2 52.7 3,730 482.6 59.4 6,861 618.9 60.5 6,724 Cucumber 524.9 45.1 6,297 527.8 67.7 8,299 492.0 65.5 6,153 Carrot 239.7 37.7 910 304.3 57.4 1,826 477.1 37.8 3,639 Cabbage 347.5 34.5 1,458 153.2 34.5 1,339 70.7 42.7 403 Onion 271.3 51.0 1,542 117.7 67.1 1,451 Red Beet 113.1 54.7 1,155 267.1 65.9 2,379 Pepper 135.7 67.7 2,399 Potatoes 187.2 1.8 27 51.6 -- -- Total/Average 1,547.9 39.3 12,421 1,852.3 54.1 21,022 2,230.7 56.2 23,148 Number of HH 1,740 1,260 1,300 Average 7,138 16,682 17,806 Source: ADI 44. The final impact assessment indicates an average gross value of sales for Community Seed Fund and Self-Help Group members of KGS 49,170 (about US$ 720) more than double the sales of non-participating farmers of KGS 23,540 (US$ 345). As for yields, the one-year sales baseline of KGS 64,047 per household from 2015 was unfeasibly high and, recognizing this, the company again looked at the figures and recalculated a figure of KGS 32,980. However, the above comparison which compares CSF and SHG members with non-participating farmers in the same year is a much more useful comparison and is consistently in line with mission findings throughout the implementation period. 45. This increase in sales positively affected the beneficiaries’ self-assessment of their income as determined by the impact evaluation as discussed earlier. Some 24% of CSF members indicated that they had a low income before the project and only 6% afterwards, while 18% considered they had a high income before the project rising to 46% after the project. For SHG members, 49% indicated they had low income before the project and 6% afterwards, while 13% considered they had a high income before the project and 30% after the project. The impact on incomes is demonstrated in the figure below. Page 15 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Beneficiaries assessment of their income level before and after project Note: Low level of income was defined as either not enough income for food or only enough for food and the most necessary clothing. High income was defined as enough to make expensive purchases such as appliances or furniture, either with or no savings. Source: Sample of 506 beneficiaries, 2018 Impact Assessment, M-Vector 46. Social impact: The project also had considerable social impact as indicated in the project impact assessment survey. It is notable that considerable impact was observed in improving status in the village and increasing levels of cooperation and limiting conflicts. More than one-third of both CSF and SHG members indicated that income from the project supported children’s education, while beneficiaries frequently stated during mission visits that, with the improved vegetable production, they are able to provide better nutrition for the family and that increased income has allowed them to purchase important household items, children’s clothes and other items. Table 7: Social Impact Indicators, 2018 Indicator CSF members SHG members Total Recognized their significance in the community due to the 84.9% 92.2% 88.5% project Cooperation between CSF and SHG 80.1% 83.0% 81.6% Improvement of social status 77.4% 81.2% 79.3% Lessen conflicts with other villagers on land use issues 65.0% 62.4% 63.7% Cooperation with residents of neighboring villages 64.2% 62.5% 63.4% Our group / fund participates in village management 63.8% 53.6% 58.7% Income from the project helped to provide children with 36.0% 33.6% 35.1% higher education Source: M-Vector, Impact Assessment 2018 47. Gender: The project achieved the target of reaching 45% women with a figure of 47.2%. It is noted that SHGs were traditionally composed of women, but men started to join the groups as they could see opportunities for additional income from vegetable crops. This opportunity was thought to give them options not to migrate to neighboring countries for work but to stay home and work on the land. Overall, 86.3% of SHG members were women and 14.2% of CSFs. 48. System development: Overall, the project contributed to the development of the CSF and SHG systems. By and large, the CSF methodology proved successful. Farmers were happy with the quality of the seed, higher yields were achieved, and repayment of the seed allowed a widening of the number of beneficiaries. The provision of certified, Page 16 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) treated, and bagged seed of registered varieties strengthened the beneficiaries’ understanding of the value of using good quality seed and seed testing. Most CSFs were aware of the need to replenish the seed stocks after three or four seasons and some made arrangements with local seed farms. In a normal year, the 20% repayment rate is sufficient to maintain the CSF at a satisfactory level, and a higher rate would be difficult for CSF members to accept. However, a poor year with a natural disaster such as a late snow, flood or hail-storm put considerable pressure on CSF sustainability. In these cases, however, measures were put in place such as rescheduling by a year thus providing relief to the affected CSF. The CSF governance structure including a charter, registration with the local government, a board (including a chairman and book- keeper) and a revision (review) committee with responsibility to ensure that correct procedures were followed and to report to the PUCSF helped ensure a satisfactory outcome. However, although each CSF opened a bank account, it might have been useful to introduce a savings fund for other purchases as was done by the SHGs. 49. Similarly, the SHG methodology generally proved successful. The beneficiaries were happy with the quality of the seed, they achieved substantially higher yields than before, and repayment of the value of the seed allowed a widening of the number of beneficiaries. Beneficiaries frequently stated that, with the improved vegetable production achieved, they were able to provide better nutrition for the family. The increased income also allowed them to purchase important household items, children’s clothes and other items. Unquestionably, the provision of good quality certified seed strengthened the beneficiaries’ understanding of the value of using good quality seed and most beneficiaries indicated that they will now purchase from reputable dealers and not buy seeds of uncertain origin from the local market. Each SHG normally consisted of 5-7 members, usually based around a small neighborhood within a village, thus resulting in considerable cohesiveness and ability to meet and share information regularly. The selection criteria included an assessment of participants by the villagers themselves using a poverty pyramid method tended to ensure that beneficiaries were among the most vulnerable. The governance structure with each SGH having an elected head and record-keeper helped ensure that members had a good understanding of the procedures and repa1yment requirements. Good records were kept in the provided record book of attendance at meetings, seed delivered, quantity of vegetables sold, amounts repaid, and contributions to the savings fund. The members repaid the value of the seed into a Village Fund for use in the following year and for providing seeds for new members. In addition, each member also contributed around KGS 20-200 per month to a savings fund used for internal lending to group members for various reasons including family emergencies, which helped to establish the group. Overall, the structure allowed establishment of cohesive and viable groups with considerable success. 50. Institutional development: The project also contributed to the strengthening of the institutions involved. In particular, the PUCSF played an essential role in the mobilization and formation of the CSFs, provision of information on criteria and requirements for repayment, determination of the members’ seed needs, delivery of seeds, monitoring of results and ensuring that seeds were repaid and redistributed. Annual contracts between ABCC and the PUCSF provided operating funds (about US$ 73,000 in 2017) and additional funds were derived from a fee of 5% of the value of the seed paid by the CSFs to the PUCSF. These financing sources enabled the PUCSF to carry out its responsibilities in a very satisfactory way. The PUCSF is governed by a National Council and general assembly of the CSFs which approves reports, budgets, fee levels, and other actions. Frequent consultations were held with the National Council and two general meetings were held in 2016 and 2017 as required in the PUCSF charter. The PUCSF structure included a small staff of five including an accountant and was augmented by seven oblast-level coordinators funded through the ABCC contract. The coordinators helped to mobilize the CSFs, explain the program, establish crop priorities, ensure that selection criteria were followed, support the CSFs during implementation and monitor progress. Overall, it appeared that all procedures were correctly followed, information was shared with all CSF members including the principles of the CSFs and the requirement to repay, and frequent contact and regular monitoring was carried out. However, the social mobilization process might have been stronger to include explanation of the value of membership fees and establishment of a savings Page 17 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) fund in some CSFs. Nevertheless, the PUCSF was commendably pro-active in addressing problems faced by CSFs during implementation, including late delivery of seed, and natural disasters requiring restructuring of the repayment period. The PUCSF also introduced presentation of certificates to successful CSFs and CSF members, invited mass media to publicize events, and, as part of the training program, supported exchange visits to successful CSFs and to seed farms. The PUCSF will now also be able to receive income from the seed cleaners, and with further payments from the redistributed seed, should be able to sustain itself for at least another three years. However, the PUCSF will need to make a major effort to seek other donors and other sources of funds in the future. 51. At project design, it was judged that the PUCSF, as the apex institution for the CSF system, was reaching its capacity to mobilize and train CSFs and could thus become a bottleneck for future development. For this reason, training was provided for five local NGOs who could potentially support the mobilization of CSFs and form partnerships with the PUCSF. However, it did not prove possible to contract a second NGO to help with the mobilization in a timely way in the first year. Instead, the PUCSF was contracted to carry out all CSF mobilization activities and was provided funds through their contract to directly hire local mobilizers, one for each oblast, to support them in the mobilization process. This proved to be the right solution both to meet project needs and to increase the functional capacity of the PUCSF. III. KEY FACTORS THAT AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME 52. Initial delays: The project became effective in August 2014, about 18 months after approval, due to delays related to government approval, signing and parliamentary ratification. These delays are a common occurrence in Kyrgyzstan and were not specific to the SCSFP. However, despite preparatory work done by the ABCC in anticipation of the project start-up, the delays meant that the contracting of project implementers, essential social mobilization of CSFs and SHGs, and procurement of seed and inputs was delayed thus influencing activities in the spring 2015 agricultural season. Nevertheless, the overall project outcome was not severely affected due to proactive and flexible efforts by the ABCC, PUCSF and ADI. 53. Focus on good structures and governance: A key positive factor was the project emphasis on careful social mobilization and governance structure of both CSFs and SHGs. Each CSF had a charter, registered with the local government, and elected a board (including a chairman and book-keeper) and revision (review) committee with responsibility to ensure that correct procedures were followed and to report to the PUCSF. Similarly, the SHGs each had an elected chairperson and record-keeper and were supported by a village activist responsible for several SHGs in a village. Record books were provided to the chairperson and members of CSFs and SHGs, although these were put to much better use by the SHGs than the CSFs. In addition, the SHGs contributed a membership fee and a monthly amount to a savings fund for group lending purposes. Bank accounts were held by the CSF chairman and a Village Fund established for group of SHGs for repaid funds. These measures all contributed to a sense of responsibility even though the local government registration and Village Funds do not provide formal legal status. 54. The PUCSF has a charter and legal status as a Public Union and is governed by a National Council and general assembly of the CSFs which approves reports, budgets, fee levels, and other actions. Frequent consultations were held with the National Council throughout the project, and two general meetings were held. ABCC supported the PUCSF by including support for seven oblast-level social mobilizers in the contract, and by supporting an orientation training program for CSF chairmen. Overall, the focus on the governance structure played an important role in the project. 55. Social Mobilization: The process of social mobilization was key in helping to develop cohesive groups with good Page 18 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) understanding of the program and commitment to fulfilling the program requirements. In particular, a good job was done by ADI in mobilizing and forming SHGs, providing information on criteria and requirements for repayment, determining members’ seed needs, delivering seeds, monitoring results and ensuring that seeds were repaid and redistributed. The ADI structure consisted of a program coordinator and support staff at the central level and an oblast coordinator in each oblast. In each village, a village activist was selected, typically responsible for around five SHGs. The coordinators and activists helped to mobilize the SHGs, explain the program, establish crop priorities, ensure that selection criteria were followed, support the SHGs during implementation, and monitor progress. Overall, the impression is that all procedures were correctly followed, information was shared with all SHGs members including the principles of the SHGs and the requirement to repay, and frequent contact and regular monitoring was carried out. Similarly, the PUCSF played an essential role in the mobilization and formation of the CSFs, provision of information on criteria and requirements for repayment, determination of the members’ seed needs, delivery of seeds, monitoring of results and ensuring that seeds are repaid and redistributed. Mobilization was augmented by seven oblast-level coordinators contracted by the PUCSF with funding provided through the PUCSF contract with ABCC. The coordinators help to mobilize the CSFs, explain the program, establish crop priorities, ensure that selection criteria are followed, support the CSFs during implementation and monitor progress. Overall, the impression is that all procedures were correctly followed, information was shared with all CSF members including the principles of the CSFs and the requirement to repay, and frequent contact and regular monitoring was carried out. However, the social mobilization process might have been stronger to include explanation of the value of membership fees and establishment of a savings fund in some CSFs. 56. Procurement issues: In almost every season, some difficulties were experienced during the procurement and distribution process. The delay in project start-up was a problem for the spring 2015 season, and some problems continued to emerge in later seasons despite a major effort by the ABCC to start the procurement process in a timely way. Frequently, there was an insufficient number of responsive bids such that not all the requests could be met. Seeds and inputs were sometimes delivered later than optimum following the need to re-tender, or, in some cases, some CSFs had to be deferred until a later season. Other problems also occurred. For example, it was originally planned to support 47 CSFs in the fall 2016; however, wheat seed could only be supplied to 29 of the 47 CSFs due to cancelation of the quality certificates from one of the seed suppliers by the Republican State Seed Inspectorate (RSSI). In spring 2017, 5 CSFs in Chui oblast were not included since it did not prove possible to procure ammonium phosphate for them, and 20 t of seed potatoes destined for Chui CSFs were not delivered since they were found to be below the required quality. In another case, fertilizer prices following procurement were higher than market prices thus prompting some CSFs to reject the fertilizer. Due to the need to re-tender, the material for the plastic tunnels for SHGs was delivered late, especially in the south, so not all could be used for seedling germination in the spring 2017. It was also not possible to name specific varieties in the technical specifications due to procurement rules thus limiting the range of varieties that could be tried. Procurement of a non-preferred variety also prompted CSFs in Talas to reject seed potatoes in 2017. Nevertheless, 221 CSFs and 698 SHGs were mobilized and supported, with both ABCC and the PUCSF proactively proposing appropriate solutions through discussions with CSFs and SHGs. ABCC also carried out information campaigns with seed farms and other seed sources to encourage tenders. 