Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR2934 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-92337) ON A FOOD PRICE CRISIS RESPONSE TRUST FUND GRANT UNDER THE GLOBAL PRICE CRISIS RESPONSE PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 5.0 MILLION AND A RUSSIA FOOD PRICE CRISIS RAPID RESPONSE TRUST FUND ADDITIONAL FINANCING IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 6.25 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF TAJIKISTAN FOR A EMERGENCY FOOD SECURITY AND SEED IMPORTS PROJECT September 17, 2013 Sustainable Development Department Central Asia Country Unit Europe and Central Asia Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective August 21, 2013) Currency Unit = Somoni US$ 1.00 = 4.7665 Tajikistan Somoni (TJS) FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ADB Asian Development Bank CPG Community Production Group CPS Country Partnership Strategy CSF Community Seed Fund CSRP Cotton Sector Reform Project DF Dehkan Farm EMP Environmental Management Plan FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FPSP Farm Privatization Support Project GFCRP Global Food Crisis Response Program JPIU Joint Project Implementation Unit KPI Key Performance Indicators M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoF Ministry of Finance NGO Non-Governmental Organization PDO Project Development Objective PMU Project Management Unit SIDA Swedish International Development Association TFFCR Trust Fund for Food Crisis Response TJS Tajikistan Somoni WFP World Food Program Vice President: Laura Tuck Country Director: Saroj Kumar Jha Sector Manager: Dina Umali-Deininger Project/ICR Team Leader: Bobojon Yatimov ICR Author: Malathi Jayawickrama ii TAJIKISTAN EMERGENCY FOOD SECURITY AND SEED IMPORTS PROJECT CONTENTS DATA SHEET ..................................................................................................................... iv A. Basic Information............................................................................................................ iv B. Key Dates ........................................................................................................................ iv C. Ratings Summary ............................................................................................................ iv D. Sector and Theme Codes ..................................................................................................v E. Bank Staff ..........................................................................................................................v F. Results Framework Analysis ........................................................................................... vi G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs ......................................................................... ix H. Restructuring (if any) ...................................................................................................... ix I. Disbursement Profile .........................................................................................................x 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ......................................................1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .....................................................5 3. Assessment of Outcomes ...................................................................................................9 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome................................................................19 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ............................................................20 6. Lessons Learned ..............................................................................................................22 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .................23 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .................................................................................24 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ........................................................................................25 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ........................................................................31 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ...................37 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ..................................................................................39 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results..........................................................40 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ............................41 Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders .............................43 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents .............................................................................44 MAP iii DATA SHEET A. Basic Information EMERGENCY FOOD Country: Tajikistan Project Name: SECURITY AND SEED IMPORTS PROJECT Project ID: P112157 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-92337 ICR Date: 10/29/2013 ICR Type: Core ICR REPUBLIC OF Lending Instrument: ERL Borrower: TAJIKISTAN Original Total USD 5.00M Disbursed Amount: USD 4.97M Commitment: Revised Amount: USD 4.97M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Project Management Unit The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Cofinanciers and Other External Partners: B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 22/05/2008 Effectiveness: 09/17/2008 03/03/2010 Appraisal: Restructuring(s): 12/21/2010 Approval: 06/13/2008 Mid-term Review: 10/17/2011 10/10/2011 Closing: 05/01/2010 05/01/2013 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Satisfactory iv C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance: Performance: C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments (if Indicators Rating Performance any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry No None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of Supervision No None time (Yes/No): (QSA): DO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status: D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Animal production 35 35 Crops 65 65 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Global food crisis response 100 100 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Laura Tuck Shigeo Katsu Country Director: Saroj Kumar Jha Annette Dixon Sector Manager: Dina Umali-Deininger Peter D. Thomson Project Team Leader: Bobojon Yatimov Bekzod Shamsiev ICR Team Leader: Bobojon Yatimov ICR Primary Author: Malathi S. Jayawickrama v F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) To increase domestic food production and reduce the loss of livestock to help at least 28,000 poorest households in a timely manner to reduce the negative impact of high and volatile food prices. Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) To: (i) increase domestic food production and reduce livestock losses to help at least 55,000 poorest households; (ii) improve the ability of poor households to deal with seed shortages due to poor crops; and (iii) promote private commercial farming in order to increase food production and diversification. (a) PDO Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Increase in cereal production by at least 35,000 tons for 55,000 food insecure rural Indicator 1 : households Value 35,000 tons for 0 for cereal production 25,000 tons for 51,000 tons for quantitative or 55,000 from high quality seed 28,000 households 93,000 households Qualitative) households Date achieved 05/27/2008 06/30/2009 03/03/2010 05/01/2013 Comments (incl. % 145% achievement in tons and 170% achievement in households that benefited. achievement) Reduce livestock losses as reflected in declined mortality rates among livestock held Indicator 2 : by 7,000 beneficiary households Mortality rate of Value large ruminants quantitative or 35% 20% reduced by 72%; of Qualitative) small ruminants reduced by 96% Date achieved 05/27/2008 06/30/2009 05/01/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Indicator 3 : New functioning community production groups Value quantitative or 0 1,095 1,480 Qualitative) Date achieved 05/27/2008 03/03/2010 05/01/2013 vi Comments (incl. % 135% achievement. achievement) Increase in share of non-cotton agriculture in the total value of agriculture sector Indicator 4 : output Value quantitative or 50% 60% 65% Qualitative) Date achieved 06/30/2009 03/03/2010 05/01/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) Indicator 5 : Food production increased by at least 10% during the project life. Value quantitative or 0 10% 35% Qualitative) Date achieved 06/30/2009 03/03/2010 05/01/2013 Comments (incl. % achievement) (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Indicator 1 : Area planted by beneficiary households Value (quantitative 0 7,500 hectares 7,700 hectares or Qualitative) Date achieved 05/27/2008 06/30/2009 05/01/2013 Comments (incl. % 103% achievement achievement) Indicator 2 : Volume of livestock fodder produced associated with project activities Value at least 10,000 21,000 to 24,500 (quantitative 0 tons tons or Qualitative) Date achieved 05/27/2008 03/03/2010 05/01/2013 Comments (incl. % 210% achievement achievement) vii Indicator 3 : Number of people trained in extension programs in the project areas Value (quantitative 0 5,250 12,166 or Qualitative) Date achieved 05/27/2008 06/30/2009 05/01/2013 Comments (incl. % 231% achievement achievement) Indicator 4 : Volume of seed and fertilizer delivered to CPGs (tons) 450 tons of Value seed and 1,100 470 tons of seed and (quantitative 0 tons of 941 tons of fertilizer or Qualitative) fertilizer Date achieved 05/27/2008 03/03/2010 05/01/2013 Comments 104% achievement in seeds delivered and 85% achievement in fertilizer delivered to (incl. % CPGs achievement) Number of families receiving seed and other benefits through community production Indicator 5 : groups Value (quantitative 0 18,000 25,000 or Qualitative) Date achieved 05/27/2008 03/03/2010 05/01/2013 Comments (incl. % 139% achievement achievement) Number of people participating in seminars for dealers, farmers and agricultural Indicator 6 : experts Value (quantitative 0 1,150 2,997 or Qualitative) Date achieved 05/27/2008 03/03/2010 05/01/2013 Comments (incl. % 260% achievement achievement) Indicator 7 : Value of private sector sales in agro-inputs nationwide Value (quantitative 17 million US$ 30 million US$ 57 million US$ or Qualitative) Date achieved 06/30/2009 03/03/2010 05/01/2013 Comments (incl. % 190% achievement achievement) viii G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Actual Date ISR No. DO IP Disbursements Archived (USD millions) 1 12/29/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 06/29/2009 Satisfactory Satisfactory 5.00 3 01/30/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 5.00 4 07/10/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 5.00 5 12/20/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.97 6 06/20/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.97 7 12/24/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.97 8 05/17/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 4.97 H. Restructuring (if any) ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Restructuring Disbursed at Reason for Restructuring & Approved Date(s) Restructuring Key Changes Made PDO Change DO IP in USD millions To add US$6.25 in Additional 03/03/2010 Y S S 5.00 Financing and to enhance (scale up) the PDO and activities. To add the Fertilizer Revolving 12/21/2010 N S S 5.00 Fund to enable part (iii) of the PDO to be met. If PDO and/or Key Outcome Targets were formally revised (approved by the original approving body) enter ratings below: Outcome Ratings Against Original PDO/Targets Satisfactory Against Formally Revised PDO/Targets Satisfactory Overall (weighted) rating Satisfactory ix I. Disbursement Profile x 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal 1. Tajikistan experienced a significant increase in food insecurity during 2007-2008, following a harsh winter that resulted in power shortages, increased energy prices, reduced cereal production and livestock productivity, and considerable hardship for low-income households. The sharply rising prices of imported food and their volatility in 2008 further exacerbated the difficulties of the poor in an already deeply poor country, where approximately 5.2 million people lived in rural areas, and an estimated 3.4 million or 65% of whom were living below the poverty line of $2.15/day. 1 2. Food monitoring and food security surveys indicated that these events had affected some 550,000 people who were suffering from food shortages and remained vulnerable to further shocks. Low-income rural people survived the winter by selling livestock and using their limited food and seed reserves, but now lacked the resources to assure food production and cope with rising food prices. Households in cotton-growing areas were the worst affected. Unfortunately, the traditional focus on cotton had resulted in a disproportionate allocation of public and private resources to this sector, and the requirement that farmers in cotton areas had to use at least 80% of their arable land for cotton had forced them to depend heavily on a single, low-return cash crop for their livelihoods. 2 The previous summer’s drought, combined with the severe winter had also weakened much of the livestock in Tajikistan, which for the poor resembled a savings account and that account had been significantly depleted. With minimal income and the limited ability to grow forage crops and the constraints to livestock production for their own consumption, farmers in these areas, especially in the Khatlon region had inevitably become some of the poorest people in Tajikistan. This high level of poverty in turn reduced their capacity to respond to external shocks. Consumers also remained highly dependent on imported food and vulnerable to rising world food prices. Worldwide, the ultimate solution to increased cereal prices was greater cereal production, but with rapidly rising prices for agricultural inputs combined with significant constraints to accessing credit, Tajik farmers were not expected to become part of this solution. Both producers and consumers were suffering as a result and remained vulnerable to further shocks. 