57. Flexibility: The project managers (ABCC) and implementers (PUCSF and ADI) were notably proactive and flexible in addressing and finding solutions to the frequent problems associated with seed availability as well as force majeure issues related to floods, hail, drought and late frosts. For example, mobilized CSFs were able to delay their start to a following season if seed or fertilizer was unavailable, or in some cases, take part of the seed in one season and another batch in a following season. In force majeure situations, the PUCSF was able to reschedule repayments of the seed in some cases. In principle, this flexibility gave ever chance for CSFs to succeed and contributed to the successful conclusion of the project. Page 19 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 58. Focus on quality: A key factor was the focus on quality of seeds and inputs. All seeds and fertilizers were tested before and after delivery to ensure quality, and in all cases, seed was certified, labeled and bagged or packaged. In addition, all varieties had to have been tested and approved for use in the particular oblast to ensure that the varieties were adapted to the local conditions. Accordingly, there was only one case (potatoes in 2015) of below standard seed. These measures gave confidence to the CSFs and SHGs and helped ensure good results including repayments. 59. Linking inputs with training: A key factor was the close linkage between input provision (seeds and fertilizer) with a comprehensive training and demonstration program. Training was specifically aimed at the CSFs and SHGs at the same time that they received seeds, and many participants indicated the added value with the whole considered to be greater than the parts. These contributed to the high satisfaction level of 98% from the project impact assessment. IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME 60. Bank Performance: The Bank provided good implementation support throughout the project. Following the initial implementation launch mission in October 2014 following project effectiveness in August 2014, two missions were held each year (seven in total) including specialists specifically responsible for the CSF/SHG program and for training activities. Frequent consultations were also held between the Task Team Leaders and ABCC responsible for project implementation between missions. Bank procurement, financial management and safeguards specialists also supported the project on a regular basis. Throughout the project, mission teams had regular and detailed meetings with the ABCC, Ministry of Agriculture, contracted project implementers such as PUCSF and ADI, Ministry of Finance, and other partners. Regular field visits were made to participating CSFs and SHGs, where meetings were held with project beneficiaries, contracted trainers, local government and other stakeholders. The mission teams also regularly briefed Embassy of Japan staff on project progress. Such comprehensive support undoubtedly helped the project implementers to identify problems, propose solutions, facilitate implementation progress, and ultimately led to a successful and timely project conclusion. Overall, the performance of the Bank is considered satisfactory 61. Borrower performance: After a slow start to the project resulting from delays in government approvals and ratification, the performance of the agency responsible for managing the project, ABCC, can be considered satisfactory. ABCC was staffed with the necessary staff to manage the project, namely a Director, Deputy Director, Technical Specialists responsible for CSFs and SHGs and training, Financial Manager, Procurement Specialist, and M&E Specialist. The ABCC was responsible for drafting Operational Manuals for the components and the project as a whole, planning and budgeting, contracting organizations to implement the CSF and SHG activities, contracting trainers and others to prepare training materials, reporting, monitoring and evaluation including baseline survey and final impact assessment, financial management, procurement and ensuring compliance with safeguards. Frequent consultations with the supervisory committee in the Ministry of Agriculture took place to address bottlenecks and find solutions. Overall, the ABCC was commendably proactive during project implementation. This is reflected in the rate of disbursements and completion of the project as scheduled. Page 20 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 62. Financial management: The financial management arrangements in the ABCC including accounting, budgeting and planning, reporting, internal controls, external audits, funds flow, organization and staffing were satisfactory. The semi-annual IFRs were submitted in timely manner and were found to be acceptable. Audited Project Financial Statements along with auditor’s reports and management letter were also submitted in a timely way, although it was agreed that the 2014 audit could be waived since no expenditures had been made by that time. Bank reviews of internal controls indicated that there were no signs of mis-statements or internal control weaknesses. 63. Procurement: Overall procurement performance was also satisfactory, based on Bank review of files, progress in contracts implementation, timeliness of deliveries and payments as well as preparations for project closing. There were some initial weaknesses at the outset of the project, most notably to do with document filing and the procurement plan. However, almost all recommendations of the first post review were implemented; the procurement plan was updated in the recommended manner; and file-keeping improved. 64. Safeguards: All activities implemented under the SCSFP were at satisfactory level of compliance with the World Bank environmental safeguards requirements and had no notable environment impact. The expected cumulative impacts of the implemented activities were mostly positive for the environment and included improved farmer knowledge and skills on land conservation, proper use of fertilizers, seed production and improving soil fertility, with no impact on wildlife and natural habitats. 65. Social aspects and grievance mechanisms: The grievance mechanism was not a required element at the time of project approval. However, based on Bank recommendations, ABCC instituted a system, incorporated it into the Project Page 21 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Operational Manual, provided information on its use to project participants, and improved logging of feedback from beneficiaries. Overall, no complaints but numerous suggestions, requests for information and expression of appreciation were received. 66. Risk to development outcome: a) There remains a risk that yields will revert to the pre-project yields in the coming years. For crops such as wheat and barley, seed loses quality with successive generations and it is necessary to replace it after three or four years. The project has attempted to mitigate this risk by stressing as part of the training program the need to maintain seed quality by replacing the old seed with new seed after three years and arranged a series of field trips to seed farms to help put arrangements in place. It was also a requirement that each generation of seed is tested before it is redistributed to a new set of farmers. The PUCSF is also providing support to CSFs wishing to replace their seed stocks. For hybrid seed of crops such as vegetables and maize, new seed needs to be purchased every year. Accordingly, the value of the seed was repaid in cash into a Village Fund and a new batch of seed purchased. Project training programs and support from ADI have also helped to mitigate this risk. Nevertheless, this risk remains moderate. b) There is also a risk that the CSF system will not be sustainable over the long term. Although the main purpose was to increase agricultural productivity and alleviate poverty rather than develop sustainable institutions, the project nevertheless has built and strengthened the CSF system including the PUCSF. The CSF charter indicates that a CSF may dissolve after five years if members desire. However, force majeure disasters such as floods and hail may lead to failure of the CSF before the 5-year period has been completed. Conversely, many CSFs have continued longer than the 5-year period, and some have requested the PUCSF to help them purchase seed. A number of steps were taken to mitigate this risk, including election of officers by the members, comprehensive orientation training for CSF chairmen, continuous monitoring and support from the PUCSF, establishment of a good governance structure, setting up of bank accounts by the CSFs, and regular meetings and experience exchange. Accordingly, at this stage, most CSFs are functional (see Table below). The PUCSF was also strengthened through project support and development of a fee structure paid by the member CSFs, regular meetings and consultations with members and with their National Council. The seed cleaners will also provide a source of income for the PUCSF. Nevertheless, without additional donor or other outside support, there is risk that the PUCSF may not be able to continue in the long term. Accordingly, this risk remains moderate. Table 8: Rating of CSFs formed under SCSFP, APAP and AISP Category SCSFP and APAP AISP Number 272 292 a/ Years formed 2013-2017 2009-2013 Actively growing 177 5 Slowly growing 56 14 Neither growing or declining 7 0 Slowly declining 25 1 Failed 7 0 a/ A sample of 20 CSFs formed under AISP was surveyed in 2017. Source; PUCSF V. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page 22 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 67. The most important lessons learned are as follows: A. The CSF and SHG methodology is a useful approach for introducing quality seed and increasing productivity. The CSF and SHG approach proved to be good way to increase yields of key field crops and vegetable crops. Farmers were happy with the quality of the seed, higher yields were achieved, and repayment of the seed allowed a widening of the number of beneficiaries. The provision of certified, labeled and bagged or packaged seed of registered varieties strengthened the beneficiaries’ understanding of the value of using good quality seed and seed testing. Most CSFs were aware of the need to replenish their seed stocks after three or four seasons and some have made arrangements with local seed farms. Similarly, SHG members are now aware of the need to buy seed from reputable suppliers rather than from the local market. However, there are risks: in a normal year, the 20% repayment rate is sufficient to maintain the CSF at a satisfactory level, and a higher rate is difficult for CSF members to accept. However, in a poor year with a natural disaster such as a flood or hail- storm can put considerable pressure on the sustainability of a CSF. In these cases, however, a flexible approach to rescheduling repayments, which may be delayed by a year, can provide relief to the affected CSF. B. Good social mobilization is key for group-based work. The process of social mobilization was key in helping to develop cohesive groups with good understanding of the program and commitment to fulfilling the program requirements. The social mobilization should involve all steps in mobilizing and forming CSFs and SHGs, providing information on criteria and requirements for repayment, determining members’ seed needs, delivering seeds, monitoring results, and ensuring that seeds were repaid and redistributed. Frequent contact and regular monitoring throughout the mobilization and implementation period is required, emphasizing the importance of support staff at the local level – village activists responsible for several groups in a village in the case of the SHGs and local coordinators at the oblast level in the case of the CSFs. The benefits of mobilizing local groups cannot be overstated, typically based around a block within a village for SHGs or from one village in the case of CSFs. Other important lessons related to social mobilization is the importance of member involvement in the election of the chairman and other officers of the CSFs and in the selection of village activists and group leaders of the SHGs, since these roles are essential for successful operations. C. Well-designed informal structures can work. Neither the CSFs nor SHGs are legally registered. They have charters and internal rules that govern their operation. CSF and Village Funds (where the repayments from the individual SHGs are accumulated) are registered with Aiyl Okmotu (i.e. local village government) but this registration does not provide any legal status. Legal registration can be done only at oblast offices of the Ministry of Justice hundreds of kilometers away from the villages, and with more paper work, regular reporting requirements to the Social Fund, tax authorities and statistics committee. The nature of operations and the scale of individual CSFs and SHGs would not allow them to comply with the requirements for formal legal entities. In the meantime, registration with village authorities gave them some sense of formality, imposed some authority and discipline while de-jure remaining informal. This sense of formality is further strengthened by the fact that the PUCSF, as an apex institution for the CSF system, has a formal legal registration and follows all state requirements as well as its governance rules stipulated in its charter. The