3. A UN Flash Appeal was conducted to address the humanitarian crisis following the severe winter, including measures to address the food crisis, and the Government of Tajikistan (GOT) made an urgent plea for support from the international community. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), World Food Program (WFP) and The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) had conducted a needs assessment that had identified urgent priorities including: i) nutrition (special emphasis on children), and ii) providing agricultural inputs to the most needy and vulnerable the country. 1 Tajikistan Emergency Food Security and Seed Imports Project (EFSIP), Restructuring Paper, July 23, 2009. 2 The World Bank’s Cotton Sector Recovery Project (CSRP), which aimed to remove policy distortions that had led to the cotton crisis, had become effective on September 28, 2007. 1 4. The Bank proposed to provide support through the Emergency Food Security and Seed Imports Project (EFSSIP), for agricultural inputs to the most needy and vulnerable (and separate additional financing for the Community and Basic Health Project). The EFSSIP was to channel resources through the UN system. Both activities were to be financed from the Trust Fund for Food Crisis Response (TFFCR). Consistent with the principles of OP 8.0, the project was to address major adverse economic and social impacts resulting from further agricultural yield depressions and reduce the loss in livestock population below sustainability levels. The Project was to be implemented in close coordination with other development partners in line with the comparative advantage and core competencies of each such partner. Specifically, the EFSSIP was to be implemented by the FAO per the framework established by the Global Food Crisis Response Program (GFCRP), and the TFFCR. EFSSIP was approved on June 13, 2008 and became effective on September 17, 2008. 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators 5. The PDO was to increase domestic food production and reduce the loss of livestock to help at least 28,000 poorest households in a timely manner to reduce the negative impact of high and volatile food prices. 6. The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were: 3 (i) Grain harvested from packages; (ii) Spring reproductive rate from livestock supported under program. The target values for the KPIs to be achieved by June 30, 2009 were: (i) between 25,000 to 40,000 (baseline zero); and (ii) 80% (baseline of 65%). 1.3 Revised PDO and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 7. EFSSIP, which was conceived as an emergency measure, was successfully implemented by FAO and the US$5 million was fully disbursed in March 2009. While it improved the food security situation for 25% of the poorest rural households, other structural problems in agriculture (low yields due to lack of quality seeds and fertilizer) still affected most households’ food security status and their coping strategies. To increase food production and diversification in the short to medium-term, the project was restructured (Level 1) on March 3, 2010 with additional financing of US$6.25 million from the Russia Food Price Crisis Rapid Response Trust Fund (Russia FPCR TF). This enabled to scale up the original grant and add new activities to accomplish a broader PDO. On December 21, 2010, EFSSIP was restructured again (Level 2) to add a new activity to Component E, to set up a Revolving Fund for fertilizer imports. The proposed changes were requested by the government to deal with the situation created by the collapse of the fertilizer supply chain. This chain, which had already been very weak, could not cope with the vast logistical problems stemming from the situation in neighboring countries. In order to revive and stabilize fertilizer supply networks, especially for non-cotton fertilizer supply, the government wanted to establish an alternative chain of fertilizer provision through a network 3 Food Price Crisis Response Trust Fund Emergency Project Paper, May 27, 2008. 2 of private dealers. Specifically, the government sought to set up a revolving fund to be used to import fertilizers for non-cotton crops by the project’s PMU to be channeled through merchants. This activity was also to increase the likelihood of achieving part (iii) of the revised PDO. 8. The revised PDO was to: (i) increase domestic food production and reduce livestock losses to help at least 55,000 poorest households; (ii) improve the ability of poor households to deal with seed shortages due to poor crops; and (iii) promote private commercial farming in order to increase food production and diversification. 9. The revised KPIs were: (i) increase in cereal production by at least 35,000 tons for 55,000 food insecure rural households; (ii) reduce livestock losses as reflected in declined mortality rates among livestock held by 7,000 beneficiary households; (iii) new functioning community production groups; (iv) increase in share of non-cotton agriculture in the total value of agriculture sector output; (v) food production increased by at least 10% during the project life. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries 10. The project targeted the highly food insecure regions and was expected to improve the food security situation of about 25% of the poorest rural households in the Khatlon region and in Rasht Valley. EFSSIP used a number of selection criteria to identify the most vulnerable groups that were pronounced as “acutely food insecure” by the joint UNICEF/WFP/FAO assessment in early 2008. On the basis of the 2007 Tajikistan Living Standards Survey, which identified the household characteristics that were strongly correlated with rural poverty, EFSSIP focused on the following for beneficiary selection: female-headed households with three or more children under the age of five; smaller land holdings; and lower livestock ownership. To increase food production and diversification in the short to medium term, the additional financing aimed to help these households to deal with seed shortages and promote private commercial farming. 1.5 Original Components 11. Component A: Support for Agricultural Inputs (US$ 2.7m) aimed to provide agricultural inputs in Tajikistan. The support included standard packages composed of high quality seed for winter wheat and fertilizer to be distributed by October in time for the winter planting season. The higher yielding wheat varieties were to help farmers to take advantage of fall rains in raising a successful winter crop. As demonstrated by the similar (drought) emergency package supplied in 2001, this was also expected to help boost the country’s wheat yields and improve food security in the medium term. Estimates suggested that a package valued at US$80 per household would be sufficient to support winter wheat production of 28,000 families. 12. Component B: Improvement of Livestock Health and Husbandry (US$ 1.8m) was also to support the FAO program and aimed to improve livestock health and husbandry. The funding was to support the purchase of a package of veterinary services that would ensure that minimal vaccination and treatment of the most critical diseases and pests (worms) 3 and the purchase of feed (mainly concentrates). It was estimated that a package valued at about US$250 per household would suffice to cover livestock of some 7,000 families. 13. Component C: Project Management (US$ 500,000) was to cover project management costs incurred by FAO, and also cover expenses such as program audit, the hiring of additional specialists, as well as training and monitoring and evaluation. 1.6 Revised Components 14. To achieve the further objectives, additional financing was allocated for the existing project Component A: Support for Agricultural Inputs, and to Component C: Project Management, and to two new components included in the EFSSIP for “Community Production Groups” and “Ago-Input Supply Market Development”. Managing these additional activities also required additional financing for the PMU. There were no changes to Component B - Improvement of Livestock Health and Husbandry of the original EFSSIP design, except for modest reallocation of project savings from this component to Component A. 15. Component A: Support for Agriculture Inputs (originally US$ 2.7m). An additional US$1.65m (for a total of US$ 5.15m including reallocation of US$800,000 of uncommitted funds from Component B) was included to finance imports of high quality winter wheat seeds and fertilizer in time for autumn 2009 plantings in the severely food insecure areas identified by WFP Food Security Monitoring System. A package valued at about US$60 per household was considered sufficient to support another 27,000 families. 16. Component B: Improvement of Livestock Health and Husbandry (originally US$ l.8m). No additional financing was allocated to Component B. This component was modified to provide fodder (alfalfa) seed and fertilizer for beneficiary households due to difficulties in securing veterinary supplies and animal feed. The cost savings of about US$800,000 from these changes and a fall in seed and fertilizer prices were reallocated to Component A. 17. Component C: FAO Project Management (originally US$0.5m). An additional US$ 165,000 was allocated for project management costs incurred by FAO. 18. Component D - Community Production Groups (CPGs) (US$ 3.235 million). This new component was to support the formation and functioning of groups of poor rural households at the community level to help them improve their food security and nutrition and simultaneously diversify their production away from the predominant, but unprofitable cotton crop. This program was to be implemented with the involvement of local grassroots NGOs, who would help to identify eligible group members, assist in the formation of the groups, provide basic training, and help to monitor program implementation and impact. 19. Component E - Agro-Input Supply Market Development (US$0.9m) aimed to develop a private network of agro-input dealers to supply Tajik farmers with quality inputs and technical knowledge that would increase farm incomes and reverse the low-input, low- output spiral. This component was to finance the following activities: (i) assess the needs of 4 farmers and the agro-input demand and supply situation; (ii) identify potential agro-input dealers and conduct training; (iii) organize field demonstrations with improved technologies; (iv) produce technical brochures and conduct public outreach to increase production and stimulate farmer demand for inputs; and (v) help dealers to find supplies and credit, expand business, and provide extension services. 20. Component F - PMU Project Management (US$0.3 million) was to finance coordination of the new activities and the fiduciary functions of the Project Management Unit (PMU). 1.7 Other significant changes 21. The PMU for the Cotton Sector Recovery Project (CSRP) was to coordinate implementation of Components D, E and F, while the FAO was to continue implementing Components A, B and C, given the satisfactory implementation arrangements under the original project design. The PMU was a specialized unit created to implement the CSRP and a similar Asian Development Bank (ADB) project and had been rated satisfactory in attaining capacity in financial management, procurement and in implementing both projects. 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry 22. EFSSIP was conceived as an emergency operation and it was a timely and rational response to a significant increase in household food insecurity during 2007-08. The impact assessment that the UN and a number of NGOs had carried out after the winter of 2007/08 had shown that there was a sharp increase in poverty that was potentially compounded by further crop failure and livestock loss that could lead to a sharpening of the food crisis in the country. The Bank designed the project in partnership with FAO, and worked together with FAO to respond quickly to the crisis and to the client’s plea for assistance. 23. Government ownership was high. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Finance were actively involved during final negotiations on project design. 24. The project’s design took into consideration lessons of previous operations, and focused on a simple design that was easy to implement. EFSSIP’s design was largely based on a similar earlier intervention under the Farm Privatization Support Project (FPSP). An IEG review of FPSP had revealed that seed and fertilizer imports had likely played a considerable role in increasing wheat production in Tajikistan. That intervention had focused on providing agricultural inputs without significant interventions in reforming the institutions involved with the research related to, and the production of seed. Lessons that EFSSIP took into consideration included: the fact that previous support for seed research from SIDA had focused mostly on cotton seed production, and research in food seed had been largely abandoned; that in the policy environment that existed at the time, significant institutional reforms would be difficult or impossible; and that the Bank already had an ongoing investment and sector adjustment program that was tackling legal and regulatory issues. 