individual CSFs elect the representatives to the National Council. The National Council then supervises the work of the PUCSF management. The most important issues are addressed at the General Assembly of the CSFs. Hence, while remaining informal, the CSFs and SHGs can still function effectively. D. Close linkage of training and input (seed) provision adds value. A key factor was the close linkage between input provision (seeds and fertilizer) and the comprehensive training and demonstration program. The Page 23 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) integrated production management training involving a season-long learning-by-doing approach is well-suited for smallholder farmers and home gardeners and was specifically aimed at the CSFs and SHGs at the same time that they received seeds. Many participants indicated that the sum was considered to be greater than the parts and contributed to the high satisfaction level. Similar linkages should be incorporated in other projects. In addition to the CSF and SHG training and demonstration program, the focus on knowledge exchange events and activities (field days, success story publications, videos) was also valuable. E. A simpler approach to procurement is desirable. Procurement was done correctly following the procedures established by the GOK and the Bank, which involved an announcement and a minimum requirement of three formal responsive bids. However, there was frequently an insufficient number of responsive bids which led to a need for re-tendering and resulted in late delivery of the critical inputs in some cases or postponing the delivery to the next planting season. It was also difficult to introduce a wider range of crops and varieties since the number of suppliers was limited, and it was not possible to name specific varieties. The ABCC responded well by starting procedures as early as possible and by providing information on the program to potential suppliers. However, the number of potential suppliers able and willing to submit responsive bids for certified seeds is very limited especially for less widely grown crops and vegetables (perhaps five Kyrgyz seed farms and no more than three of four vegetable seed suppliers, who cannot provide all the types of seeds requested). It is suggested that detailed discussions are held with procurement staff to determine if alternative arrangements can be put in place such as allowing less than three bids if the price is determined to be in line with market prices and allowing varieties to be named in specific cases. . Page 24 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS A. RESULTS INDICATORS A.1 PDO Indicators Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Average increase in yields in Percentage 0.00 15.00 15.00 41.00 the participating farms for selected key crops 12-Nov-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 31-Aug-2018 Comments (achievements against targets): The indicator is measured as a percentage change over a baseline, therefore the baseline is set as a zero. However, to measure the change, absolute values of yields for various crops were taken both at the baseline and project years. Then the weighted averages of those absolute numbers were compared to derive the percentage increase over the baseline. The weighted average increase in yields against the baseline is 41%. Other alternative benchmark comparisons also show high increase in yields: 1) Against NSC data: 75% increase compared to 2014 (the baseline year); 2) Compared to “without projectâ€? case of beneficiaries: 38 %; 3) Compared with non- beneficiaries: 49%. A.2 Intermediate Results Indicators Indicator Name Unit of Baseline Original Target Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Page 25 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Measure Target Completion CSF and SHG membership Number 0.00 0.00 6000.00 10418.00 expanded by mobilizing new members 12-Nov-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 31-Aug-2018 Comments (achievements against targets): Includes 5,657 CSF members and 4,774 SHG members. A further 3,291 CSF members and 1,795 SHG members were incorporated following redistribution of repaid seed. Total number of primary and secondary beneficiaries was 15,517 up to end of 2017. Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Volume of seeds distributed Metric ton 0.00 0.00 1200.00 1778.20 through the CSFs and SHGs in accordance with the planting 12-Nov-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 31-Aug-2018 schedule Comments (achievements against targets): Original target was reduced at the restructuring since it proved that the demand for seed potatoes (heavy) was over-estimated, while demand for grain and vegetable seeds (light) was proportionally higher. Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Volume of fertilizer distributed Metric ton 0.00 0.00 1200.00 1415.00 to the CSFs and SHGs 12-Nov-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 31-Aug-2018 Page 26 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Comments (achievements against targets): New target introduced during restructuring on request of implementing agency due to importance of this activity. Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Farmers reached with Number 0.00 0.00 6000.00 10418.00 agricultural assets or services 12-Dec-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 31-Aug-2018 Comments (achievements against targets): Core indicator. Replaced original indicator, “At least 3,800 new CSF and women group members have received seed and/or fertilizer support" in order to match the wording of the core indicator. Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Number of farmers trained on Number 0.00 0.00 5500.00 7873.00 subjects promoted by the project 12-Nov-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 31-Aug-2018 Comments (achievements against targets): Comprises only farmers participating in formal training program for CSFs and SHGs. Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Page 27 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Client-days of training provided Number 0.00 0.00 30000.00 48488.00 12-Nov-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 21-Jul-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): This indicator was added during restructuring to show the extent of the training provided. Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Share of women in the total Percentage 0.00 0.00 45.00 47.20 number of beneficiaries 12-Nov-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 21-Jul-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): 4,926 women out of 10,431 primary beneficiaries Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Increase in average volume of Percentage 0.00 0.00 15.00 49.00 sales of a beneficiary household 12-Nov-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 21-Jul-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): The average gross value of sales for Community Seed Fund and Self-Help Group members (KGS 49,170) compared with the baseline (KGS 32,980) increased by 49%. The same comparison with non-participating farmers (KGS 23,540) from the 2018 impact assessment study shows an increase of 109%. Page 28 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Technologies demonstrated in Number 0.00 0.00 10.00 13.00 the project areas 12-Nov-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 21-Jul-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): Demonstrated technologies included improved soil preparation, land smoothing, harrowing, plowing, introduction of organic and mineral fertilizers, use of seasonal calendar, soil mulching methods, use of water saving technologies, biological pest and disease control (trichodermin, bio-lignin, trichogramma), use of agro-ecosystem analysis, frost mitigation methods (active and passive), etc. Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Farmers adopting improved Number 0.00 0.00 2000.00 5013.00 agricultural technology 12-Nov-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 21-Jul-2017 Comments (achievements against targets): Core indicator added at restructuring Unit of Formally Revised Actual Achieved at Indicator Name Baseline Original Target Measure Target Completion Targeted clients satisfied with Percentage 0.00 0.00 80.00 99.00 Page 29 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) agricultural services provided 12-Nov-2014 30-Mar-2018 07-Mar-2018 21-Jul-2017 under the project Comments (achievements against targets): 500 out of 502 respondents reported their satisfaction. Interview was among autumn 2016 and spring 2017 beneficiaries. Page 30 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) B. ORGANIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PDO Objective/Outcome 1 1. Increase in agricultural productivity Outcome Indicators 2. Number of beneficiaries and expansion of the CSF system 1. CSF and SHG membership expanded by mobilizing new members 2. Volume of seeds distributed through the CSFs and SHGs in accordance with the planting schedule 3. Volume of fertilizers distributed to the CSFs and SHGs 4. Farmers reached with agricultural assets or services 5. Number of farmers trained on subjects promoted by the project Intermediate Results Indicators 6. Client-days of training provided 7. Share of women in the total number of beneficiaries 8. Increase in average volume of sales of a beneficiary household 9. Technologies demonstrated in the project areas 10. Farmers adopting improved agricultural technology 11. Targeted clients satisfied with agricultural services provided under the project 1. Increase in yields 2. Number of CSFs and SHGs 3. Number of beneficiaries Key Outputs by Component 4. Amount of seed, fertilizers and other assets distributed (linked to the achievement of the Objective/Outcome 1) 5. Type of training and number of participants 6. Output of training including adoption of technologies 7. Client satisfaction Page 31 of 80 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) . ANNEX 2. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT Revised Actual at Amount at % of Revised Components Amount (US$) Project Closing Approval (US$) Amount (%) (US$) a/ Component 1: Support for Expansion of Community Seed 2,511,800 2,299,800 2,265,536 98.5 Fund System 1.A. Capacity Development for 253,800 379,608 Expansion of CSF system 1.B. Seed capital for Community 2,000,000 1,588,904 Seed Funds 1.C. Training and Extension Services 258,000 297,024 Component 2: Project Management, Monitoring and 288,200 500,200 423,910 84.7 Evaluation and Knowledge Dissemination 2.A. Monitoring and Evaluation 71,600 12,907 2.B. Project Management and 216,600 411,003 Administration Total 2,800,000 2,800,000 2,689,446 96.0 a/ Actual on 28 February, 2018. Final expenditures expected to be US$ 2.77 million. Page 32 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) ANNEX 3. RECIPIENT, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS Page 33 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) ANNEX 4. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Donor Visibility The project was funded by US$2.8 million grant from the Japan Social Development Fund. Although the Grant Agreement had no clause on donor visibility, it was a requirement for the grant funding. In accordance with this requirement, both the Bank’s and the Recipient’s teams always publicly recognized and credited the Government of Japan for its support and funding for the project. The Ambassador of Japan to the Kyrgyz Republic was invited and participated in the grant signing ceremony with at the Ministry of Finance. The event was publicized through a press-release in the Bank’s website both in English and Russian (see the links below): Signing Ceremony: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/03/07/world-bank-and-government-of-japan-to- support-expansion-of-community-seed-funds-in-the-kyrgyz-republic http://www.vsemirnyjbank.org/ru/news/press-release/2014/03/07/world-bank-and-government-of-japan- to-support-expansion-of-community-seed-funds-in-the-kyrgyz-republic During the implementation, in all public gatherings under the project such as CSF and SHG mobilization meetings, training events and the field days, the Government of Japan was always mentioned as the donor of the project. All the banners and publications (more than 32,000) made under the project featured in the first place the flag of Japan. In some publications, the Ambassador of Japan wrote the foreword. Information sheets and banners hanged in the village government offices also featured the Government of Japan as the donor. After each mission the project reported to the Embassy of Japan about the project’s progress. The Embassy people were welcomed to join to any of the field visits and they were invited to public events on handing over the assets to the beneficiaries. Mr.Takayuki Koike, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Kyrgyz Republic participated in one of the field days with participation of many beneficiaries, government officials and journalists from the news agencies. His successor, Mr. Eshihiro Yamamura, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Kyrgyz Republic, participated in the public ceremony for distribution of seed cleaning machines, also in the presence of beneficiaries, government officials and journalists. The following photos illustrate some of the above-mentioned activities on donor recognition. Page 34 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Photo: Mr.Takayuki Koike, Ambassador of Japan speaking at a Field Day event in the presence of journalists from news agencies. Page 35 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Photo: Mr. Eshihiro Yamamura, Ambassador of Japan is at the ceremony of distributing seed cleaners to CSFs. Page 36 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Photo: Foreword from the Ambassador. Page 37 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) APPROVED BY ABCC Director ______________A. Dorombaev ________________ ___, 2018. FINAL REPORT Final Evaluation of The Support To Community Seed Funds Project _____________________N. Haybulin _____________ ___, 2018 Page 38 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Acronyms and Abbreviations ABCC – Agrobusiness Competitiveness Center Ð?О – aiyl okmotu SHG – Self-Help Group CSF – Community Seed Fund NPF – non-participating farmers (farmers who do not receive assistance from any funds or organizations) FGD – focus group discussion F&L – fuel and lubricants Page 39 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Introduction Agriculture is one of the most important spheres of the Kyrgyz economy, as it is one of the four major sectors making the greatest contribution to GDP2. According to the National Statistical Committee as at the beginning of 2017, the majority of the population of Kyrgyzstan (66.2%) lives in rural areas. The sector plays an important role in providing both, employment and food, primarily to rural population, which is l crucial, as many of the latter are faced with unstable financial situation. In 2017, the greatest share in the structure of agriculture was crop production (50.26%). Shares of livestock production and services, forestry and fisheries are 47.6% and 2.11%3, respectively. The development of this sector is hampered by a number of problems, both technical and financial. Farmers’ financial position does not always allow using the necessary mineral fertilizers and purchasing quality seeds, which has a negative impact on productivity. In the end, all the factors listed above lead to high production costs and low competitiveness in comparison with similar products of neighboring countries. In this context, Agribusiness Competitiveness Center carried out a project named Support to Community Seed Funds (hereinafter referred to as the Project) aimed at increasing the agricultural productivity of beneficiaries through support of the expansion of the seed fund community. The Project supported rural residents living in poverty or extreme poverty. The main beneficiaries were small farmers, rural households, community seed fund (CSF) and self- help groups (SHGs). From the beginning of the 2015 to 2017, the Project covered 10,431 beneficiaries who were willing to participate in the Project and met the eligibility criteria for receiving support. The main Project activities included: • Expanding the seed fund community and self-help groups living in poverty, by providing high-quality seeds and fertilizers to rural households; • Training members of CSF and SHGs in integrated production management (IPM), and modern, sustainable farming practices to improve productivity and reduce farm losses, accounting and domestic processing for SGH members. The current study included the evaluation of the impact of results and various aspects of the Community Seed Fund Project on beneficiaries – poor and extremely poor farms, and on the development of a public seed fund network. The evaluation was based on a comparison of progress in 2015, 2016 and 2017 studies. 2 Information on the results of the social and economic development of the Kyrgyz Republic for January-June 2017 based on the preliminary data provided by NSC. 3 Source: Kyrgyz Republic Ministry of Agriculture and Melioration. Page 40 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 1. Study Methodology The following aspects of the study are covered in this section of the report: • Goals; • Objectives; • Target audience; • Research tools; • Respondent sample; • Indicators. 1.1. Goals ➢ Evaluate results and various aspects of the Support to Community Seed Funds Project on the beneficiaries - farmers belonging to the Project target audience. The evaluation is based on a comparison between indicators of 2015 (baseline) and 2017 (final) studies. ➢ Conduct an evaluation of the Project's impact on the development of a public seed fund network. The evaluation employs certain indicators described herein. 1.2. Objectives 1. To identify changes in the beneficiaries’ farming practices: management, sales, technology, tools and methods; 2. To describe the profile of study participants taking into account the following: ➢ Numerical and gender coverage of agribusiness; ➢ Structure and quantitative coverage of land that is available and being used, including land that is used for agricultural crops with Project support; ➢ Availability of necessary agricultural machinery and equipment; ➢ Structure of the agricultural materials (seeds and fertilizers) purchased/produced/received by households; ➢ Existing types and structure of agricultural activities; ➢ The current yield and its dynamics (2015, 2016, 2017) on farms that grow crops supported by the Project; Page 41 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) ➢ Dynamics of total annual production of farms, including the production of crops supported by the Project; ➢ Structure of income received by farms; ➢ Evaluation of the training received within the framework of the Project; ➢ Project impact on beneficiaries’ households, including the economic and social changes induced by the Project; 3. Calculation of the declared indicators of the Project.; 4. Preparation offindings and recommendations based on the study results. 1.3. Target Audience The respondents included two groups: (1) the main group: members of CSFs and SHGs, who participated in the Project; (2) control group: non-participating farmers (NPFs). Their contact details were provided by ABCC. Non-participating farmers were selected in such a way to ensure that their characteristics (i.e. location, poverty level, skills, labour force, land size, etc.) correspond to those of Project beneficiaries Study geography: all regions of the Kyrgyz Republic 1.4. Research Tools The following research tools were used: 1. Main and additional lists of Project participants (generated randomly) for selected settlements; 2. Basic questionnaire for main and control groups; 3. Screening questionnaire for the selection of non-participating farmers; 4. Respondent selection and interviewing guide for interviewers; 5. Guidelines for interviewers to monitor the relevance of the indicators on crop yields, the use of fertilizers, etc. obtained from respondents. The guidelines set out the maximum values. Data were obtained from the following sources: (i) Kyrgyz Republic National Statistical Committee; (ii) an expert of the study working group; (iii) an agriculture expert from aiyl okmotu; Page 42 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 6. FGD guide The basic questionnaire used for the evaluation was the questionnaire used by M-Vector to survey farmers as part of the Project in 2015. Given that this was the final evaluation, the questionnaire was modified to include/remove some questions. The modified questionnaire was field tested among participants of a focus group discussion attended by 10 farmers from different villages and districts targeted by the Project. Pilot survey covered 10 farmers residing in settlements where the Project was implemented. The results of the pilot survey were used to modify the questionnaire. Main sections of the questionnaire include: • Land assets of farms; • Other agricultural assets of farms (agricultural machinery, processing equipment...); • Agricultural crop growing practices (sowing areas, yields...); • Usage of seeds and fertilizers; • Problems impeding effective production of agricultural crops; • Practice and problems of selling of crop products; • Sources of income and the main costs incurred by farms; • Investments in farm development; • Participation in training and evaluation of their effectiveness. Usage of the knowledge acquired; • Evaluation of the Project impact on households. 1.5. Respondent Sample The study covered 630 farmers, 257 (40.7%) of which were members of the Community Seed Funds (CSF), 249 (39.6%) – members of self-help groups (SHGs), and 124 (19.7%) non-participating farmers (NPFs) from the control group. The study geography is shown in Table 1.5.1. Page 43 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Table 1.5.1 Respondents disaggregated by target group and region # of regions # of # of # of regions within the localities respondents sample Kyrgyz 37 23 53 630 Repubilc Batken region 3 3 7 90 Jalal-Abad 6 4 8 90 region Issyk-Kul region 5 3 8 90 Naryn region 5 4 8 90 Osh region 6 3 8 90 Talas region 4 2 6 90 Chui region 8 4 8 90 Based on the information received, CSFs and SHGs operate in all districts of the Kyrgyz Republic, except for the following two: 1. Chatkal district (Jalal-Abad region); 2. Chon-Alai district (Osh region). There are 40 in the Kyrgyz Republic, and the sample of respondents included farmers representing 38 district. The following procedure was used to form the sample: 1. A random number generator was used to select districts in each of the regions; 2. The lists of CSFs and SHGs were used to generate the lists of villages for each of the selected districts and groups; 3. Since the main group of beneficiaries were CSFs and SHGs, the number of CSFs in the sample exceeds that of SHGs (approximately 5 to 3); 4. Then villages were selected, which participated in Projects in different years; 5. Then corresponding number of respondents was distributed among the selected villages; 6. Villages for the NPF survey were selected from among the same villages covered by CSF and SHG survey; Page 44 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 7. Villages for the NPF survey were selected as follows: one village where CSF members are to be interviewed, one village where SHG members are to be interviewed. Table 1.5.2 Respondents disaggregated by target group and region Number of Including: Region respondents CSF members SHG members NPFs Kyrgyz Republic 630 257 249 124 Chui region 90 36 36 18 Issyk-Kul region 90 36 36 18 Jalal-Abad region 90 41 33 16 Naryn region 90 36 36 18 Talas region 90 36 36 18 Batken region 90 36 36 18 Osh region 90 36 36 18 Table 1.5.3. Sample of CSFs, SHGs and NPFs disaggregated by rayon and year CSFs SHGs NPFs Region 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 Batken region 18 0 18 0 18 18 0 0 18 Jalal-Abad region 15 18 8 12 21 0 8 8 0 Issyk-Kul region 7 7 22 24 12 0 5 5 8 Naryn region 0 36 0 12 12 12 0 18 0 Osh region 7 29 0 12 12 12 0 13 5 Talas region 0 36 0 21 12 0 4 14 0 Chui region 0 11 25 20 10 9 4 9 5 TOTAL 47 137 73 101 97 51 21 67 36 1.6. Outcome Indicators ✓ Average increase in yields in the participating farms for selected key crops - 15%; ✓ CSF and SHG membership expanded by mobilizing new members – 6,000 farmers; ✓ Volume of seeds distributed through the CSFs and SHGs in accordance with the planting schedule – 1,200 tons; ✓ Volume of fertilizers distributed to the CSFs and SHGs – 1,200 tons; ✓ Farmers who gained agricultural assets or services – 6,000 farmers; ✓ Number of farmers trained on subjects promoted by the Project – 5,500 farmers; ✓ Client-days of training provided – 30,000 client-days; ✓ Share of women in the total number of beneficiaries - 45%; Page 45 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) ✓ Increase in average volume of sales of a beneficiary household – by 15%; ✓ Technologies demonstrated in the Project areas - 10 new technologies; ✓ Farmers adopting improved agricultural technology – 2,000 farmers; ✓ Targeted clients satisfied with agricultural services provided under the Project - 80%. 2. Fieldwork Challenges Despite the fact that all the study goals and objectives were achieved, there were a number of difficulties encountered during fieldwork, which should be taken into account in further work with farmers. The most difficult task was to collect data on farms for previous years. It was hard for farmers to recall the volumes of harvest, return rate, sales volumes and other indicators from 2-3 years ago which were important for the study. The questionnaire complexity and long duration of interviews were an additional burden for respondents; interviewers had to call back to respondents several times after the survey to clarify some answers which turned out to be unclear because respondents were in hurry or questions were too difficult. For example, respondents found it quite difficult to recall the volume of products sold separately for thirteen crops and disaggregate the same by year (pre-Project and Project years). The above is the basis for the recommendation to conduct evaluation immediately upon the Project completion, separately for each year, or to ask participants to write down their yield indicators for Project years. 3. Household Profile The study involved representatives of CSFs, SHGs and NPFs, who are not members in these organizations, but have land plots and use them for growing agricultural crops. Table 3.1 shows the disaggregation of respondents by year (2015, 2016, 2017). Table 3.1.Survey participants, disaggregated by year (%, N=630) 2015 2016 2017 CSF 18% 53% 28% SHG 41% 39% 20% NPF 20% 58% 22% The study was conducted in all regions of Kyrgyzstan, covering about 90 rural residents in each of them. The disaggregation of respondents’ shares by region and target group is shown in Table 3.2. Table 3.2. Survey participants, disaggregated by region (%, N=630) Including: Region TOTAL CSF members SHG members NPFs Chui region 14.3% 5.7% 5.7% 2.9% Issyk-Kul region 14.3% 5.7% 5.7% 2.9% Page 46 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Jalal-Abad region 14.3% 6.5% 5.2% 2.5% Naryn region 14.3% 5.7% 5.7% 2.9% Talas region 14.3% 5.7% 5.7% 2.9% Batken region 14.3% 5.7% 5.7% 2.9% Osh region 14.3% 5.7% 5.7% 2.9% TOTAL 100% 40.8% 39.5% 19.7% Approximately the same number of women and men were interviewed (47% and 53%, respectively). Information on the survey gender composition is presented on Chart 3.1. The average age of the farmers surveyed was 45 years. Figure 3.1. Survey participants, disaggregated by gender (%, N=630) Chart 3.2 shows that the majority of farmers (97%) have an above secondary-level education. Chart 3.2. Respondents’ education (%, N=630) Page 47 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 1% 2% Completed secondary education (11 grades) 16% College Higher education 54% 27% Incomplete secondary education(8-9 grades) Incomplete higher education On average, 2-3 members of the family are involved in agricultural activities in the farm on full-time basis, with the number of males being higher than that of females, whole while under agricultural activities on part-time basis, number of females exceeds that of males marginally (Table 3.3). Table 3.3. Household composition (N=630) Average # of family Average #of family members that partially members fully involved into the involved in farming farming Total, including: 2,3 1,1 Male (over 17 years ) 1,3 0,2 Female (over 17 лет) 0,8 0,3 Children (7-17 years) 0,1 0,3 4. Household Resources This section covers the following aspects: • Land resources • Agricultural machinery and equipment 4.1. Land Resources The absolute majority of the surveyed farmers (93%) use their homestead plots for growing crops. This practice is most popular among SHG members, as they are smaller farmers. In addition, a large number of respondents have their own land plots. Temporary use of relatives’ land, renting land from private owners and the Land Distribution Fund is less popular among farmers. (Table 4.1.1) Page 48 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Table 4.1.1. Structure of land used by farmers (disaggregated by target group, %, N=630) CSF SHG NPF Total Own land 91,4% 79,5% 88,7% 86,2% Homestead 88,7% 96,8% 93,5% 92,9% Temporary use of land from relatives, 13,6% 8,4% 12,9% 11,4% acquaintances Rented from private owners 23,3% 11,6% 8,1% 15,7% Rented from the Land Distribution Fund 20,2% 6,0% 4,8% 11,6% Most active users of all types of land resources are farmers in Chui region, while least active in using land plots are farmers in Jalal-Abad region. (Table 4.1.2) Table 4.1.2. Structure of land use (disaggregated by region, %, N=630) Jalal-Abad region Issyk-Kul region Batken region Naryn region Talas region Chui region Osh region TOTAL Own land 85.6 87.8 70.0 86.7 96.7 82.2 94.4 86.2 Homestead plot 94.4 97.8 74.4 98.9 96.7 91.1 96.7 92.9 Temporary use of relatives’ or friends’ 22.2 6.7 4.4 7.8 12.2 7.8 18.9 11.4 land Land rented from private owners 30.0 23.3 11.1 7.8 15.6 8.9 13.3 15.7 Land rented from the Land Distribution 26.7 12.2 11.1 12.2 12.2 0.0 6.7 11.6 Fund 4.2. Agricultural Machinery and Equipment The study results show that farmers mostly rent agricultural machinery and equipment, instead of buying or leasing of this equipment. The most popular machinery and equipment includes tractors, plows, harrows and harvesters. (Table 4.2.1.) Page 49 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Table 4.2.1. Agricultural machinery and equipment used by farmers (N, several answer choices are allowed, N=630) Rented Agricultural machinery and Collective Private Rented with an equipment operator Combine harvester 10 16 9 323 Tractor 16 38 40 503 Mini tractor 2 2 25 100 Mowing machine 2 16 4 275 Truck 8 77 17 360 Baler 3 14 3 315 Plow 12 43 8 402 Harrow 12 37 2 412 Cultivator 8 20 1 297 Fertilizer sprayer 2 7 0 81 Sowing unit 8 12 1 153 Potato harvester 0 6 1 93 Thresher 0 7 0 82 Seed cleaner 21 8 0 55 Watering unit 0 0 0 2 Noteworthy is that according to the results of the baseline and final studies (Table 4.2.2), a significantly larger number of farmers own agricultural machinery and equipment. Even considering the larger number of respondents in the final evaluation (as compared to 400 respondents in the baseline study), equipment private ownership rate has increased several times. This means both the increase of farmers’ incomes and improveme nt of farmers’ situation in general. Table 4.2.2. Machinery privately owned by farmers (disaggregated by target group, %, N=630) Page 50 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 5. Crop Growing Practice Before and After the Project This section features the following aspects: • Plant growing structure and changes thereof that occurred during the Project period; • Yield and dynamics of total production volumes; • Gross value of crops sold and harvested. 