5 Based on the above experiences and the realities related to the food price crisis, the design demanded simplicity and ease of implementation for timely delivery of the seed material and veterinary services to the poor. 25. EFSSIP’s design was changed during the final negotiations, limiting the time for implementation; however, cost savings created by these changes enhanced the project’s impact. The government requested changes to project design and implementation in July- August 2008. These included a request to: have local government authorities manage the selection of beneficiaries and the distribution of project support rather than international NGOs, where local government authorities were to cover the relevant costs; and to use local NGOs to monitor beneficiary selection rather than international NGOs. The resultant cost savings could then be used to increase the number of beneficiaries. Due to difficulties in securing veterinary supplies and animal feed for Component B, it was also decided to change this component to the provision of alfalfa seed and fertilizer for beneficiary households. These changes affected some aspects of implementation (discussed in Section 2.2); however, the resultant cost savings, together with a fall in the seed and fertilizer prices allowed Component A to be scaled up from 21,000 to 71,000 households. Further cost savings during implementation also allowed the project to provide maize seed and fertilizer to another 10,000 beneficiaries by June 2009. 26. The decision to replace concentrate feed with fodder seeds was taken due to the problems experienced by a previous FAO project (OSRO/TAJ/804/SWI) in procuring quality concentrate in the required quantities. The decision was appropriate in view of the high risk for late delivery and possible quality problems related to transporting the feed over long distances (quality feed was not available in the country in sufficient amounts and would have needed to be imported). The distribution of fodder seed for perennial fodder crops was considered far more sustainable and had expected positive longer-term impacts with regard to the feed and quality seed base. 27. In line with its simple design, EFSSIP had a straightforward and clear results and monitoring framework, with outcome indicators that were well linked to the PDO. The project also took care in specifying the criteria for targeting the poorest households based on the 2007 Tajikistan Living Standards Survey, as described in Section 1.4. 2.2 Implementation 28. Close coordination with national government was a feature of project implementation and contributed to successful outcomes. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture was appointed as the project’s counterpart and project staff met with him or his advisers on a weekly basis. Both parties point to a very positive and constructive working relationship, with the Ministry of Agriculture’s support proving critical on issues such as custom clearance, testing of seed and fertilizer and liaison with Oblast governments (Preliminary Project Evaluation, July 2009). 29. Development partners worked closely to successfully design and implement EFSSIP. Information from preliminary assessments and pilot work by various donors on the situation in Tajikistan helped to inform project design as mentioned above. Implementation 6 mechanisms were also kept simple, and donors, especially the Bank and the FAO, coordinated their activities well to effectively implement EFSSIP. 30. The changes at negotiations triggered subsequent delays and posed a risk to rapid implementation of Component A, which was critical for project success; however, project management took actions to mitigate this risk, and applied the experience gained to improve implementation of Component B. The planting of wheat seed by mid- November was vital for the success of Component A. Due to delays in procurement, some jamoats were unable to distribute the seed until late November or early December. As a result, only about 83% of the households planted the seeds on time, and others kept the seeds for the following season (see Achievement of Outcomes in Section 3.2). FAO took steps to mitigate this risk by initiating the procurement process in July during negotiations, by seeking expressions of interest for seed and fertilizer. The Bank and FAO staff also accelerated the process by initiating tenders and guiding the process of beneficiary selection during September 2008. The project also made a concerted effort to meet with local officials from all 116 jamoats in Khatlon during the early stages of implementation to outline jamoat responsibilities in implementing EFSSIP. However, the project overestimated the capacity and willingness of local government officials to assume responsibility for beneficiary selection and distribution, and underestimated the level of support needed by local government. The experience gained in distributing packages during the project’s first four months was reviewed by project management, local government and the NGO in charge (Shahrvand) by the end of January 2009 and used to improve the efficiency of distribution for Component B. A more structured approach to working with jamoats was adopted, with roundtable discussions involving jamoat officials, the local NGO and project staff; and increased contact during implementation. Although this was made easier because there were fewer districts and beneficiaries, Component B nevertheless encountered little problem as a result of improved support to jamoat officials. Component A also conducted limited publicity due to the short time period left between distribution of packages and planting. A more comprehensive advertising campaign was launched for Component B, which included instructions on the use of chemically-treated seeds and describing the project’s objectives to the beneficiaries. This resulted in much higher awareness and understanding of the project among the beneficiaries who indicated that it helped to contribute to better outcomes (Preliminary Evaluation, 2009). 31. The Bank conducted two preliminary evaluations in 2009 during implementation to assess and improve the performance of EFSSIP, to inform the design of the follow-on project that was under preparation, and to identify the lessons for future TFFCR-funded projects. By May 2009, field work was conducted by an independent consultant who met with all stakeholders, from donors and local government to NGOs and project beneficiaries. 32. EFSSIP was successfully restructured. The project underwent restructuring, first to include Additional Financing of US$6.25m to increase food production and diversification and scale up activities, and subsequently to include an activity (the Revolving Fund for Fertilizer) to promote private commercial farming and increase the likelihood of achieving part of the revised PDO. Both restructurings were timely and well done. 7 33. There were delays in implementing Component E due mainly to the seasonal nature of the envisaged activities, the assessment of needs and the time required to refine/adjust the proposed mechanism of setting the network of agro-dealers. Unexpected delays in hiring local NGOs and the procurement/distribution of fertilizer on time also contributed to this delay. In March 2012, a locally-based NGO was contracted to implement the activities under Component E. Following a preliminary assessment of needs of farmers and agro-input demand and supply, 12 agro-dealers were selected for training, and the NGO established 12 plots to demonstrate the value of using fertilizer. A total of 1,860 tons of fertilizer was imported at a cost of about US$ 1.33 million and distributed to the dealers. However, the local suppliers received this fertilizer in July, after the main spring season due to procurement and supply delays. As a result, the demand was weak; however, it seems to have picked up by project closing. 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization 34. The M&E system was well-designed, and included a simple Results Framework with relevant indicators to capture the project’s activities under each component. The reporting formats for each component and sub-component were based on the annual performance targets and monitoring indicators as shown in Annex 2 of the PAD and Annex 3 of the Restructuring Paper. The project conducted two Preliminary Evaluations in 2009 and the FAO also completed a Completion Report in July 2009. These were utilized to both track progress and problems and served as a useful tool in guiding the implementation of Component B under the Additional Financing (see Section 2.2). 35. The PMU provided regular monitoring of project implementation. The project’s Final Impact Evaluation of the CPG component and the Agro-Input Supply Market Development component were well done, and should serve as a baseline for any continued project activities under the proposed new project. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 36. The original project was rated Environmental Category ‘B’ as it was expected to have limited impact on the environment and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The activities under the Additional Financing did not require a modification of the Environmental Category. The borrower, however, updated the EMP to include safeguard issues for the new project activities. The project did not finance the purchase of pesticides; however, OP 4.09 was triggered as increased availability and use of pesticides were anticipated as an indirect impact of project activities that support increased productivity, the introduction of new crops by CPGs, and the expansion of private agro-input supply network. Accordingly, the revised EMP contained steps to mitigate identified potential effects. 37. The project maintained good progress in implementing the requirements stipulated in the revised EMP. The PMU provided selected NGOs with guiding materials concerning treated seeds as well as mineral fertilizer storage, transportation and handling, and the training program implemented through the project extension activities under the Components A, D and E addressed environmental issues. 8 38. Financial Management (FM). Under the GFCRP program’s framework, the FAO’s procurement and FM procedures were applicable and FAO was responsible for the FM and procurement procedures activities under the original project. After the Additional Financing the project maintained the original disbursement arrangements for Components A and C under implementation under FAO, while the CSRP PMU had FM responsibilities for implementation of activities under Components D, E and F. The FM was moderately satisfactory through most of the project, although in 2011 there were significant delays in the submission of the audit reports as the selection of an auditor became the responsibility of the State Committee on Investment. These delays affected the entire Tajikistan portfolio. 39. Procurement. Procurement performance was maintained as satisfactory as it progressed as planned throughout implementation. The PMU had already accumulated significant procurement experience with procurement under previous IDA projects (i.e. CSRP) and had experienced procurement specialists. There were some minor delays during end-2011 in the evaluation process due to newly introduced centralized procedures for public bid openings by the State Committee on Investments and State Property Management and the need to get its’ no objection to evaluation reports. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 40. Currently, a number of different projects and development partners are concentrating their efforts on Khatlon oblast to help stimulate private investments through private sector development. As agriculture is seen as one of the potential areas for commercialization, the institutional framework established under EFSSIP can be replicated and modified to attract private sector investments to develop the agri-inputs value chain. Community Seed Funds are also seen as farmers associations that can be directed to improve access of farmers to different production factors, in particular to inputs and fertilizers. 41. The Bank has a new Agriculture Commercialization Project under preparation that will aim to increase commercialization of small and medium-sized farms and agro-processors in selected areas of Tajikistan, by improving the performance of selected value chains and providing financial services to project beneficiaries. The proposed project will also provide support to the institutional framework established under EFSSIP in Khatlon oblast, in particular to Community Production Groups and Community Seed Funds through: (i) provision of extension services and technological advice; (ii) training to increase commercialization potential; and (iii) building links and partnerships between farmers and aggregators in the selected value chains. The project will also support activities to make market and price information more accessible to farmers. 42. The Bank and IFC will also look into the possibilities of continuing to work with agri-input supply dealers under the follow-on project to help the established structure to become commercially feasible and sustainable. Support to agri-input dealers is envisaged in the form of trainings, access to financial credit resources, and matching grants to those who meet certain criteria of partnership in the selected value chains. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 9 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation 43. EFSSIP’s objectives are relevant to the Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) for 2010– 13 that was recently extended to 2014, with a shift in focus from crisis mitigation to the structural reforms needed for sustainable growth and development. One of the revised objectives in the CPS is to stimulate private investment and private sector development” through measures to further increase productivity in agriculture. While EFSSIP helped to improve food security for about 25% of the poorest rural households, low yields and lack of quality seeds and fertilizer remain constraints to overall agricultural growth. Tajikistan’s market for seed is small, both in absolute terms and relative to total seed requirements. By procuring locally produced seed, the project has provided an important stimulus for domestic seed producers. 44. ESSIP’s key elements of design and implementation reflect proper diagnosis of a development priority that remains relevant. For example, building capacity in local authorities and local NGOs to carry out project activities, and the creation of CPGs to help them improve their food security and simultaneously diversity their production, executed with grassroots NGOs are very pertinent. The Bank’s assistance was responsive to changing needs and to Tajikistan’s medium-term development as demonstrated in the project’s restructuring, to include activities such as CPGs and agro-input supply market development. 