4.3. Recalculation of baseline research indicators The main indicator that shows the project effectiveness is the comparison of the baseline and final research indicators. However, this study will consider the adjusted data of the baseline research. These changes were made due to the previous incorrect calculation of yield and gross value. The main reason was the insufficient reconciliation of key indicators of the database. The database of the basic study contained too high rates of yields of some crops. This situation has occurred due to the following reasons: 1. The toolkit (questionnaire) for the basic study was constructed in such a way that it allowed recording crop yields and the sowing area only in tones and hectares. At the same time, most farmers used to counting in their own forms of measurement such as bales / sacks / boxes / buckets and so on. When the interviewer asked to tell the yield in tons, farmers gave approximate numbers, that later turned out to be highly overstated; However, during the final assessment, this complexity was taken into account, and farmers were able to indicate crop yields and area in all convenient units (kg, centners, tons, bales etc.). After receiving the data from the farmers, the company specialists independently brought all units of measurement to a single format. For example: farmers measured alfalfa in bales. Further, the number of bales was Page 51 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) multiplied by the average number of kilograms in the bales (18 kg) and the total amount of alfalfa collected was obtained. 2. Further analysis was conducted without approximate yield benchmarks (boundaries) and without sufficient expert assessment of these indicators. While reconciling the database, such extremes were included in the calculations of the average indicators that subsequently gave an incorrect representation in general. Example. Average yield for wheat was 2.88 tons per hectare, while the normal indicators vary from 1.65 to 2.23 tons per hectare. It occurs because in the 2015 baseline research about 9% of farmers noted wheat productivity of 6-14 t / ha, that is unrealistic data. One farmer form Jalal-Abad oblast, village Aral, indicated that he received 2,2 tons of wheat from 0,2 hectare. Thereby, average yield for this farmer is 11 t / ha. These overestimated data gave a bias in calculating the total average yield for wheat in total. The same situation has occurred with barley: the average yield in the baseline study was 2.73 t / ha, although the range of acceptable yields should vary from 2.13-2.32 t / ha. The reason for this was the fact that 11% of farmers noted an overestimated yield from 4.8 to 6.3 t/ha. Therefore, for a complete, objective and fair evaluation of the study, the baseline data of the study were adjusted (the overestimated indicators from the respondents were excluded) and the total yield and gross value of harvested and sold calculations were revised. The gross value was recalculated, since the total area sown and the average price for a particular crop were taken to calculate this indicator. At the same time, the crop sold was calculated on the basis of the question, How much percent of the grown produce was sold by the farmer. For example, a farmer from Osh oblast indicated that he raised 7 tons of wheat and sold 80% (5.6 tons) of the crop for a total of 280,000 soms. However, if we calculate the average cost per ton, it will be 50 000 soms, with an average price of wheat of 10 000 soms per 1 ton according to the NSC KR. Thus, these overestimated values were excluded from the analysis for a more correct indicator of the crop sold. The baseline survey indicators (2015) and recalculated baseline indicators will be shown in the tables below in 5.3 and 5.4 Chapters. 4.4. Changes in the Structure of Crops Grown During the Project Period According to the results of the study pertaining to the structure of crops (see Table 5.2.1), most of the surveyed farmers grow such crops as cabbage, potato, carrot, cucumber and tomatoe. Although the majority of farmers grow variety of crops across the regions, some of them such as Talas, Jalalabad and Naryn show less assortments of crops (Table 5.2.1). This may occur due to the geographical and climatic features of these regions. Table 5.2.1. Structure of crops grown by farmers (disaggregated by region, several answer choices are allowed, %, N=630) Page 52 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Crop Jalal-Abad region Issyk-Kul region Batken region Naryn region Talas region Chui region Osh region (n=72) (n=74) (n=72) (n=72) (n=72) (n=72) (n=72) Wheat 32% 69% 15% 17% 6% 40% 24% Barley 51% 65% 9% 79% 42% 19% 44% Potato 75% 86% 41% 97% 69% 15% 65% Alfalfa 63% 14% 20% 33% 22% 4% 14% Esparcet 8% 74% 0% 31% 24% 8% 6% Corn 36% 3% 49% 7% 31% 14% 54% Tomato 69% 43% 64% 46% 88% 47% 49% Cucumber 68% 61% 39% 58% 82% 43% 51% Carrot 64% 68% 24% 83% 78% 39% 58% Cabbage 64% 44% 15% 64% 69% 38% 53% Onion 47% 43% 11% 24% 54% 18% 44% Red beet 51% 53% 5% 75% 50% 11% 32% Bell pepper 56% 3% 20% 8% 36% 18% 28% The structure of crops cultivated by farmers, disaggregated by target group, is shown in Table 5.2.2. Representatives of all target groups mainly grow potatoes (65.4%). The disaggregation by target group shows that almost ¾ of the CSF respondents grow potatoes, and almost half of them grow wheat. As for SHGs, besides growing potatoes (58.6%), a large proportion of respondents grow carrots, cucumbers and tomatoes. NPFs mostly grow potatoes (71.8%). Table 5.2.2. Structure of crops grown by farmers, disaggregated by target group, %, N=630 Crop CSFs SHGs NPFs TOTAL Bell pepper 17.1% 31.3% 13.7% 22.1% Cabbage 22.6% 77.1% 28.2% 45.2% Potato 68.9% 58.6% 71.8% 65.4% Corn 30.7% 24.5% 22.6% 26.7% Onion 25.3% 43.8% 18.5% 31.3% Alfalfa 27.2% 21.3% 26.6% 24.8% Carrot 33.1% 85.9% 34.7% 54.3% Cucumber 26.5% 82.3% 24.2% 48.1% Tomato 31.5% 81.5% 34.7% 51.9% Wheat 41.6% 12.0% 16.9% 25.1% Red beet 17.1% 62.7% 22.6% 36.2% Page 53 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Esparcet 25.7% 13.3% 12.9% 18.3% Barley 28.4% 18.1% 31.5% 24.9% Total (respondents) 257 249 124 630 4.5. Crop Yields and Total Production Dynamics One of the main indicators of Project effectiveness is the dynamics of crop yields disaggregated by crop and that of total production volumes. Key crops selected for CSFs are wheat, potatoes, barley, alfalfa, esparcet and corn. To calculate yields, data were collected on the area of land used and the amount of each crop harvested from 2015 to 2017. Yields for each crop were calculated by dividing the amount of crops harvested by the area of land used. Key crops for SHGs include tomatoes, cucumbers, potatoes, carrots, cabbage, onions, red beets, and bell peppers. For the purpose of analysis and comparison of Project impact on beneficiaries, the average yield was calculated separately for the pre- Project and Project years. The analysis of key crop production in the pre-Project and Project periods demonstrates the growth of yields for most crops. The yield of wheat, esparcet, and corn increased 1.5 times. Significant changes occurred in the cultivation of potatoes with yields having increased by almost 2 times (Table 5.3.1). This indicates the high effectiveness of Project interventions - both trainings and provision of certified seeds. Please see the table below for more information. Table 5.3.1. Yield of key crops per hectare, disaggregated by year, CSFs, (ton/ha),n=257 2015 2016 2017 CSFs 2014 2015 2016 2015 Project 2016 Project 2017 Project Pre-Project Pre-Project Pre-Project Wheat 1.85 2.59 1.54 2.04 1.78 2.24 Barley - - 2.13 2.44 1.81 1.84 Potato 8.91 20.15 17.10 23.57 18.98 23.46 Alfalfa - - 6.40 6.59 Esparcet - - 3.71 5.54 4.76 5.29 Corn - - 5.28 7.16 5.75 6.25 The yields harvested by SHGs also shows a high growth rate. According to the study results, yields of crops such as tomatoes, cucumbers, carrots, and red beets increased 1.2 times (Table 5.3.2). Table 5.3.2. Yield of key crops per hectare, disaggregated by year, SHGs, (ton/ha), n=249 2015 2016 2017 SHGs 2014 2015 2016 2015 Project 2016 Project 2017 Project Pre-Project Pre-Project Pre-Project Potato 18.79 22.31 - - - - Tomato - - 19.30 31.27 18.75 26.95 Cucumber 15.54 19.47 6.86 12.02 9.17 13.22 Carrot 14.18 19.36 6.07 18.65 12.12 18.61 Page 54 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Cabbage 14.28 7.20 12.00 10.05 12.75 18.03 Onion 28.38 23.46 19.15 21.50 25.93 31.01 Red beet 10.25 15.61 17.78 21.52 16.38 23.42 Bell pepper - - - - 12.53 12.57 In order to aggregate the overall impact of the Project (to level out special cases of poor harvest in some years, caused by objective reasons), the impact of the Project as a whole should be considered over a period. For this purpose, a total indicator was calculated for all Project and pre-Project years for all crops. In general, yield growth is observed for almost all cultures among both beneficiaries of the СSF and SHG. So, only by cabbage the yield indicator decreased slightly during the project period. However, this situation may be due to the fact that, that 187 people were interviewed for cabbage where the total crop area is 2.58 hectares. In average, it is no more than one hundred square meters per farmer. The remaining results of calculations are presented in Table 5.3.3. Table 5.3.3. Comparison of yields per hectare for key crops for pre-Project and Project periods, (ton/ha) Differences between pre- Crop Pre-Project year Project year Project and Project,% Wheat 1,72 2,29 24,9% Barley 1,97 2,14 7,9% Potatoes 16,895 22,35 24,4% Alfa-alfa 6,4 6,59 2,9% Esparcet 4,24 5,41 21,6% Corn 6,39 6,7 4,6% Tomato 19,03 29,11 34,6% Cucumber 10,53 14,9 29,3% Carrot 10,79 18,87 42,8% Cabbage 13,01 11,76 -10,6% Onion 24,49 25,32 3,3% Red beat 14,81 20,18 26,6% Pepper 12,53 12,57 0,3% Comparing the yields, based on the results of the recalculated basic and final studies, a clear increase in yield is observed for all crops. The greatest difference comes from such crops as alfalfa, esparcet, carrots, onions and pepper (Table 5.3.4). Table 5.3.4. Comparison of key crop yields per hectare between the baseline and final studies, (ton/ha) Page 55 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Differences Baseline Crop Final evaluation Baseline between final and (corrected) baseline,% Wheat 2,29 2,88 1,52 50,7% Barley 2,14 2,73 2,04 4,9% Potatoes 22,35 17,01 18,12 23,3% Alfa-alfa 6,59 9,84 3,39 94,1% Esparcet 5,41 7,17 2,87 88,5% Corn 6,7 6,75 6,63 1,1% Tomato 29,11 17,61 18,28 59,2% Cucumber 14,9 13,57 12,19 22,2% Carrot 18,87 13,25 11,51 63,9% Cabbage 11,76 13,68 7,81 50,6% Onion 25,32 14,78 13,3 90,4% Red beat 20,18 11,15 16,06 25,7% Pepper 12,57 8,34 7,13 76,3% In addition, comparing the average yield of project beneficiaries with non-participating farmers (NPF), almost all cultures show a positive difference, except for pepper (-1.6%). In average for all cultures, the difference between CSF / SHG and NPF is 36%. (Table 5.3.5) Table 5.3.5.Comparison of key crop yields per hectare between CSFs/SHGs and NPFs (ton/ha) Differences Crop CSF/SHG, 2017 NPF between CSF/SHG and NPF,% Wheat 2,29 2,06 11,2% Barley 2,14 2,1 1,9% Potatoes 22,35 17,3 29,2% Alfa-alfa 6,59 4,75 38,7% Esparcet 5,41 3,68 47,0% Corn 6,7 5,05 32,7% Tomato 29,11 18,03 61,5% Cucumber 14,9 13,73 8,5% Carrot 18,87 12,25 54,0% Cabbage 11,76 11,02 6,7% Onion 25,32 10,32 145,3% Red beat 20,18 14,83 36,1% Pepper 12,57 12,78 -1,6% The goal of the Project was to achieve a 15%-increase in average yield. To estimate this indicator, the total area under key crops and the share of key crops were assessed for all the Project years. Next, the researchers estimated the percent change in the average yield level in the baseline and final study. Multiplying the percentage change in the average crop yield for each crop by the share of this crop in the total area resulted in a composite indicator for yield change. As Table 5.3.6 shows, the overall composite indicator is negative. This is due to the fact that the composite indicators for the same crops (wheat, barley, alfalfa, esparcet, corn) come out underestimated, as described earlier. Therefore, a fair and objective consideration implies focusing on yield indicators in the context of Project indicators and NPFss. (Table 5.3.5). As Table 5.3.6 shows, the total increase in the project Page 56 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) yield for all crops is 41%. Table 5.3.6. Comparison of key crop yields per hectare for all target groups between baseline and final studies, (ton/ha) Correction coefficient Beneficiaries. (takes into Baseline Final Percent of Official Beneficiaries. account Baseline, increase, taking Crop Statistics, planted area (corrected), evaluation, Percent of into account 2016, t/ha Yield increase of Yield Yield correction beneficiaries coefficient on 2017) Wheat 2,37 2,39 2,88 1,52 2,29 50,66% 121% Barley 2,13 0,81 2,73 2,04 2,14 4,90% 4% Potatoes 16,51 4,46 17,01 18,12 22,35 23,34% 104% Alfa-alfa 6,5-8,5 1,12 9,84 3,39 6,59 94,12% 105% Esparcet 4,5 2,08 7,17 2,87 5,41 88,50% 184% Corn 6,15 1,15 6,75 6,63 6,7 1,06% 1% Tomato 18,3 0,08 17,61 18,28 29,11 59,25% 5% Cucumber 15,4 0,05 13,57 12,19 14,9 22,23% 1% Carrot 18,95 0,03 13,25 11,51 18,87 63,94% 2% Cabbage 20 0,03 13,68 7,81 11,76 50,58% 2% Onion 19,8 0,02 14,78 13,3 25,32 90,38% 2% Red beet 18,35 0,01 11,15 16,06 20,18 25,65% 0% Pepper - 0,03 8,34 7,13 12,57 76,30% 2% TOTAL - - - - 41% The analysis of the dynamics of key crop yields over three years for all target groups suggests that assistance provided to farmers, united in CSFs and SHGs, under the Project in the form of seeds, fertilizers, advisory services and training, allowed all beneficiaries to increase the yield of all crops by an average of 1.5 times. Significant results for increasing yields have been obtained in farms that are united both in the Community Seed Funds (CSF) and in the Self Help Group (SHG) for all key crops. At the same time, NPFs (control group) did not show stable dynamics of yield change. This indicates that the seeds and knowledge received during the Project had a great impact on yields. 4.6. Gross Value of Crops Sold and Harvested One of the main indicators of the Project effectiveness is the yield indicators for each crop and the dynamics of production volumes. Farmers from CSF mainly grow wheat, potatoes, barley, alfalfa, esparcet and corn. For SHG representatives, key crops are tomatoes, cucumbers, potatoes, carrots, cabbage, onions, beets, peppers. Yields were calculated by dividing the total volume of yield obtained by the total amount of the area for each crop. It is important to note that that for the calculation, it was calculated only the cultures that farmers received seeds for harvesting. In order to analyze and compare the impact of the Page 57 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) project on the beneficiaries, the average yield was calculated separately for the pre-project and project years. Analysis of the key crops between the pre-project and project periods among the members of CSF shows a growth in yields for all crops. The yield for wheat, esparcet, corn increased 1.5 times. High changes occurred in the cultivation of potatoes: in comparison, before and after participation in the Project, yields increased almost for 2 times (Table 5.4.1). This indicates the high efficiency of project interventions, both in training and in the provision of certified seeds. For more information, see the table below. Table 5.4.1. Gross value of crops harvests, thsd KGS, N=506 Average price for Gross value per Collected harvest, Crop ton, thousand collected harvest, tons soms thousand soms Wheat 1 229 10 12 295 Barley 2 852 11 29 944 Potatoes 1 020 20 20 394 Alfa-alfa 206 9 1 810 Esparcet 658 4 2 501 Corn 604 11 6 649 Tomato 117 22 2 518 Cucumber 70 11 774 Carrot 63 16 1 002 Cabbage 31 12 374 Onion 40 15 610 Red beet 24 14 334 Pepper 146 14 2 040 Ð’Ñ?его 7 060 - 81 245 Regarding the gross value of the yields sold, noteworthy is that the most popular crop was barley, yet the highest gross value accounted for potatoes. This is explained by the specifics of the storage, collection and care of the crop. For more information on the gross value of the crop sold, see Table 5.4.2. Table 5.4.2. Gross value of the crop sold, thsd KGS, N=506 Average price for Gross value per Crop Sold harvest, tons ton, thousand sold harvest, soms thousand soms Wheat 326 10 3 260 Barley 713 11 7 490 Potatoes 502 20 10 047 Alfa-alfa 38 9 334 Esparcet 47 4 178 Corn 143 11 1 570 Tomato 38 22 827 Page 58 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Cucumber 15 11 162 Carrot 11 16 170 Cabbage 3 12 37 Onion 15 15 223 Red beet 3 14 36 Pepper 39 14 547 Ð’Ñ?его 1 892 - 24 880 Table 5.4.3. Amount of crops sold, disaggregated by target group, ton Crops sold, ton Crop CSFs SHGs Wheat 237 89 Potato 359 143 Barley 614 100 Alfalfa 31 7 Esparcet 39 8 Corn 39 104 Tomato 34 5 Cucumber 5 9 Carrot 9 2 Cabbage 2 1 Onion 14 1 Red beet 0 3 Bell pepper 38 1 Total 1,420.7 471.3 Disaggregation by target group, as expected, shows that CSF members sold more produce than SHG members (Table 5.4.3). This is due to the fact that the SHGs planted seeds homestead plots and were not initially focused on sales. CSF members called wheat, potatoes, and barley as the most selling crops, while SHGs noted wheat, potatoes, barley, and corn. It is vital to note that here all the calculations were done including all the harvested crops (not only cultures harvested by getting the seeds from the Project). In general, according to the analysis of crop produce and sales, farmers sell only 1/3 of the harvested crop. Most of the produce is left for personal consumption. There is a big difference between sales revenue indicators of baseline and final research. The final research shows that the amount of sold harvest is higher than in baseline for almost 2 times (Tables 5.4.4 and 5.4.5). This means that gaining the trainings and certified seeds vastly influenced to the amount of harvest and income of farmers. Baseline Research, 2015 Table 5.4.4. Total amount of sold and harvested crops, thsd KGS, tons N=400 Page 59 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Average income Amount of crops sold (for all Amount of crops per farmer crops) harvested (for all crops) tons thsd KGS tons thsd KGS thsd KGS Baseline, 2015 2060,7 25619,9 6723,0 78899,5 64047 (N=400) Calculated baseline 1061 13194 3462 40633 32980 (N=400) Final Research, 2017 Table 5.4.5 Total amount of sold and harvested crops, thsd KGS, tons N=630 Average income Amount of crops sold (for all Amount of crops per farmer crops) harvested (for all crops) tons thsd KGS tons thsd KGS thsd KGS Beneficiaries (n=506) 1 892 24880 7060 81245 49170 NPF (n=124) 321 2919 1962 22563 23540 Beneficiaries sales increased on: 49 170 som/32980 som * 100% = 49,1% 6. Key Problems Hampering Plant Growing During interviews, farmers were given a list of potential problems that they could face and asked to assess their significance on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 standing for a minor problem, and 5 – for a very significant problem. Land-related problems turned out to be significant for respondents in Batken and Talas regions (lack of land and inadequate irrigation). Problems related to agricultural materials and services were most significant for residents of Issyk-Kul region: lack of quality fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural machinery, advisory service, and information on prices. The respondents in Issyk-Kul region also noted difficulties in selling products. Low prices for grown crops were of highest significance to farmers in Batken region. Another serious problem was the high interest rate on loans and credits (from 3.8 to 4.1). In general, the analysis identified several main problems: high prices for F&L, mechanized services, fertilizers and seeds, unstable prices for crops (the smallest percentage of respondents who answered “There is no such problem"). A detailed description of the existing problems and their significance disaggregated by region is presented in Table 6.1. Table 6.1. Significance of problems encountered by farmers Page 60 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Jalal-Abad region There is no such Issyk-Kul region Batken region Naryn region Talas region Chui region Osh region problem TOTAL Problem Land Lack of land 2.4 1.4 2.8 2.8 3.8 4.1 3.7 3.3 25% Inadequate irrigation 2 2.5 3.1 3 4 4.1 3.7 3.1 25% Soil salinity 2 1.8 2 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.4 51% Damp soil (excessive moisture) 1.5 2.5 2.1 2.6 1.7 1.9 3.1 2.3 60% Inability to rotate crops on a small land plot 1.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 3.5 3.3 3.5 2.9 34% Agricultural materials and services Lack of quality seeds 2.8 2.6 3.7 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 3 21% Lack of quality fertilizers 2.6 2.8 3.4 2.6 3.3 3.8 3.4 2.9 25% Lack of quality pesticides 2.4 2.8 3.5 2.4 2.6 3.8 3.4 2.8 25% Lack of irrigation water 2 3.2 3.3 2.3 3.9 3.9 3.6 2.7 26% Lack of agricultural machinery and equipment 3.1 3.8 3.8 2.4 2.7 3.9 3.7 3.1 18% Lack of an advisory service 2.2 3.3 3.6 2.4 2.5 3.7 3.5 2.8 25% Lack of information on prices 2.2 3.2 3.9 2.4 2.3 3.4 3.8 2.7 23% Difficulties in selling crops Small number of customers 3.1 3.2 3.8 2.5 2.7 3.5 3.7 3.3 20% Price fixing by customers 2.8 3.4 3.5 2.3 3.2 3.7 3.4 3.3 22% Prices are difficult to negotiate given small produce 2.5 2.9 3.5 2.4 3.1 3.9 3.6 3.2 20% Long distance to markets 3.4 3.2 3.5 2.4 2.8 3.8 3.5 3.3 19% Difficulties in transporting the produce 3.5 3.2 3.4 2.2 2.8 3.9 3.6 3.3 23% Lack of storage facilities 2.5 2.4 1.8 2.6 2.4 3.2 4 2.7 25% Low prices for the following crops Cereals (rye, wheat, etc.) 3.7 3.5 3.6 2.5 2.8 3.9 3.2 3.7 23% Forage crops (esparcet, alfalfa) 3.6 2.9 3.5 2.3 2.6 3.6 3 3.6 23% Vegetables and roots 3.6 3.4 3.5 2.5 2.5 3.7 3.1 3.6 21% Forage cereals (rye, wheat, etc.) 3.8 2.8 3.7 2.4 2.2 3.7 3.3 3.3 29% High prices for resources F&L 3.8 4.4 4.3 2.6 4.3 4.9 3.6 3.8 12% Mechanized services 4.3 3.6 3.9 2.2 4.3 4.9 3.6 4.3 17% Fertilizers 3.9 3.9 3.8 2.4 4.4 5 2.9 3.9 18% Seeds 3.8 3.5 3.8 2.1 4.4 4.5 3.7 3.8 19% Other problems Unstable prices for crops 3.8 3.3 3.6 2.6 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 13% Page 61 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Difficulties in obtaining loans 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.1 3.4 3.8 3.6 3.3 22% High interest rates on loans, credits 3.6 4.2 3.3 2.3 4.6 3.8 4 3.6 19% Irrational loan repayment terms 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.4 2.7 3.5 3.9 3.5 22% Unjustified interference of monopolists (intermediaries) 2.6 3.3 3.5 2.5 3.9 3.5 3.7 2.6 23% Lack of subject-matter knowledge (in farmers) 3 2.7 3.5 2.4 3.3 3.8 3.8 3 22% Lack of information of agricultural machinery and equipment 2.3 3.3 3.4 2.3 2.1 3.9 3.7 3.2 22% 7. Purchasing Fertilizers Effective farming requires using fertilizers and ensuring proper care for the soil. The lack of soil enrichment with useful nutrients will lead to declining yields year by year. A significant proportion of farmers from the control group buy fertilizers in the bazaar (open market) (41.1%). More than 50% of farmers growing crops on small land plots (CSFs and NPFs) prefer to use manure as the most accessible fertilizer. Most CSF members (88.2%) and SHG (37,3%) received fertilizers from the Project. For more information, see Table 7.1. Table 7.1. Sources of fertilizers among CSFs, SHGs and NPFs (% N=630), several answer choices are allowed CSFs SHGs NPFs Bazaar (open market) 15,2% 30,5% 41,1% Private firm 1,2% 0,4% 2,4% CSF 88,2% - - SHG - 37,3% - Projects of other international organizations 0,0% 1,2% 12,1% I use manure only 9,7% 27,7% 23,4% I do not use fertilizers 4,7% 11,6% 24,2% 8. Sale of Agricultural Produce This section covers the following aspects: • Consumption, sale and return rates of crop products • Use of income from crop production 4.7. Consumption, Sale and Return Rates of Crop Products According to the study results, agricultural products are largely left to farmers. So, about 50% of the grown produce goes for personal consumption in the household. Most selling cereals include wheat, barley, alfalfa, corn; vegetables grown for selling are potatoes, tomatoes, and onions (Chart 8.1.1). Chart 8.1.1 Produce sold, disaggregated by crop, CSFs and SHGs (%, N=506) Page 62 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Sold harvest, ton Harvest left for personal consumption, ton Wheat 27% 73% Potato 49% 51% Barley 25% 75% Alfalfa 18% 82% Esparcet 7% 93% Corn 24% 76% Tomato 33% 67% Cucumber 21% 79% Carrot 17% 83% Cabbage 10% 90% Onion 37% 63% Red beet 11% 89% Bell pepper 27% 73% Following the receipt of seeds, during the Project year, CSF and SHG farmers had to ensure crop returns, which was another important aspect to study. The results show that returns were achieved more by CSFs than SHGs, as shown in Table 8.1.2. Table 8.1.2. Returns on seeds received by CSF and SHG farmers, n=506 Crop CSFs SHGs Wheat 100% - Potato 100% 100% Barley 83% - Alfalfa 100% - Esparcet 100% - Corn 100% - Tomato 100% Cucumber 100% Carrot 80% Cabbage 77% Onion 93% Red beet 86% Bell pepper 74% Page 63 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Higher returns were observed for cereals such as wheat, alfalfa, esparcet and corn, and vegetables such as potatoes, tomatoes and cucumbers. 4.8. Use of Income from Crop Production Farmers who participated in the survey were asked how they use the incomes received from sales of agricultural crops. In particular, they were asked to range what they spend money on first turn, second turn, etc. Analysis shows that the most popular expenditure item is food (36.3%). Everyday needs rank is on the second turn (24%). The least priority was given to providing financial assistance to relatives. Table 8.2.1. Answers to the question “How do you spend the income received from the sale of agricultural crops?â€? (%, N=244) Rank Invest into Invest into Improve Improve Improv Provide farm farm househol Pay for Spend on (descnding househol e financial development developmen d children’s everyday significance d living nutritio assistance – crop t – livestock standard educated needs ) condition n to relatives production production of living 1 16.5 13.3 4.8 6.5 5.2 36.3 16.9 0.4 2 7.7 10.5 10.9 12.1 13.4 18.6 24.3 2.4 3 6.1 9.5 10 13.4 20.8 13.9 20.8 5.6 4 10.2 13.1 10.7 14.1 18.9 12.1 9.7 11.2 5 14.1 12.5 16.3 19.6 8.2 7.6 6 15.8 6 18.5 17.3 20.8 8.1 11 7.5 6.9 9.8 7 21 19.2 11.4 18 6.6 3 13.2 7.8 8 12.6 10.7 18.2 6.9 3.8 0.6 0.6 46.5 As shown in Table 8.2.1, Project activities had a positive impact on respondents' incomes. Thus, about 36.3% of respondents noted that the incomes were used to improve the quality of nutrition in comparison to 41% of respondents in the baseline study who spent incomes from the sale of agricultural products on everyday needs. 9. Training Impact on Agricultural Productivity Crop cultivation involves numerous intricacies to be considered for effective farming. These include the peculiarities of seedling cultivation, crop cultivation technology, climate-based seeding, etc. that are important for any farmer, yet not all of the farmers have such knowledge at the proper level. In this connection, besides the distribution of seeds to the Project beneficiaries, the latter received training and were distributed training materials, which covered gaps in their knowledge and skills in the field of crop production and farm management. Thus, 93% of the beneficiaries received training (N=473). More than 50% of these apply the gained knowledge into practice on a regular Page 64 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) basis (Table 9.1). It is important to note that the most useful training was using technological map and seasonal calendar, soil cultivation, application of mineral fertilizers, harvesting and storage of products (over 60% of farmers practice these attainments). Knowledge of pest control, home-based crop processing, and the use of crop rotation is used more often by SHG farmers than by CSF members. Most likely, this is due to the fact SHG farmers grow smaller amount of crops than CSF members do. Table 9.1. Knowledge and skills gained and used, disaggregated by target group Target Group CSFs SHGs NPFs Received Practice Received Practice Received Practice Usage of the technical map and seasonal 76.0% 67.8% 84.7% 78.2% 15.3% 15.3% calendar Usage of greenhouses for 31.0% 24.0% 71.0% 50.0% 4.0% 2.4% growing of seedlings Soil cultivation 79.40% 71.9% 84.20% 76.6% 17.70% 16.9% Technology for 41.7% 39.7% 47.6% 45.6% 9.3% 9.3% growing of crops Application of water- saving technologies in 67.1% 53.1% 77.8% 58.1% 12.9% 12.9% watering Pest control 70% 57% 86% 75% 16% 15% Application of mineral 82.6% 74.0% 91.9% 74.6% 15.3% 15.3% fertilizers Harvesting 77.5% 70.5% 93.5% 89.9% 17.7% 16.1% Processing of crops in 58.1% 48.4% 92.3% 88.3% 13.7% 12.9% house conditions Storage of products 77.1% 69.0% 91.9% 88.3% 15.3% 13.7% Application of crop 71.3% 58.9% 87.9% 62.5% 15.3% 14.5% rotation Total 66.5% 57.7% 82.6% 71.5% 13.9% 13.1% Page 65 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) The control group of NPF shows completely different picture regarding participation in trainings. Chart 9.1 illustrates that only 17% of NPFs took part in training on crop growing; 5.6% said that one of the members of their family participated in such training. In general, the knowledge gained has led to increased agricultural production for only 4% of NPFs. This suggests that learning plays a key role in productive crop cultivation. It is turned out that the majority of training organizers were international organizations (ARIS, the Aga Khan Foundation), NGOs and agronomists. Chart 9.1 Participation of NPFs in training on agricultural crop cultivation Nobody took part in trainings 17.0% 5.6% Yes, I have participated 77.4% Yes, member of my family took part In addition to crop cultivation training, CSF and SHG members received