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives 4 45. This section presents the linkages through which the EFSSIP interventions and outputs (listed in Annex 2) resulted in successful final outcomes between 2008 and 2013. 5 EFSSIP effectively disbursed the original US$5 million by March 29, 2009, and was restructured to include Additional Financing. There were no major changes to the direction of the original project other than to substantially increase the targeted number of poor households (from 28,000 to 55,000) and to add two new areas under the revised PDO. Tables 1 and 2 present the project’s original and revised PDO indicators. The ICR looks briefly at the achievement of the original PDO and focuses more on the outcomes under the revised PDO and the overall project. 46. EFSSIP’s main objective under the original PDO and part (i) of the revised PDO was to increase domestic food production and reduce livestock losses in order to mitigate the negative impact of high and volatile food prices. The project realized this by providing wheat and fodder crop production inputs to the most vulnerable households to improve their immediate food security, enhance their livelihoods and offset production losses. Project activities under the two components A and B were quite interrelated, and the beneficiary households were selected as described in Section 1.4. 4 See Annex 2 for Outputs by Components and achievements under the Component indicators. 5 The ICR uses data on project performance prior to the first restructuring (Additional Financing) from two key reports: (i) the FAO’s Project Completion Report of July 31, 2009; and the Tajikistan EFSSIP Preliminary Project Evaluation, June 8, 2009. After the new components were added, the ICR uses data from the Impact Evaluation of EFSSIP, Dushanbe, 2013; and from the Final Report on EFSSIP’s Implementation of the Agro-Inputs Support Market Development Program, Dushanbe 2013. 10 47. EFSSIP delivered standard packages to beneficiaries that consisted of 17.5 kg of high quality wheat seed and 30 kg of urea fertilizer, sufficient to plant 0.1 hectare per household. The project purchased 1,265 tons of wheat seed (Konya 2002, Starshina, Krasnodar 99, Yasaul and Tanya varieties), which were suitable for the agro-ecological conditions in Khatlon, and 2,102 tons of urea fertilizer. 6 The wheat seed provided by the project represented about 2.8 percent of all wheat seed planted in the autumn of 2008 (255,000 hectares) and 9.5 percent of seed planted on ‘presidential plots’. 48. Conservative costing at the time of project design and favorable prices due to a competitive international tendering process, allowed the project to increase the target number of households under Component A to 70,000. Additional cost savings during implementation allowed the project to plan to provide an additional 10,000 households with input packages with 3 kg of hybrid maize seed and fertilizer in June 2009. In total, the revised number of planned beneficiaries to receive assistance, including the 7,000 households targeted to receive livestock packages was 87,000 households. Achievement of Outputs and Outcomes: 49. Inputs were delivered to the jamoats in time without major compromise in input quality, and considerable costs saving were obtained through the use of local suppliers. Given the tight implementation timeframe, this was a significant achievement. Priority was given to districts at higher altitude with difficult road access and where winter sets in early (Baljuvon, Muminobad, Termuralik, Dangara, Shurobad and Khovalin). • In all, EFSSIP delivered input packages to jamoats for distribution to nearly 89,000 households. That is: (i) wheat seeds and fertilizer for 71,767 households from 1,385 villages in 119 jamoats (20 districts) of Khatlon Province under Component A; and (ii) fodder seeds and fertilizer for 7,222 households, and hybrid maize seeds and fertilizers for 10,000 households under Component B. • At the time of post-distribution monitoring in December 2008, 97% of the beneficiaries (about 69,614) had received their input package, of which 83% (57,780) planted the seeds. The delivery to the remaining 3% was still underway during the monitoring. As a result of the late delivery of inputs for winter planting in fall 2008, the remaining 17% of households that did not plant seeds had stored the inputs for use in the forthcoming planting season. • FAO estimates that approximately 6,000 hectares were sown in November 2008 with improved wheat seed, representing some 83 percent of the seeds provided. • On average, beneficiaries each produced 300 kg of wheat on 0.1 hectare, with a low of 1.7 tons per hectare in Baljuvon District and a high of 4.36 tons per hectare in Bokhtar District. This was considered sufficient to cover household needs (six persons) for approximately three months. • In order to make best use of the inputs provided and to improve the agricultural skills of farmers, the project developed and printed grassroots extension leaflets/technical 6 Ton refers to a metric ton (MT). 1000 kg = 1 ton. 11 messages (73,000 copies) in Tajik language, on topics such as sustainable wheat growing practices, seed collection and storage, fertilizer application, post-harvest losses and processing. These leaflets were developed in close collaboration with national agricultural research institutes and the Ministry of Agriculture. • As per post-distribution monitoring, some 93 percent of households receiving input packages were within the defined selection criteria. 50. The wheat production in 2009 through the seeds distributed was estimated at 18,000 tons, with an overall value of US$ 4.5 million at harvest time (July 2009). This amounted to about 2.5% of the national wheat production in Tajikistan in 2009. The seeds stored for the next planting season were expected to generate an additional 3,000 tons in 2010, with a value of some US$ 750,000 (at 2009 prices). These estimates were based on a wheat price at harvesting time (July 2009) of TJS 1.1 per kg (USD 0.25) (FAO Completion Report, July 31, 2009). In addition, the 10,000 households who received the hybrid maize planted 1,000 hectares with expected outcomes of 6-8 tons per hectare (based on 2008 yields). Table 1. Original PDO Indicators, Target Values and Achievements Target Values PDO Indicators Baseline YR 1 YR 2 Achievements (10/30/2008) (6/30/2009) 27,000 – 29,000 tons of Between 1. Grain harvested grain (wheat and maize) 0 0 25,000 to from packages harvested from project 40,000 tons delivered packages. 2. Spring reproductive rate from livestock 65% 80% Not measured. supported under program Intermediate Outcome Indicators Component A: Support for Agricultural Inputs About 7,700 in 2008 (wheat) and another 1. Number of hectares At least 1,000 (maize) and 700 sown with improved 0 7,500 (lucern seed) in 2009 seed (cumulative) hectares under the extension of Component B—see below. Component B: Improvement of Livestock Health and Husbandry 1. Number of beneficiary families 7,000 0 7,222 households benefiting from households livestock package 12 51. Fodder distribution. The immediate objective of Component B was to improve the capacity for fodder production among food-insecure rural households. The project targeted 7,000 food insecure households in 14 jamoats (four districts) of Rasht Valley. The target was to provide a standardized package of 1.8 kg of fodder seed (Lucerne) and 40 kg of fertilizers, sufficient to cultivate 0.1 hectare per household, allowing for 2-3 cuts per year with an estimated production of 4 tons of dry mass. The fodder produced on individual household plots was considered to be sufficient to cover the nutritional intake of three small ruminants or one large ruminant for a period of 11 months. 52. In mid-April 2009, fodder seeds and fertilizers were delivered to jamoat warehouses, for onward distribution to 7,222 beneficiary households from 251 villages in 15 jamoats of four districts (Nurobod, Roghun, Tavildara and Darvoz) and one district in Khatlon. Full fodder production packages reached beneficiaries by the end of April, in time for the agricultural season. The screening and verification of the beneficiary list revealed that 96% of the project’s beneficiaries met the selection criteria. As per post-distribution monitoring, almost 99% of the selected beneficiaries received their input package (7,150 households). About 700 hectares were planted with lucerne seed. 53. In addition, 1,000 hectares were planted with hybrid maize seed (Component B extension), generating an expected output of 6-8 tons of maize per hectare (based on 2008 yields) and/or 30-35 tons of dry mass per hectare for animal feeding purposes. 54. All households received grassroots technical messages on fodder seed planting, fertilizer application and harvesting practices (10,000 copies printed). Further, two technical instructions on environmental issues were distributed (8,000 copies of each). As per post- distribution monitoring for lucerne seed, 7 005 households of the beneficiary list were eligible (97 percent). 55. The project enabled beneficiaries to improve their fodder production capacities and the nutritional intake of their animals, which enhanced livestock productivity and health. Farming households were also able to diversify agricultural production, with positive and sustainable impacts on the seed and animal feed base. 56. Given the decision not to carry out the vaccination program and provide animal feed, with hindsight one could say that the project should have revised the indicator under Component B (increase the spring reproductive rate from livestock supported under program from 65% to 80%). The present indicator seems optimistic based on only fodder production and without a vaccination program. Official statistics that look at the national average and the average for Khatlon suggest that the number of offspring per 100 female breed (heads) did not change as a result of project interventions between 2008 and 2009 for large or small ruminants (Agricultural Yearbook, 2013); however, this is only for agricultural entities and not for the general population who also keep animals. The only information available, also for agricultural entities, is that calves born in Khatlon oblast increased from 13,387 in 2008 to 13,794 in 2012, and small sheep and goats born increased from 151,728 in 2008 to 157,398 in 2012. 13 Table 2: Performance against PDO Indicators after Restructuring PDO Outcome Indicators Target Achievements 27,000-29,000 tons under original project and another 22,758 under the Additional Financing Increase in cereal production by at 35,000 tons for 55,000 (Table 3) to total about least 35,000 tons for 55,000 food households 51,000 tons. insecure rural households The number of households is 93,000 including 25,000 households under the CPGs. Mortality of heads in Khatlon: Reduce livestock losses as reflected large ruminants: 106 in declined mortality rates among Baseline: 35% losses to (2008); 30 (2012) livestock held by 7,000 beneficiary be reduced to 20% Small ruminants: 2384 households losses (2008); 83 (2012). No percentages are available New functioning community Baseline: zero; Target In total 1,480 CPGs were production groups (CPGs) 1,095; established. Increase in share of non-cotton Baseline: 50% increase see note below and Table agriculture in the total value of to 60% 4 agriculture sector output Baseline: zero; increase by 10% (measured by a weighted index of Food production increased by at growth in 5 major food see Table 5 least 10% during the project life commodities: grains, potatoes, vegetables, milk and beef.) Table 3. Total Cereal Production, 2010-2012 and estimates for 2013 Cereal Area sown (ha) 2013 forecasted 2011 (t/ha) 2012 (t/ha) Production (2012) (t/ha) Wheat 1361 5528 2018 8597 Maize 904 1428 356 1784 Barley 0 1403 525 1754 Total 2265 8359 2899 12134 14 57. PDO Indicator: Increase in share of non-cotton agriculture in the total value of agriculture sector output. The ICR looks at the total production of non-cotton agriculture, as it is misleading to look at cotton due to the cotton price decline (Table 4). Table 4. Value of Cotton production in Agricultural GDP, 2011, 2012 2011 2012 Agricultural GDP (ml. TJS) 7168 8433 Cotton production (‘000 tons) 417 418 Cost per ton of cotton (US$) 2729 1555 Value of Cotton production (ml. TJS) 5115 2925 Share of cotton value in Ag. GDP 71% 35% Table 5: Non-cotton Agricultural Production 2008-2012 Increase Agriculture 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 compared to commodity (tons) 2008 Meat 129791 134350 143213 150764 161999 24% Milk 601011 629708 660763 695892 778295 29% Grain 942894 1294522 1261059 1098182 1232591 30% Wheat 659096 938435 857545 726880 812588 23% Maize 136428 142515 151061 154881 174857 28% Potatoes 679774 690853 760139 863069 991044 45% Vegetables 908225 1046859 1142624 1242026 1342352 48% 58. In addition to providing seeds and fertilizer to increase cereal and livestock production, EFSSIP introduced complementary activities under the revised PDO, to improve the ability of poor households to deal with seed shortages due to the failure of crops. The project intended to realize this by supporting the formation and functioning of groups of poor households at community level (CPGs) under Component D, to diversity their production and to improve their food security. 59. Key outputs under this component are detailed in Annex 2. The project established all targeted 1,095 CPGs in the 24 districts of Khatlon Region including 400 livestock groups. In addition, 523 new CPGs were established using the revolving seed/livestock funds. 62 wheat production groups were established by the PMU in 2013. There are an estimated total of 25,012 beneficiaries of the CPGs. Beneficiaries were selected from a list of vulnerable households available in each jamoat, and after consultation with NGOs and jamoat leadership, and based on criteria in the Operational Manual. Criteria include family income less than 140 Somoni per month and a maximum of two cows. 60. The CPGs are operating effectively. For all crop CPGs, 100% of the required amount of seed has been repaid, equivalent to 125% of the initially provided amount for grain and some forage crops and 115% for potatoes. For some crops, such as vegetables, maize and 15 some forage crops, repayment was made following sale of the product and the cash used to purchase new seed. There are 15,975 beneficiaries in the crop CPGs. A total of 5,250 ha have been planted from fall 2010 to date including 3,369 ha planted in the fall 2011 and spring 2012 using seed produced or purchased through the revolving funds. Around 760 t of fertilizer was also provided for wheat, maize, flax, and forage crops, as well as jars and lids for preserving vegetables and berries, and some greenhouse material for vegetable groups. In addition, 24 seed cleaners with a capacity of around 10 t per day and seed treatment machines were provided and suitable storage facilities obtained for harvested crops and seed. Yields achieved by the CPGs have been generally higher than the national averages; for example, in 2012, wheat averaged 4.7 t /ha compared with the regional average of 2.8 t/ha; maize yielded 5.0 t/ha compared with 3.9 t/ha; and potatoes 26.2 t/ha compared with 17.8 t/ha. It is anticipated that for the 2012/13 season, possibly 170 new groups will be formed and will start activities. 61. The average additional net income per CPG beneficiary was around TJS 565 in 2011 for both crop and livestock groups and TJS 2,112 from the crop groups only in 2012. The vaccination program covering some 2.98 million poultry is expected to be completed in Khatlon and Sughd by the end of the year. However, the IPM program was cancelled due to delays in procuring the consultancy to implement the activity, which left insufficient time to carry out the activity before project closing. 62. Overall, the role of the NGOs has been an essential element in the successful implementation of this component. At present, 22 local NGOs support the program, including a national coordinating NGO; 15 local NGOs covering the 24 districts responsible for group mobilization and support, including agronomic support; and 6 NGOs providing training of groups. The NGO performance has been quite strong, with all organizing the CPG mobilization and support, seed and input distribution, training, seed cleaning and treatment, storage and egg incubation activities satisfactorily. At present, the NGOs are managing the seed cleaner, seed treatment machine, and egg incubator in their district(s). NGOs are also closely working with the CSFs during the harvesting period to ensure implementation of the repayment mechanism. 63. 2,300 members of CPGs were interviewed during the Impact Evaluation Survey. Most of the beneficiaries interviewed received information about EFSSIP from local NGOs (1,304) and local authorities (513). 2091 of the participants attended training on agricultural crops etc. The IES, which also looked at education levels of the participants, conclude that the relatively high literacy of the beneficiaries can assure the sustainability of project results. Of the 2,091 who participated in training, 96.6% indicated that they apply the knowledge and skills gained in their agricultural activities. Most of the beneficiaries have been users of the CPGs for over 2 years. 64. Under the revised PDO part (iii), EFSSIP attempted to develop a private network of agro-input dealers to supply farmers in the Khatlon oblast with quality inputs and technical knowledge that would increase food production and product diversification through the promotion of private commercial agriculture. As detailed in Annex 2, within this framework, EFSSIP has assessed the needs of farmers and the agro-input demand and supply situation; identified potential agro-input dealers and their training needs, organized 16 field demonstrations using advanced technologies; prepared technical brochures and conducted public outreach to stimulate farmer demand for agro-inputs, and assisted dealers to find supplies and credit, expand business and provide extension services for the dissemination of knowledge and technologies. 65. The project has made substantial progress after some delays. Under the agro-input supply market development activity, fertilizer (1,860 t) was distributed to 12 contracted agro- dealers in July and sales are now underway. The fertilizer distribution has been coupled with an awareness campaign, workshops and training, and establishment of 12 plots to demonstrate the value of using fertilizer under a contract with an NGO responsible for implementation. 66. The outputs are detailed in the Final Report on Implementation of the Agro-Inputs Supply Market Development Report, 2013, and presented in Annex 2. 3.3 Efficiency 67. EFSSIP carried out an initial ex-ante economic analysis of the project at appraisal in 2008. It was revised at the project restructuring in 2009 to reflect the changes and additions to project design. The ex-ante analysis determined the expected benefits to derive from the project’s components and activities; however it did not include a cost-benefit analysis and calculation of the project economic return. The ICR’s ex-post analysis compares the actual project results and performance with the baseline situation applying the same analytical approaches and methods that were used at appraisal, 68. Although this project is an emergency operation, it had some activities that produced benefits that continue deriving for several years. In addition, the project had two actual phases: the first phase started in 2008 and the second started two years later – after the restructuring in 2010. Therefore a 10-year period of analysis is used to account for the long- term impacts of the project interventions (from 2009 to 2018). The scenario presented in the economic analysis is conservative. The analysis presents the balance of costs and benefits of the project and it is based on the actual data and results of the project. 69. The cost savings of US$800,000 under Component B were reallocated to Component A and allowed the project to reach a much larger number of beneficiaries than originally planned. Given the above mentioned benefit and cost streams, the Economic Rate of Return (ERR) of the project is estimated at 15.2%, which can be considered as acceptable given the emergency character of the project. The Net Present Value (NPV) of the Project’s net benefit stream, discounted at 10%, is positive at US$ 1.3 million. The summary of the project economic analysis is presented in Annex 3. 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory 70. EFSSIP was relevant at the time of appraisal and its’ design and implementation remains relevant today. The components of the original project and those under the 17 Additional Financing were clearly linked to the PDO. As presented in Section 3.2, the achievement of the PDO was satisfactory, with the project exceeding many of the outcome targets. At the time of the food and financial crisis, EFSSIP through the CPGs provided an important safety net for the poorest farmers/households and opened a new avenue to access improved varieties of crops and small livestock and much needed complementary inputs, i.e. fertilizer. This enabled families to raise productivity and subsequently provided additional income through sales of marketed surplus. The Final Impact Evaluation (FIE), which interviewed 2,300 members of CPGs (with a total number of their family members estimated at 19,041) revealed that beneficiaries were selected properly, that the majority of beneficiaries are satisfied with the CPG activities, and most importantly, that beneficiaries believe that under the CPG framework and their activities, they have accrued profits, and increased their income and financial situation. Beneficiaries also prefer to now continue working under the CPGs. The Project’s Economic Rate of Return (ERR) is estimated at 15.2%, which is a good result given the emergency character of the project. NPV is also positive at US$ 1.3 million. The Project’s rating for the achievement of the PDO and Overall Implementation Progress was downgraded from ‘S’ to ‘MS’ in the final ISR dated May 17, 2013 due to the delay in setting up the fertilizer networks and the associated uncertainty. However, at the time of the ICR, both these ratings are considered to be satisfactory. 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development 71. In the FIE, 93.1% of the respondents indicated that within the project, their income had increased more than 25% over the last two years. The average additional net income per CPG beneficiary was around TJS 565 (Tajikistan Somoni) in 2011 for both crop and livestock groups and TJS 2,112 for the crop groups only in 2012. These amounts are much higher than the 87 Somoni/month before the start of the project. Of the 25,012 beneficiaries in the CPGs, 18,759 or 75% were women. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening 72. EFSSIP contributed to building long-term capacity in many areas. The institutional capacity of oblast officials was boosted through the changes in design of EFSSIP and the decision to have local authorities manage the selection of beneficiaries and the distribution of project support. EFSSIP worked closely with officials in Khatlon and trained them in project implementation. Also, assigning local NGOs to monitor beneficiary selection and work with the CPGs has strengthened the capacity of NGOs, who have been an essential element in successful implementation of the CPG component. At present, 22 local NGOs support the program, including a national coordinating NGO; 15 local NGOs covering the 24 districts responsible for group mobilization and support, and 7 NGOs providing training of groups. NGOs have also played an important role in supporting the Community Seed Funds. The long-term capacity of the private sector, especially among domestic seed producers has also been strengthened. (c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative) 18 73. Positive: By training and supporting agro-dealers, the project not only contributed to building capacity of these merchants in the private sector, but also played a part in increasing the overall quality of the seed available and the demand for higher quality seed by farmers who saw the benefits of using better seed. 74. EFSSIP contributed to the empowerment of communities and social cohesion through the formation of CPGs, and helped farmers/groups to understand that they can have a greater voice and role in decision-making in other areas including voicing their demands for training and better quality products and services. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate 75. The institutional risk to development outcome is moderate. The institutional risk to development outcome is rated as moderate, given the challenge to sustain project activities and achievements by the organizations established by the project without any external support. Project supported established of the 24 Community Seed Funds formally registered in all 24 target districts of Khatlon oblast and the Centre of support to Agriculture Producers as an umbrella organization for the agri-dealers network at the oblast level. Capacity of the newly-established institutional structures is very low, as they were not involved in actual implementation of project activities mainly completed by local NGOs. There is a risk that formalized CSFs will lack capacity to carry on project activities to support CPGs when the project financing stops, in particular related to monitoring of CPGs, return of required amount of seeds/cash after harvesting, replacement of outdated seeds, providing services for seed cleaning and treatment. However, as these institutional bodies were established under the local hukumats at district level, there is a level of oversight which will ensure that CSF activities continue. 76. The financial risk to development outcome is moderate. At the sector level, one risk is if policy changes related to the resolution of the cotton debt and improved access to credit for non-cotton farmers are reversed. The project’s main financial risk is associated with the use of revolving fertilizers fund account. The structure of the Public Utility Entity’s Center of Agricultural Producers Support was established under the Khatlon oblast hukumat and Oblast level Department of Agriculture to assume responsibility over the Revolving Fertilizers Fund. As the structure did not exist before and did not have time to prove its capacity in financial management, there is a risk that some part of the revolving fund money could be lost due to poor performance of the executing agency. The Ministry of Finance and Agency on Financial control and Anti-corruption will supervise the funds use and utilization. 77. Fertilizers Network: The project’s initial intention to develop a private network of agro-input dealers in Khatlon was challenged by inadequate timing left for resolving the mechanism of the fund before the project’s completion (see paragraph 32). The PMU made a great effort to establish the mechanism that would allow the institutional framework for this activity to remain in force and function beyond the project’s closing date. Given that project 19 agreement was signed with the Ministry of Finance, the revolving fund should have been also monitored and overseen by the Ministry of Finance as accountable for these resources. At this stage it is difficult to give this umbrella organization status of the Association, as Association would assume responsibility over the US$1.33 million project funds and current legislation does not allow transfer of assets owned by the State (equipment, fertilizers) to civil society organizations. Also the overall arrangement for overseeing the work and funds flow of this entity would be challenging. However, the follow-on project will continue to support the private agro-dealer sector somewhat reducing this risk. 78. Community Seed Funds were registered as public organizations as all the equipment procured under the project, most importantly seed cleaning machines and incubators were transferred to them. These organizations will continue working with interested CPGs on contractual basis and will also provide services on cleaning seeds and seeds chemical treatment to help sustaining their activities and cover the costs. Challenge for the CSFs will be to establish trust and communication with the CPGs as the CSF should ensure broad outreach it the district. 