training on farm management, which included the transfer of knowledge on the calculation of costs, revenues and profits - 73% of participants passed the training (N=371). The majority of respondents from both target groups evaluated the gained knowledge as practical and use it regularly in their household (over 60%) (Table 9.2). Table 9.2. Farm management knowledge obtained and used by respondents Target group CSF SHG Received Use Received Use Correct calculation of expenses, income, profit 69% 64% 77% 63% 10. Evaluation of Effects of Participating in the Project This section covers the following items: • Evaluation of the services provided under the Project • Impact of Project services on farms • Project material impact • Project social impact • Project negative effects • Overall satisfaction with the services provided under the Project Page 66 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 10.1. Evaluation of Services Provided Under the Project The Support to Community Seed Funds Project involved not only the distribution of seeds to target groups, but also the provision of services such as training, practical guidance, provision of greenhouses for growing seedlings by SHGs members and seed cleaners for CSF members. Besides improving farming practices, the Project goal was to affect positively on the quality of life in general. With this being said, one of the important tasks of this study was to find out the Project effects on beneficiaries’ quality of life: their financial position (increase in sales and incomes), yield, social status, and farm management practices. For this purpose, respondents rated each service on a 5-point scale, with 1 being completely useless, and 5 being very useful. According to the results of the analysis, all farmers find the services received useful (Table 10.1.1). CSF and SHG farmers emphasized the importance of the following services: • Knowledge on agro-technologies; • Seed quality; • Quality of mineral fertilizers. Visits to successful farms were also noted by the CSF members as a very important and useful experience for improving their own farms: “Exchange of agricultural production experience between farmers brings positive results in farm management. We were glad to high-quality seedsâ€?. Nikolai Rybin, a CSF member, Petrovka, Chui region “Such experience was necessary for rural residents. We were able to apply it on practiceâ€?. Paizylla Baimuratov, a CSF member, Kadamjai, Batken region Table 10.1.1. Evaluation of services by Project beneficiaries CSFs SHGs Total Obtained knowledge on agrotechnology 4,5 4,6 4,5 Obtained knowledge on farm accounting 4,3 4,5 4,4 Obtained knowledge on the processing of - 4,6 4,6 agricultural crops at home (for SHG) Experience gained from visiting successful 4,5 - 4,5 farms (for CSF) Quality of the seeds received 4,5 4,7 4,6 Quality of mineral fertilizers received 4,7 4,7 4,7 Received greenhouses - 4,7 4,6 Received seed cleaners 4,4 - 4,4 Page 67 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) In addition to the above services, respondents also noted the following positive effects of the Project: • Experience exchange between farmers; • Attainments on using the fertilizers properly; • Increased welfare of the household; • Knowledge of proper usage of natural fertilizers, which resulted in the consumption of organic vegetables; • Using technological map and seasonal calendar (weather forecast) made it possible to grow crops that have never been grown in a given locality. 10.2. Project Impact on Quality Improvement of Farms A key indicator of Project success is the Project's services impact on the productivity of beneficiaries’ farms. Respondents were asked to assess how much their yields grew in the Project year compared to the pre-Project year. The obtained data shows that Project services had a significant impact on crop productivity in comparison with the pre-Project period. Thus, majority of farmers from Chui, Jalalabad, Naryn, Talas and Batken regions noted increasing of yields due to the Project. Table 10.2.1. Project impact on increasing the yields CSF and SHG members (% N=506) Project impact on Chui Issyk-Kul Jalal-Abad Naryn Talas Batken Osh increasing the yields Yes 93% 58% 97% 94% 93% 89% 54% No 1% 38% 3% 1% 6% 10% 44% N/A 6% 4% 0% 5% 1% 1% 1% Table 10.2.2 shows increase of yields in percent change across the regions. The analysis show that majority of respondents could increase their yield up to 50%. Table 10.2.2. Increase in yields, beneficiaries (%, N=506) % of Issyk- Chui Jalal-Abad Naryn Talas Batken Osh increasing Kul 3-25% 24% 35% 9% 31% 76% 18% 31% 25-50% 31% 15% 41% 44% 17% 43% 8% 50-75% 18% 4% 8% 11% 0% 24% 8% 75-100% 21% 4% 39% 8% 0% 4% 7% TOTAL 93% 58% 97% 94% 93% 89% 54% Table 10.2.3 shows more detailed information about the farmers’ productivity across the Page 68 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) targeted groups. Most of CSFs show increasing the yield up to 50%. Here, Jalalabad region show the highest indicator. More than 50% of farmers noted that they could increase the yield up to 75-100% comparing to the pre Project year (Table 10.2.3). Table 10.2.3. Increase in yields, CSFs (%, n=257) % of Issyk- Chui Jalal-Abad Naryn Talas Batken Osh increasing Kul 3-25% 25.0% 38.9% 9.8% 30.6% 86.1% 19.4% 30.6% 25-50% 38.9% 8.3% 24.4% 33.3% 8.3% 33.3% 11.1% 50-75% 22.2% 2.8% 9.8% 19.4% 0.0% 25.0% 2.8% 75-100% 5.6% 2.8% 53.7% 11.1% 0.0% 2.8% 2.8% TOTAL 91.7% 52.8% 97.6% 94.4% 94,4% 80,6% 47.2% The same with SHG: most of the farmers has risen their yields up to 50% and 36.1% of respondents from Chui regions shows the highest indicator (75-100%) (Table 10.2.4). Table 10.2.4. Increase in yields, SHGs (%, n=249) % of Issyk- Chui Jalal-Abad Naryn Talas Batken Osh increasing Kul 3-25% 22,2% 30,6% 7,3% 30,6% 66,7% 16,7% 30,6% 25-50% 22,2% 22,2% 48,8% 55,6% 25,0% 52,8% 5,6% 50-75% 13,9% 5,6% 4,9% 2,8% 0,0% 22,2% 13,9% 75-100% 36,1% 5,6% 17,1% 5,6% 0,0% 5,6% 11,1% TOTAL 94,4% 63,9% 78,0% 94,4% 91,7% 97,2% 61,1% Among other positive effects of the Project, respondents noted that they stopped buying vegetables in bazaar: 31.8% of CSF and 73% of SHG members (Table 10.2.4). Here, such a gap can be explained by the fact that CSF farmers were more focused on growing large amounts of cereals for subsequent sale, whereas SHG members grew small amounts of vegetables on their homestead plots for personal consumption. Respondents also noted the following positive effects of the Project: • useful handouts; • environmentally friendly products free of Chinese herbicides; • knowledge on the usage of greenhouses for crops; • ability to create a seed stock for the next year. Non-certified seeds are no longer bought by 58.5% of CSF and 31.1% of SHG members (Table 10.2.4), that significantly affected on crop productivity, with a good Page 69 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) quality of seeds being the most important factor for good productivity. Table 10.2.5. Additional Project effects (%, N=506) CSFs SHGs We no longer buy vegetables in the bazaar 31.8% 73.0% We no longer buy non-certified seeds 58.5% 31.1% Due to the increased yield and use Project services, CSF and SHG farmers achieved also increase in sales of harvested crops. Chui, Jalalabd, Talas, Batken regions show higher indicators than other regions. (Table 10.2.6). Table 10.2.6. Increase in sales, beneficiaries (%, N=506) Project impact on Chui Issyk-Kul Jalal-Abad Naryn Talas Batken Osh increasing the yields Yes 38% 40% 53% 42% 69% 57% 39% No 24% 56% 47% 58% 29% 43% 58% N/A 39% 4% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% Table 10.2.7 shows that majority of farmers could achieve 25% sales increasing. Farmers in Jalalabad, Naryn, Batken regions could achieve sale increasing up to 50%. Table 10.2.7. Increase in sales, beneficiaries (%, N=506) Chui Issyk-Kul Jalal-Abad Naryn Talas Batken Osh 3-25% 17% 28% 1% 8% 58% 4% 24% 25-50% 13% 8% 30% 22% 11% 33% 6% 50-75% 4% 1% 8% 7% 0% 19% 3% 75-100% 4% 3% 14% 4% 0% 0% 7% TOTAL 38% 40% 53% 42% 69% 57% 39% Tables 10.2.8 and 10.2.9 shows this indicator across the main beneficiaries SHGs and CSFs. Thus, it has shown that CSFs has more sales than farmers from Self Help Group do. It can be explained by the fact that Community Seed Fund farmers have more land resources and they were more oriented on sales than SHG. In total, farmers of CSF could achieve sales increasing up to 50%, in Jalalabad region – up to 100% (Table 10.2.8). Table 10.2.8. Increase in sales, CSFs (%, N=257) % of Issyk- Chui Jalal-Abad Naryn Talas Batken Osh increasing Kul Page 70 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 3-25% 11% 15% 1% 3% 32% 0% 14% 25-50% 11% 4% 8% 8% 1% 17% 4% 50-75% 4% 0% 8% 7% 0% 10% 1% 75-100% 4% 1% 14% 3% 0% 0% 1% TOTAL 31% 21% 31% 21% 33% 26% 21% Concerning Self Help Group farmers, the high volume of sales was indicated by farmers in Jalalabad, Naryn, Batken region. Here the sales volume increased up to 25-50% (Table 10.2.9). Table 10.2.9. Increase in sales, SHG (%, N=249) % of Issyk- Chui Jalal-Abad Naryn Talas Batken Osh increasing Kul 3-25% 6% 13% 0% 6% 26% 4% 10% 25-50% 1% 4% 22% 14% 10% 17% 1% 50-75% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 10% 1% 75-100% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 6% TOTAL 7% 19% 22% 21% 36% 31% 18% Respondents associated this increase in sales with the following factors: • good marketable appearance of the crop; • knowledge on proper land cultivation methods; • quality seeds and fertilizers, which yielded twice as much as habitual materials. 10.3. Effect of Project Services on Farms’ Financial Situation An important effect of the Project was the improved financial situation of farmers. Since the main target groups of the Project were families living in poverty, one of the goals of the Project was to improve their finance-generating capacity and the financial situation in general. To assess this aspect, respondents were asked about the financial situation of the family before and after participating in the Project. Noteworthy is that the following question was used to evaluate farmers’ financial situation: “How would you describe the financial situation of your household before you joined the Project and now? â€? with the following answers: Page 71 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) 1 Income is enough for us to make expensive purchases (furniture, appliances, etc.). And savings 2 Income is enough for us to make expensive purchases (furniture, appliances, etc..), But no savings 3 Income is enough for all the running costs, but for expensive purchases and saving money is not enough 4 Income is only enough for food and the most necessary clothing 5 Income is not enough even for food It is important to note that the financial situation was evaluated subjectively by each respondent. This assessment of respondents was carried out to determine the change in their financial situation. Responses were used to create a list, which allows seeing the income level of each family, disaggregated by high, medium and low categories. Table 10.3.1 shows that the number CSF farmers with a high level of income has increased two and a half times in comparison with the pre-Project period. Accordingly, the number of low-income farmers decreased. Table 10.3.1. Financial situation of families of CSF and SHG members before and after the Project CSFs SHGs before 17.9% 12.9% High after 46.2% 30.1% before 55.6% 32.9% Medium after 47.9% 53.0% before 23.7% 49.4% Low after 5,8% 16,9% In most regions, CSF members show good results in improving the financial situation of their families through participation in the Project. For instance, there was no a high- income farmer in Jalal-Abad region in the pre-Project period, while after participating in the Project, 2.7% of respondents noted a high level of income. Also, the number of people who improved the financial situation of their family has almost tripled in Chui, Issyk-Kul, Talas and Osh regions (Table 10.3.2). Table 10.3.2. Financial situation before and after participating in the Project (CSFs, N=257) Issyk- Chui Jalal-Abad Naryn Talas Batken Osh TOTAL Kul before 3.1% 2.3% 0.0% 4.3% 1.2% 5.8% 1.2% 17.9% High after 5.4% 10.5% 2.7% 4.7% 8.9% 7.0% 7.0% 46.2% Medium before 8.9% 9.7% 3.5% 8.9% 7.8% 4.7% 12.1% 55.6% Page 72 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) after 8.2% 2.7% 9.3% 9.3% 5.1% 6.6% 6.6% 47.9% before 1.9% 1.9% 9.7% 0.8% 5.1% 3.5% 0.8% 23.7% Low after 0.4% 0.8% 3.9% - - 0.4% 0.4% 5.8% As for the SHG farmers, half of them had a low income level in the pre-Project period. After joining the Project, the living standards of most farmers have been improved (Table 10.3.3). Noteworthy is that farmers with a high level of income has more than tripled in Osh, Talas and Issyk-Kul regions compared to the pre-Project year (Table 10.3.3). Table 10.3.3. Financial situation before and after participating in the Project (SHGs, N=249) Issyk- Chui Jalal-Abad Naryn Talas Batken Osh TOTAL Kul before 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 1.6% 7.6% 0.4% 12.9% High after 1.6% 2.8% 1.6% 3.6% 4.8% 8.4% 7.2% 30.1% before 0.0% 4.0% 2.0% 7.2% 4.8% 5.6% 9.2% 32.9% Medium after 7.2% 8.4% 10.0% 9.6% 6.0% 4.8% 6.8% 53.0% before 14.5% 10.4% 11.2% 4.0% 8.0% 1.2% 4.0% 49.4% Low after 21.7% 18.9% 21.3% 13.7% 14.1% 6.0% 10.8% 16.9% Once again, the Project had a positive impact on the beneficiaries and their financial situation. Through increase in incomes, beneficiaries were able to make more expensive purchases, improve their housing conditions and life in general. 10.4. Project Social Impact One of the Project goas was to improve social ties and communications between farmers. The establishment of CSFs and SHGs served as an important tool for achieving this goal. Building mutually beneficial relations between farmers and between residents of their and neighboring villages is extremely important for farming. This opens up many opportunities for farmers to improve their farming practices, exchange of experience, collective solving of issues, etc. In addition to direct impact on farms and farmers’ financial situation, the Project also had a positive social impact. In general, the majority of respondents (over 50%) noted improvement in all social aspects. In particular, the majority of respondents noted that they managed to establish create beneficial relations between CSF and SHG famers, which help them in solving problems relating to crop growing. Noteworthy is that equal proportions of respondents in both groups (over 80%) noted the above, which indicates the importance of this cooperation for both CSFs and SHGs (Table 10.4.1). Also, more than 60% of respondents noted that they began to cooperate with the residents of neighboring villages, which includes expanding ties, sharing experience and knowledge on growing agricultural crops, and subsequently led to a reduction in conflict situations Page 73 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) over land use. In general, the improvement of the social status in the eyes of villagers was noted by more than 77% of farmers, which is important for building interpersonal relations with fellow villagers. The involvement of farmers in Project activities, working in groups and development under a common cause allowed more than 80% of farmers from both groups to feel themselves useful to society and to increase the importance of the things they do (Table 10.4.1). Table10.4.1. Project social impact on CSF and SHG members across all regions (%, N=506) CSFs SHGs TOTAL Improved social status 77.40% 81.20% 79.3% Cooperation with CSFs and SHGs 80.10% 83.00% 81.6% Cooperation with residents of neighboring villages 64.20% 62.50% 63.4% Incomes received with Project assistance helped to pay for children’s education 36.60% 33.60% 35.1% Our CSF/SHG participates in village governance 63.80% 53.60% 58.7% Reduces conflicts with other villagers over land use 65.00% 62.40% 63.7% We felt useful thanks to the Project 84.80% 92.20% 88.5% The disaggregation of study results by region is shown in the Appendix. 