79. The environmental risk to development outcome is low. EFSSIP’s environmental rating was ‘B’. The activities under the Additional Financing did not require any modification of the environmental category as they were largely considered neutral or positive. The seed and fertilizer package distributed through FAO and the NGOs was accompanied by instructions on proper uses as well as adequate quantities of application. The veterinary package should help to reduce disease incidents within domestic livestock. 80. The social risk to development outcome is low. The social impact of the activities has been significant and positive. The activities with basic assistance have and will improve household food security by: reducing adverse social consequences in terms of aggravating poverty and relying excessively on relief food supplies; re-allocating cotton land to cereal production that would also help restore soil fertility thereby reversing a trend caused by over- cropping cotton; and minimizing the scope for the continuing distress sales of livestock by the poorest households. Emergency support for livestock production has also allowed farmers to preserve their existing livestock resources until current feed resources improve. Cereal production should further increase farm incomes considerably, alleviating rural poverty and enhancing the ability to produce food. 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Satisfactory 81. The project was a rational and timely response to Tajikistan’s emergency situation. The Bank team worked closely with the other partners and the client to prepare EFSSIP. Given the experiences and realities related to the food price crisis, the preparation team kept the project’s design simple for relatively easy implementation and urgent delivery of 20 packages to farmers. The team also took into account many studies and assessments of Tajikistan’s circumstances in designing a good project, with measurable outcome indicators that were well-linked to the PDO. Changes that were made to project design delayed some aspects; however, these allowed the project to cover a much larger number of the poor and enhance overall project outcomes. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory 82. The FAO was responsible for implementing the original project, and all teams worked together proactively to learn from limitations and correct course where needed at each stage of implementation, including through restructuring. Particularly, the Bank team spent the necessary time to study the various aspects of the constraints facing Tajik farmers and input suppliers before introducing new elements into EFSSIP. For example, the team spent two months during the baseline research phase before introducing the Revolving Fund, to study the agricultural input supply market, and the level of awareness among the farmers on new technologies of the cultivation of crops and production growth. This phase was also used to design training materials and the information campaign. The project also contracted local NGOs to monitor project performance in distribution to beneficiaries to complement Bank supervision. The Preliminary Evaluation and two surveys conducted in the project target areas in 2009 during implementation, to evaluate the effectiveness of the input support programs, informed overall implementation. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory (This rating reflects the ‘S’ rating for both Quality at Entry and Supervision). 5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory 83. Government ownership of the project was high. As mentioned in Section 2.2, close coordination at national government level, between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Finance, and among the Ministry of Agriculture, local hukumats at district level and the PMU contributed to successful project implementation. The project was designed as an emergency operation and did not envisage any policy reforms, though it provided support to agriculture sector diversification through improving access to quality inputs. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Satisfactory 21 84. The PMU did an outstanding job in achieving the set project development outcomes. The leadership of the PMU Director in establishing a good working relationship with a range of stakeholders and implementers, starting from beneficiaries and up to local khukumats has been instrumental in making EFSSIP a success. In a highly fragmented environment, the Implementing Agency was very innovative to design mechanisms of the fertilizer revolving fund, and tailor it to specific activities and bring together the Ministry of Agriculture and Oblast hukumats to achieve an objective. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory (This rating reflects the ‘S’ rating for both Government and the Implementing Agency). 6. Lessons Learned 85. Establishment of the Community Production Groups and Community Seed Funds as the coordinating mechanism and umbrella organizations proved to be positively accepted and understood by beneficiaries. After the restructuring of large collective farms in Tajikistan and after farmers were granted the freedom to farm, the project’s mechanism of bringing farmers together with the objective of jointly making decisions and improving the access to agri- inputs was a positive experience. The farmers were not forced to grow something collectively, but were encouraged to make their own informed decisions with the help of the NGOs involved in the process. This form of cooperation during the course of land reforms can be extended at later stages and viewed as the first step to successfully establishing producers/farmers association. 86. Close coordination between all parties can be invaluable to a project’s success. Effective project management and good support from FAO headquarters resulted in the timely delivery of seed and fertilizer to Dushanbe. Effective liaison with national government facilitates not only project implementation but also the transfer of project ownership. 87. There are strong benefits to partnerships with NGOs in contributing to and implementing community activities. Local NGOs played a critical role in overall implementation throughout the project’s life, from selecting beneficiaries and distributing input packages to providing training and extension needs to the CPGs and other farmers and monitoring project implementation. NGOs were also important in liaising local government officials. In addition, training local NGOs to carry out activities has contributed to long-term sustainability of activities beyond EFSSIP’s life. 88. Where the capacity and resources of local government are limited, project design that involves active local government support should be accompanied by an adequate allocation of project resources to guide and support local government in the implementation of these roles and responsibilities. 89. Emergency operations are important to address short-term crises; however, additional financing and/or increased funding is key to increasing the sustainability of ongoing activities and contributing to further growth. In the case of EFSSIP, the original focus was on resolving 22 the immediate food insecurity crisis situation, but the additional financing was critical in supporting community groups and helping to address the longer-term structural constraints in the agriculture sector (such as low yields due to poor quality seed and fertilizer) that would have continued to affect poor households and keep them from responding better to further shocks. 90. Short-term emergency projects that reach large numbers of beneficiaries inevitably impinge to some extent on existing, long-term activities of other agencies. Active coordination with these agencies on the selection of target areas and beneficiaries can reduce these conflicts. 91. Project teams need to be realistic in their expectations of the various processes, especially those concerning the procurement process and the time it could generally take to complete these processes including within the Bank. Implementation of Component E was delayed due to the unexpected delays in setting up the agro-dealers and also the procurement of fertilizer. This resulted in delays in its distribution and the setting up of fertilizer networks. 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies (b) Co-financiers (c) Other partners and stakeholders (E.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society) 23 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage of Components Estimate (USD Estimate (USD Appraisal millions) millions) Support for Agriculture Inputs (FAO) 4.35 3.50 80.00 Improvement of Livestock Health and 1.80 1.00 56.00 Husbandry (FAO) Community Production Groups 3.24 3.38 104.00 Agro-inputs supply market development 0.90 2.33 258.00 Project Management (FAO and PMU) 0.96 0.85 88.50 Total Baseline Cost 11.25 11.06 98.00 Physical Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00 Price Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Project Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 Front-end fee PPF 0.00 0.00 0.00 Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Financing Required 0.00 0.00 0.00 (b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Co- Percentage Source of Funds Estimate Estimate financing of Appraisal (USD millions) (USD millions) Borrower 0.00 0.00 0.00 FCRP TF 5.00 4.97 99.40 Russia FPCR 6.25 6.09 97.44 24 Annex 2. Outputs by Component The Project Restructuring Paper (P115953 Russia EFSSIP-AF, July 23, 2009) presents the revised Results Framework with Results Indicators for each component. The following are the outputs and results achieved under each component. Component A: Support for Agriculture Inputs. Intermediate Results Indicators: (i) Area planted by beneficiary households (hectares). Targets: Under original project: at least 7,500; Under additional financing: at least 4,000. Actual achievements: total of 7,700 hectares. (ii) Distribute seed and fertilizer packages: Targets: Under original project: at least 28,000; Under additional financing: at least another 27,000. Actual achievement: total of 89,000. (The final ISR indicates a number of 94,000). Achievements under this component are rated satisfactory. The immediate objective of Component A was to increase the cereal production and post- harvest capacities of food-insecure households. Input prices at the time of project design had allowed extending assistance to approximately 70,000 highly vulnerable households in 19 districts (116 jamoats) of Tajikistan. The input package consisted of certified wheat seed and fertilizer, sufficient to plant up to 0.1 hectare per household. Further, the project produced and distributed grassroots extension messages to farming households on best practices for wheat production. Project achievement/Outputs under Component: • In total, input packages were delivered to jamoats for distribution to nearly 89,000 households. 7 As per post-distribution monitoring, conducted by the NGO Shahrvand, the project’s input packages reached at least 85,000 households. Eligibility for the project’s assistance was governed by both the criteria and target areas agreed upon by the Government, the FAO and the World Bank, and were based on the Emergency Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment, conducted jointly by FAO, the World Food Programme and the United Nations Children’s Fund in April/May 2008. The 7 The project delivered the following inputs to jamoats for onward distribution to beneficiaries: (i) wheat seeds and fertilizer for 71,767 households under Component A; and (ii) fodder seeds and fertilizer for 7,222 households, and hybrid maize seeds and fertilizers for 10,000 households under Component B. 25 criteria were as follows: (i) vulnerable families; (ii) women-headed households with three or more children under the age of five; and (iii) availability of more than 0.1 hectare of land. • The standard household input package consisted of 17.5 kg of high-quality wheat seed and 30 kg of urea fertilizer, sufficient to plant 0.1 hectare per household, for a total of approximately 7,200 hectares. • In all, the project purchased 1,265 tons of wheat seed (Konya 2002, Starshina, Krasnodar 99, Yasaul and Tanya varieties), which were suitable for the agro- ecological conditions in Khatlon, and 2,102 tons of urea fertilizer. • Approximately 6,000 hectares were sown in November 2008 with improved wheat seed, representing some 83 percent of the seeds provided. Overall, in 2008/09, estimates suggest that the wheat seed provided by the project represented about 2.8 percent of all wheat seed planted in the autumn of 2008 (255,000 hectares) and 9.5 percent of seed planted on ‘presidential plots’. • As most of the beneficiaries planted the seeds provided by the project in addition to their own seeds, the overall increase in wheat production at national level can be estimated at 2 percent. • On average, some 3 tons of wheat were harvested per hectare, with a low of 1.7 tons in Baljuvon District and a high of 4.36 tons per hectare in Bokhtar District. • As per post-distribution monitoring, conducted by the NGO Shahrvand, 67,900 of the selected households (97 percent) received wheat seed and 65,800 households received fertilizer (93 percent), of which 75 percent had received their full entitlement of 17.5 kg of seed and 30 kg of fertilizer. • All households receiving input packages were also provided with grassroots information materials on sustainable wheat growing practices, wheat seed collection and storage, fertilizer application, post-harvest losses and seed processing. • Targeted farmers usually cultivate 0.5-0.7 hectare of land with winter wheat. Thus the overall increase through seeds provided by FAO in terms of individual household production averaged 20 percent. • As per post-distribution monitoring, some 93 percent of households receiving input packages were within the defined selection criteria. Component B: Improvement of Livestock Health and Husbandry Intermediate Results Indicator: Number of beneficiary families benefiting from livestock package: Target: 7,000 beneficiaries (not revised). Achievement: 7,222 beneficiaries. Volume of livestock fodder produced associated with project activities (tons): Target: At least 10,000. Achievement: 21,000 to 24,500 tons. Achievements under this component are rated satisfactory. 26 The immediate objective of Component B was to improve the capacity for fodder production among food-insecure rural households. Under this component, 7,000 food insecure households in 14 jamoats (four districts) of Rasht Valley were targeted. Through the increased availability of high-value fodder, livestock production and productivity would be enhanced, thus improving the nutritional intake of farming families and enabling the generation of additional cash-income. Criteria for the selection of beneficiaries included vulnerable and women-headed households with three or more children under the age of five, a maximum of one large or three small ruminants and a minimum of 0.1 hectare of land suitable for fodder production. It was intended to provide a standardized package of 1.8 kg of fodder seed (lucerne) and 40 kg of fertilizers (20 kg of superphosphate, 10 kg of nitrogen/urea and 10 kg of potassium), sufficient for the cultivation of 0.1 hectare per household and a total planted area of 700 hectares. Owing to difficulties in securing veterinary supplies and animal feed, a decision was made jointly by the Government, the FAO, and the World Bank to change Component B to the provision of fodder seed (lucerne) and fertilizer to 7,000 beneficiary households in place of concentrates and veterinary supplies. The cost savings created by these changes, together with a fall in the prices of seeds and fertilizers, allowed Component A to be scaled up the number of beneficiaries. Additional cost savings during implementation allowed the project to provide hybrid maize seed and fertilizer to a further 10,000 beneficiaries in June 2009 under the scaling up of Component B. Project achievement/Outputs under Component B: • In mid-April 2009, fodder seeds and fertilizers were delivered from FAO warehouses to jamoat warehouses, for onward distribution to 7,222 beneficiary households from 251 villages in 15 jamoats of four districts (Nurobod, Roghun, Tavildara and Darvoz) and one district in Khatlon. Full fodder production packages reached beneficiaries by the end of April, in time for the agricultural season. • Of this total, 99 percent received their input package (7,150 households). A further 10,000 households received input packages to produce maize for livestock feeding purposes. In 2009, 93 percent of beneficiaries planted their seeds. • The individual input package consisted of 1.8 kg of high-quality lucerne seed, 10 kg of urea fertilizer and 30 kg of single superphosphate (SSP) fertilizer. The original plan to use potassium chloride in addition to SSP and urea was dropped as it was not possible to obtain sufficient quantities. • Approximately 700 hectares were planted with lucerne seed. In addition, 1,000 hectares were planted with hybrid maize seed (Component B extension), generating an expected output of 6-8 tons of maize per hectare (based on 2008 yields) and/or 30- 35 tons of dry mass per hectare for animal feeding purposes. • All beneficiary households received grassroots technical messages on fodder seed planting, fertilizer application and harvesting practices (10,000 copies printed). Further, two technical instructions on environmental issues were distributed (8 000 copies of each). 27 • The screening and verification of the beneficiary list revealed that 96 percent of the project’s beneficiaries met the selection criteria. As per post-distribution monitoring, almost 99 percent of the selected beneficiaries received their input package (approximately 7 150 households). • The fodder produced on individual plots will be sufficient to cover the nutritional intake of three small ruminants or one large ruminant for a period of 11 months. Component D: Community Production Groups (CPGs): Revised project targets: Number of people trained in extension programs in the project areas: Target: of 5,250. Achievement: 12,166 people. Achievements under this component are rated satisfactory. 2,300 members of CPGs were interviewed during the Impact Evaluation Survey. Most of the beneficiaries interviewed received information about EFSSIP from local NGOs (1,304) and local authorities (513). 2091 of the participants attended training on agricultural crops etc. The IES, which also looked at education levels of the participants, conclude that the relatively high literacy of the beneficiaries can assure the sustainability of project results. Of the 2,091 who participated in training, 96.6% indicated that they apply the knowledge and skills gained in their agricultural activities. Most of the beneficiaries have been members of the CPGs for over 2 years. Volume of seed fertilizer delivered to CPGs (tons): Target: of 450 seed and 1,100 tons of fertilizer. Achievement: 470 tons of high quality seeds for crops and 940 tons of fertilizer. Number of families receiving seed and other benefits through CPGs: Target: of 18,000. Achievement: 25,000 families received benefits. 2,300 members of CPGs were interviewed during the Impact Evaluation Survey, and the total number of their family members was estimated at 19,041. Taking into account this assumption, the estimated number of direct and indirect beneficiaries of CPGs is 207,000 people, which makes up about 25,000 families. For crops, 470 tons of high quality seed and planting material has been procured and distributed to 695 CPGs. An additional 144 CPGs have been formed using seed provided through the revolving funds. For all crop CPGs, 100% of the required amount of seed has been repaid, equivalent to 125% of the initially provided amount for grain and some forage crops and 115% for potatoes. For some crops, such as vegetables, maize and some forage crops, repayment was made following sale of the product and the cash used to purchase new seed. There are 15,975 beneficiaries in the crop CPGs. A total of 5,250 ha have been planted 28 from fall 2010 to date including 3,369 ha planted in the fall 2011 and spring 2012 using seed produced or purchased through the revolving funds. Around 940 tons of fertilizer was also provided for wheat, maize, flax, and forage crops, as well as jars and lids for preserving vegetables and berries, and some greenhouse material for vegetable groups. In addition, 24 seed cleaners with a capacity of around 10 t per day and seed treatment machines were provided and suitable storage facilities obtained for harvested crops and seed. Yields achieved by the CPGs have been generally higher than the national averages; for example, in 2012, wheat averaged 4.7 t /ha compared with the regional average of 2.8 t/ha; maize yielded 5.0 t/ha compared with 3.9 t/ha; and potatoes 26.2 t/ha compared with 17.8 t/ha. For livestock, 400 livestock CPGs (350 poultry and 50 rabbit groups) with 4,800 members were initially established. For the poultry groups, 10 hens and 1 cock were initially procured and provided to each of 3 members in each group, along with an initial 3-month supply (50 kg for each of the 3 members) of high quality complete feed compound including minerals and vitamins. For rabbit groups, 3 females and 1 male rabbit were initially provided to each of three members of each group, along with materials to construct rabbit hutches. Also 24 incubators for egg hatching were procured with one incubator per project district. Poultry and rabbits have now been distributed to all group members, and an additional 39 groups formed from the revolving funds. Overall, about 58,900 chickens, more than 1 million eggs, and more than 6,400 rabbits have been produced by October 2012. For the 2012/13 season, it is anticipated that the number of groups will increase by around 170. About 936 ha of land have been planted under the project in 2011-2012, including 238 ha allocated for new groups. Component E: Agro-Input Supply Market Development: (Revised project target) Number of people participating in seminars for dealers, farmers and agricultural experts: Target: of 1,150; Achievement: 2,997 people participated in 115 trainings for agri-dealers and farmers. In addition, 1,071 people participated in demonstrations organized at the demo plots by the contracted NGOs. Also, 15,163 client days of trainings were provided. Client days of training provided to females amounted to 11,372. Achievements under this component are rated satisfactory. Value of private sector sales in agro-inputs nationwide (US$): Baseline: 17m; Target: 30m. Achievement: US$ 57m. The outputs are detailed in the Final Report on Implementation of the Agro-Inputs Supply Market Development Report, 2013, and summarized below: 29 • Development of a training program for new technologies and the effective use of qualitative agro-inputs in cultivation of crops in the 24 districts of Khatlon region; • 94 seminars covering 2482 participants in training; • 12 demonstration plots to show results of the use of quality seeds and cost effectiveness; • Awareness-raising activities (television, radio, booklets etc.); • PMU has provided agro-dealers from 12 target districts of Khatlon with high quality mineral fertilizers to meet needs of farmers; • Training of agro-dealers in procedures such as bookkeeping, and preparation of requests for delivery etc. The Survey found that more than 10,000 leaders and members of DFs in Khatlon Oblast were aware of the effectiveness of the application of quality mineral fertilizers in the cultivation of crops through seminars, field workshops, demonstration and distribution of information materials. At least 50% of the heads of DFs out of the total number trained had started to use the practice of the demonstration plots on their fields to grow crops, and the 12 agro-dealers were providing farmers with quality seeds. 30 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis Economic IRR: 15.2% NPV: USD 1.33 million 1. An initial ex-ante economic analysis of the project was carried out at the project appraisal in 2008. It was revised at the project restructuring in 2009 reflecting the changes and additions that were made in the project’s design. The ex-ante analysis described and determined the expected benefits to derive from the project’s components and activities; however it did not include a cost-benefit analysis and calculation of the project economic return. The current ex-post analysis is comparing the actual project results and performance with the baseline situation applying the same analytical approaches and methods that were used at appraisal, however it also comprises the cost-benefit analysis for each component of the project and it presents the project’s Economic Rate of Return (ERR). 2. Primary data and information were collected from the project’s AMs, ISRs, implementation and M&E reports. A conservative approach was applied to the presented analysis. Component A - Support for Agriculture Inputs (originally US$2.7 million). 3. Initially this component was designed to support the FAO administered program providing agricultural inputs in Tajikistan. Particularly the component provided the households with standard packages composed of high quality seed for winter wheat and fertilizer. It was expected that the import of higher yielding wheat varieties would help farmers to take advantage of fall rains in raising a successful winter crop. It is also expected that this component would boost the country’s wheat yields and improve food security in the medium term. It was roughly estimated that a package valued at some US$80 per household would be sufficient for supporting winter wheat production of some 28,000 families. The economic rationale for importing clean certified seed vs. seed retained from previous harvests is very clear. Certified clean seed that has been properly stored, and transported, and corresponds to internationally accepted seed standards accompanied by equally certified fertilizer and reasonably adequate weather conditions is guaranteed to increase yields. It was assumed in the ex-ante economic analysis that an estimated 7,843 ha would be supplied with high quality certified seed and fertilizer package estimated to cost approximately US$2.8 million. It was planned, that the yields on these 7,843 ha assuming proper seeding rate, and proper fertilizer applications would approximate around 3.0 to 3.5 tons/ha. This would amount to anywhere between 25,000 and 40,000 tons of wheat, or about 1/12th of the current yearly production. At the current market price of approximately US$ 300 per ton, this volume of wheat would have a market value equivalent in the range of US$ 7-10 million. These figures did not include labor and machinery costs, which amounted to approximately 12% of production costs. The analysis considered that the benefits would be declining in the succeeding years as the farmers would use part of their harvest for the seeding of next season, however with 31 proper cleaning of the recycled seed material, partial benefits would be felt over at least the next 5 years. 4. After the project restructuring in 2010, it was expected that the FAO together with the local government would distribute the wheat seed and fertilizer to more than 71,000 food insecure households in Khatlon region. Additional US$1.65 million financing (for a total of US$ 5.15 million including reallocation of about US$800,000 of uncommitted funds from Component B) was included to finance the cost of imports of high quality winter wheat seeds and fertilizer in time for autumn 2009 plantings in the severely food insecure areas identified by WFP Food Security Monitoring System. It was estimated that a package valued at about US$60 per household would be sufficient for supporting winter wheat production for at least 27,000 families. From economic point of view, it was expected that the providing the households with improved wheat seeds and fertilizer would increase wheat yields and improve households’ food security. 