10.5. Project Negative Aspects Negative aspects are also a source of useful information for building the overall picture of the Project's outcomes and lessons learned. In this regard, the Project beneficiaries were also asked questions about conflicts and negative sides, if any. It was found that the number of farmers who provided negative feedbacks about the Project is less than 2% (Table 10.5.1). This indicates an extremely high level of satisfaction with the Project among the beneficiaries. Table 10.5.1. Farmers who noted negative aspects of the Project (%, N=506) Chui Issyk-Kul Jalal-Abad Naryn Talas Batken Osh CSFs 0.0% 0.4% 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% SHGs 1.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% TOTAL 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% - 2% 0 Respondents who provided negative feedbacks about the Project noted the following aspects: • Late provision of greenhouses - (farmers in Chui and Naryn regions); • Provision of an inappropriate potato variety. In consultation with ABCC representatives, researchers identified the reasons laying behind the said problems. Page 74 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) The greenhouses were not provided in due time, as the local supplier encountered some problems and was unable to provide the necessary equipment on time. As for the provision of an inappropriate potato variety, the issue was that the procurement rules prohibit calling the variety title, while the winner of the bidding must meet meets all technical requirements. Noteworthy is that a variety selected is not always most demanded in the market and best for farmers. For the purpose of increasing the efficiency of crop farming, famers also were provided greenhouses (SHGs) and seed cleaning machines (CSFs). A total of 60% of respondents received them. Respondents who received the above equipment were asked questions about the occurrence of conflicts between farmers when using greenhouses and equipment received. Only 2 people (0.4%) from among CSFs and SHGs noted that conflict situations occurred and were mainly caused by there are conflict situations, and they are mainly related to taking turns in using the equipment. 10.6. Overall Satisfaction with Project Services To summarize, almost all the beneficiaries were satisfied with the Project and the related services: 96% of CSFs and 100% of SHGs (Table 10.6.1). Table 10.6.1. Overall satisfaction with Project services CSFs SHGs Are you satisfied with Project services overall? 96% 100% The Project helped farmers to improve the following aspects of their lives: • Improvement of the financial situation gave farmers new opportunities to improve the quality of life – by giving higher education to their children, saving money, making expensive purchases (furniture, household appliances, etc.); • Famers acquired new knowledge and skills in crop production and financial management. Participants found trainings to be very useful and noted the importance and regular practical use of the knowledge received. In particular, farmers noted that they learned about the possibility to produce new crops, which they have never planted before due to weather conditions; • Quality seeds and new knowledge led to an almost twofold increase in crop yield; • Farmers obtained new knowledge on the use of mineral fertilizers. Reduced use of Chinese herbicides and chemical fertilizers helped them grow and consume organic products; Page 75 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) • Participation in the Project led to an improved social status of financial condition of the family; • Mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of growing agricultural crops was established between CSF and SHG members, as well as with residents of other villages. In general, farmers were very satisfied with the services of the Project, and described their experience as follows: “Thanks to the Project, we learned how to plant vegetables properly, in accordance with our weather conditions. We could not imagine that it was possible to grow vegetables in our region“. Umida Sherimbaeva, a SHG member, Shakhta-Jyrgalan, Ak-Suu rayon “Thanks to the Project, I got an abundant yieldâ€?. Asymbai Nogoibaiev, a CSF member, Kemin "The Project helped us a lot. Before this Project I did not realize that it is possible to get a good harvest. The amount of vegetables grown was so high that we could even sell some of them in the market“. Azamat Suyunbaev, a SHG member, Borbash, Osh region "The Project helped us a lot. Thanks to the trainings, we learned all the nuances from sowing to harvesting. Our family also began to use a spending book.“ Zuvarkhan Rahmanova, a SHG member, Aravan, Osh region “Through participation in the Project I learned to grow crops that are only suitable for greenhousesâ€?. Aida Tursunova, a SHG member, Shakhta-Jyrgalan, Ak-Su rayon “We are very grateful to the Project. We made a profit three times higherâ€?. Jyrgal Bekmyrzaev, a CSF member, Aksy, Jalal-Abad region The following recommendations were made by the respondents, which as they think will improve the Project: • To expand village coverage; • To reduce the cost of saltpeter by 30-40%; • To bring more machinery, if possible (tractors, combine harvesters); Page 76 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) • To continue the Project, to organize more trainings involving women (women do not know how to plant tomatoes, cucumbers, they waste seeds); • To organize a potato storage; • To extend the return period; • To expand training by incorporating more practical exercises; • To expand the range of seeds to include clover, esparcet, beans (lopatka), potatoes (santa), pumpkin, soybeans, and sugar beet; • If continuing the Project is not possible, to advice farmers on the places where they could purchase quality seeds and pay for the same in installments; • To conduct training in the winter; • To organize training on the use of greenhouses; • To organize a similar Project targeting different crops; • To help establish connections with other companies - potential customers of crops. 11. Conclusion The main objective of this study was to evaluate the Support to Community Seed Funds Project aimed supporting the rural population living in poverty or extreme poverty. The Project beneficiaries were small farmers, rural households, the community seed fund (CSF) and self-help groups (SHGs). From the beginning of 2015 to 2017, the Project covered 10, 431 beneficiaries who were willing to participate in the Project and met the eligibility criteria. M-Vector conducted an evaluation survey among the Project participants in order to evaluate comprehensively the results of Project interventions, including the economic, social, financial impact on the life of the beneficiaries. The analysis of the data obtained resulted in the following conclusions: • Respondents’ sample and farms’ profile: the study was conducted in all regions of Kyrgyzstan, with at least 90 rural residents interviewed in each of them; where 40.8% were Community Seed Fund members, 39.5% - Self-Help Group members, and 19.7% - Non-Participating Farmers. On average, 2-3 members from family are involved in agricultural activities on full-time basis, with the proportion of males being higher than that of females, while a bit dominance of female in part time engagement into agricultural activities. The survey involved almost equal proportions of men and women (53% and 47%, respectively). Page 77 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) • Land: The majority of the surveyed farmers use own land plots and homestead plots for growing crops. The homestead plots are most popular among SHG members, as they are smaller farmers. • Agricultural machinery and equipment: It is noteworthy that according to the results of the baseline and final studies a significantly larger number of farmers own agricultural machinery and equipment. It is important to note that equipment private ownership rate has increased for 2.5 times despite considering the larger number of respondents in the final evaluation (as compared to 400 respondents in the baseline study). This signifies both the increase of farmers’ incomes and improvement of farmers’ financial ability in general. • Crop production structure and dynamics: The results of the study show that most of the farmers grow such crops as cabbage, potatoes, carrots, cucumbers and tomatoes. Yet, farmers’ favorite crops vary across regions depending on weather and geographical conditions: farmers in Jalal-Abad region prefer growing corn and tomatoes, in Naryn region – cabbage and carrots. At the same time, the majority of respondents in all target groups focus on selling potatoes as the most selling and demanded crop. The analysis of crop production dynamics disaggregated by year shows that there is a change in the structure of crops among the Project beneficiaries. While CSFs grew mainly potatoes in 2015, the range of crops also included wheat and barley in 2017. The expanded range is also true for SHGs. In 2015, most of them grew carrots, while in 2016, they also started growing cabbage, cucumbers, tomatoes, and in 2017 – red beet. NPFs do not demonstrate any significant expansion of crops grown over time. This indicates the fact that the Project gave farmers an opportunity to expand their product range by providing quality seeds and appropriate training; farmers were not afraid of taking risk and trying new things. • Project impact on crop productivity: The analysis of key crop dynamics over three years for all target groups suggests that all the services provided by Project including provision with seeds and fertilizers, trainings and other support services allowed all beneficiaries to increase the yield by an average of 1.5 times. The highest increase in yields w demonstrated by farms under CSF group. SHGs also showed increased yields for all key crops. At the same time, NPFs (control group) Page 78 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) did not show stable dynamics of yield change. It means that the seeds and knowledge received during the Project had a great impact on yields. • Key issues hampering efficient and effective crop farming: In general, the analysis identified the following problems that concerns farmers: high prices for F&L, mechanized services, fertilizers and seeds and unstable prices for products. Problems related to agricultural materials and services were mostly significant for residents of Issyk-Kul region: lack of quality fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural machinery, advisory service, and information on prices. Land-related problems turned out to be significant for respondents in Batken and Talas regions (lack of land and inadequate irrigation). • Sale of agricultural production: according to the study results, over 50% of the grown production goes for personal consumption in the household. Most selling cereals include wheat, barley, alfalfa, corn; vegetables grown for selling are potatoes, tomatoes, and onions. • Return on seeds: The results show that returns were achieved more by CSFs than SHGs. Higher returns were observed for cereals such as wheat, alfalfa, esparcet and corn, and vegetables such as potatoes, tomatoes and cucumbers. • Project impact of financial situation: the Project had a positive impact on the beneficiaries and their financial situation. Due to increase in incomes, beneficiaries were able to make more expensive purchases, improve their housing conditions and life in general. 36.3% of respondents noted that the incomes were used to improve the “quality of nutritionâ€? as the primary purpose. • Project social impact. The establishment of CSFs and SHGs served as an important tool for creating additional opportunity for close cooperation between fellow villagers. It helped them to create a platform for solving common issues, exchange experience and knowledge in farming. The involvement of farmers in Project activities, working in groups and development under a common goal allowed more than 80% of farmers from both groups to feel themselves useful to society and increase the importance of the things they do. Page 79 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) Summing up the evaluation results, it can be said that more than 90% of the beneficiaries were satisfied with the services provided under the Project. The Project helped farmers to improve various aspects of life such as the financial situation - through increased yields and training received; mutually beneficial cooperation on the issues of growing agricultural crops between CSF and SHG members, as well as with residents of other villages that resulted in improved agricultural crop productivity and the life of farmers in general. 12. Recommendations • Ask beneficiaries to write down the sales and yield in the pre-Project and Project years just after distributing seeds. It will allow conducting final evaluation survey in correct way. • If possible, to carry out a project to train in/implement land irrigation technologies (especially in Talas and Batken regions). In addition, it would be good to conduct training on crop protection in case of natural disasters. • To create a database of Project participants containing a quantitative assessment of their land, human, financial and other resources for planning joint activities between stakeholders. Farmers provide information on their existing production resources; types of crops, collected harvest, planned harvest and other types of data that further will spread to potential buyers who will be able to contact the management of CSFs and SHGs directly to negotiate potential supply. This will help them reach potential customers and establish the right networks. • Establishment an advisory service in post-Project period that will advise/assist in the management of crop production for a certain time. According to respondents, such assistance could include providing information on prices for crops, fertilizers, agricultural materials and services; referral to places where farmers could purchase certified seeds, and the provision of greenhouses, if possible. Recommendations provided by farmers include but are not limited to the following: • To rovide seeds earlier to allow farmers plant them in the that year ; • To extend the return period; • If possible, continue the Project, organize more trainings involving women (women do not know how to plant tomatoes, cucumbers); Page 80 of 81 The World Bank Support to Community Seed Funds (P144338) • To expand variety of seeds including clover, esparcet, beans (lopatka), potatoes (santa), pumpkin, soybeans, and sugar beet; • To help establish connections with other companies - potential customers of farmers’ harvest; • To conduct training in winter time; • To organize training on using the greenhouses; • If extension the Project is not possible, advice farmers on the places where they could purchase sertified seeds with opportunity to pay in installments • To organize a potato storage; • To organize a similar Project targeting different crops. Page 81 of 81