5. The ex-post analysis of the component was based on the actual achievements and it shows that over 10-year period the component generates benefit streams of about US$9.12 million in total (including US$6.38 from the first phase and US$2.74 from the second phase of the component). The benefits derive mainly from the increased wheat yield resulting in increased wheat production. Component B - Improvement of Livestock Health and Husbandry 6. At the beginning, it was planned that this component would support the FA0 administered program aimed at improving livestock health and husbandry. The funding under this component would support the purchase of a package of veterinary services that would ensure that minimal vaccination and treatment of the most critical diseases and pests (worms) and the purchase of feed (mainly concentrates). It was assumed that a veterinary package would value at approximately US$250/household for some 7,400 families. The ex-ante analysis considered that the benefit for the concentrate fodder supplement and veterinary services package would have a dramatic effect because the concentrate fodder provision would significantly help in improving livestock vigor during winter months and it would have a significant effect on reproduction rates in spring. It was also expected that most benefits would accrue from the prophylactic measures that prevent the spread of disease, and thus would have an impact well beyond the livestock treated under this intervention. 7. However, due to difficulties in securing veterinary supplies and animal feed, at the project restructuring it was decided to change this component to the provision of fodder (alfalfa) seed and fertilizer for beneficiary households. Delivery of alfalfa seed and fertilizer in the Rasht Valley took place in 2009. More than 7,000 beneficiaries in 4 districts and 15 Jamoats received their inputs. 8. The ex-post analysis of the component was based on alfalfa production model and it suggests that the component generates about US$0.6 of direct benefits due to increased production and supply of high quality hay. Benefit-cost ratio of alfalfa is very high because it is a perennial hay crop that continues yielding hay for several years after initial investments. 32 Component D - Community Production Groups (US$3.235 million). 9. This component supported the formation and functioning of groups of poor rural households at the community level to help them improve their food security and nutrition and simultaneously diversify their production away from the predominant, but unprofitable cotton crop. This program implemented with the involvement of local grassroots NGOs, who helped to identify and organize eligible group members - the Community Production Groups (CPGs) consisted 10-20 members, selected from among the poor households. The CPGs selected the commodities they wished to produce. There were the following major categories of CPGs: (i) crop CPGs (wheat, fodder crops, oilseeds), (ii) vegetable and fruit CPGs (potatoes, vegetables, spices, soft fruits), and (iii) small livestock CPGs (poultry, rabbits). 10. Food grain CPGs. It was envisaged that approximately 325 crop focused CPGs will be established over a three-year period. The typical commodity micro-grant to a CPG would consist of quality seed for up to 0.4 hectare per group member for wheat or fodder crops or up to 0.3 ha for oilseeds. It was also expected that each group member would be entitled to receive an allocation of fertilizer (adequate for an application rate of 200 kg/ha). Group members required to return 125% percent of the quantity of seeds received to the communal seed find after the harvest, for subsequent distribution to other members of the community or for the acquisition of new seeds from a commercial seed producer. 11. The ex-ante analysis showed that the significant benefits for wheat producing CPGs. For example, a household planting 4,000 square meters with quality wheat seeds could expect to harvest about 1.2 tons of wheat grain, equivalent to US$342. Even after returning 125% of the initially received seed grant to the CPG, the household still could generate US$242 in additional net income in the first year. The analysis considered the gradual productivity decline of seed kept from previous harvests, resulting in benefits decline by about 10% each year. It was planned that over the three-year winter wheat period 2009- 2012, the wheat program would generate about 19,350 tons of wheat, valued at US$3.225 million, and directly benefit 12,000 poor households with about 84,000 family members. 12. Vegetables and fruit CPGs. It was expected that the value of the seed potato micro-grant would be about US$72 per family, that of the vegetable an spice seed package about US$15 per family, and that of the plastic sheeting also about US$15 per family. The ex- ante analysis suggested that the benefits from the vegetables and fruit program would be direct improvement of household food security. It estimated that even with modest yield assumptions, in the absence of fertilizer applications other than dung, 500 m2 would yield about 1.25 tons of potatoes. With 10% kept as seed for the following year, this would still provide somewhat over 3 kg of potatoes per day for the household over an entire year. 13. Small Livestock CPGs. The ex-ante economic analysis did not include the analysis of this activity. However, it was expected that this activity would promote household-level food security and income diversification for poor families through small livestock production focused on poultry and rabbits. 33 14. Poultry Vaccination Program. The ex-ante economic analysis for this activity outlined those rural households may own as many as 100 chickens, with 20 to 40 being the typical range. As many as half of these birds were estimated to die each year from Newcastle Disease (NCD). In Sughd and Khathlon together, official statistics reported around 2.5 million birds (in 2007), while the actual numbers were considered to be substantially larger. It was estimated that with an average value of US$4-5 per mature bird, the monetary value of the losses caused by this high prevalence of NCD amounted to anywhere from US$5-7.5 million annually (based on officially reported bird numbers) to as much as US$20 million (based on the substantially larger estimate of unreported poultry). The analysis drew attention to the fact that at the family level, the loss in high protein food was even more significant, because most eggs is used for hatching replacement birds, and only a few animals were used for home consumption. With the relatively new I2 thermos table vaccine, which was administered with a drop in the eye, women could themselves vaccinate their chickens. The cost of the vaccine was estimated less than US$0.0l per animal per vaccination, or approximately US$0.02 per year. It was assumed that the program would benefit more than 500,000 rural poultry owning households and cost approximately US$330,000 over two years. 15. Four cost-benefit models were developed for the ex-post analysis of the component’s benefits. They were based on the actual data and achievements of each activity of the component. The analysis shows that over 8-year period from the actual implementation in 2010 the component generates benefits amounting in about US$4.89 million in total. Component E. Agro-Input Supply Market Development 16. The ex-ante analysis envisaged that the component benefits would result from facilitation of more intensive input use leading to increased productivity and output. It was assumed that the aggregate sales of farm inputs such as fertilizer and certified seed would increase by about 40% to about US$25 million at the end of the project. As a result fertilizer application rates were expected to increase by about 40% while showing similar increase in the use of certified seed. 17. The ex-post analysis of the component was based on its actual achievements and it shows that the component generates about US$0.68 million of direct benefit in three-year period. Project Economic Analysis 18. Although this project is an emergency operation, it had some activities that produced benefits that continue deriving for several years. In addition, the project had two actual phases: the first phase started in 2008 and the second started two years later – after the restructuring in 2010. Therefore 10-year period of analysis was used to account for the long-term impacts of the project interventions (from 2009 to 2018). The scenario presented in the economic analysis is conservative. The analysis presents the balance of costs and benefits of the project and it is based on the actual data and results of the project. 34 19. The analysis identified the quantifiable benefits that relate directly to the activities undertaken following implementation of the project, or that can be attributed to the project’s implementation. The incremental quantifiable benefit stream comprises of three main elements: a. to increase crops production through providing the benefiting households with agricultural inputs and improving the agri-input supply market, b. to increase livestock production by improving the households’ livestock health and husbandry practices, and c. to increase food production by the involved households by grouping them into CPGs. 20. Seven cost-benefit models presenting the benefit streams outlined above were used for calculation of the overall benefit streams on the basis of economic prices. All local costs were converted into their approximate economic values using a Standard Conversion Factor (SCF) of 0.85. All values are given in constant 2013 prices. 21. Given the above mentioned benefit and cost streams, the Economic Rate of Return (ERR) of the project is estimated at 15.2% which can be considered as acceptable given the emergency character of the project. The Net Present Value (NPV) of the Project’s net benefit stream, discounted at 10%, is positive - USD 1.3 million. The summary of the project economic analysis is presented in Table 1 below. 35 Table 1. Project Economic Analysis, USD million 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Incremental Benefit Streams 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (PY0) (PY1) (PY2) (PY3) (PY4) (PY5) Component A. Support for Agricultural Inputs: Phase 1 (2008) - 0.75 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.76 0.61 0.49 0.39 0.31 0.25 Phase 2 (2010) - 0.36 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.36 0.29 0.23 0.18 Component B. Improvement of -0.25 0.17 0.17 0.17 - 0.25 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.10 Livestock Health and Husbandry Component D. Community Production Groups (CPG): Food grain CPGs - - 0.37 0.37 0.30 0.24 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.10 Oilseed, Fodder, Potato, Vegetable 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 and Soft Fruits CPGs Small Livestock CPGs 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 Poultry Vaccination Program - - 1.06 0.64 0.21 - - - - - Component E. Agro-Input Supply 0.19 0.24 0.24 Market Development Total Incremental Benefit Streams - 0.75 0.69 3.32 3.01 2.31 1.18 1.33 1.09 0.91 0.69 Project Costs (economic) 3.19 1.06 3.98 1.06 0.27 Net Incremental benefits - 3.19 -0.31 -3.29 2.26 2.74 2.31 1.18 1.33 1.09 0.91 0.69 EIRR 15.2% NPV @10% (USD million) 1.33 36 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Names Title Unit Lending and Supervision Ahmet I. Soylemezoglu Consultant EASTS Alexander Balakov Senior Procurement Specialist ECSO2 Anna Crole-Rees Consultant AES Arcadii Capcelea Senior Environmental Specialist ECSEN Asyl Undeland Consultant SASDL Awudu Abdulai Consultant ECSSD Ayse Seda Aroymak Sr. Financial Management Specialist ECSO3 Bekzod Shamsiev Senior Agriculture Economist SASDA Bobojon Yatimov Senior Rural Development Specialist ECSAR Brian Aidan Lynch Consultant ECSSD Daniel P. Gerber Rural Development Specialist ECSAR Daphne Sawyerr-Dunn Program Assistant ECSSD Dilshod Karimova Procurement Analyst ECSO2 Elmas Arisoy Manager EASR2 Garry N. Christensen Consultant AES Hannah M. Koilpillai Senior Finance Officer CTRFC Helen Z. Shahriari Sr. Social Scientist AFTCS Jeren Kabayeva Operations Analyst ECSAR John Otieno Ogallo Sr. Financial Management Specialist ECSO3 Lola Ibragimova Social Development Specialist ECSSO Malathi S. Jayawickrama Senior Operations Officer ECSAR Marc Peter Sadler Practice Leader SDNVP Mark R. Lundell Sector Manager EASCS Naushad A. Khan Consultant ECSO2 Nicolas Ahouissoussi Senior Agriculture Economist ECSAR Nikolai Soubbotin Senior Counsel LEGAM Norpulat Daniyarov Sr. Financial Management Specialist ECSO3 Patrick Labaste Sector Leader EASER Shodi Nazarov Financial Management Analyst ECSO3 Thirumangalam V. Sampath Consultant AFTN2 Valencia Copeland Program Assistant ECSAR 37 (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle USD Thousands (including No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) Lending FY06 246.16 FY07 438.14 FY08 50.75 Total: 735.05 Supervision/ICR FY06 0.00 FY07 0.00 FY08 282.49 Total: 282.49 38 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results (if any) 39 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results (if any) 40 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR Unofficial translation # 202 (13), “24th ” of October, 2012 Executive Office of the President of the Republic of Tajikistan Agriculture and Land Use Department To: Ms. Marsha Olive, Country Manager, World Bank Tajikistan Country Office, Republic of Tajikistan Dear Ms. Olive, I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the report, prepared by the Bank, on completion of implementation of Emergency Food Security and Seed Imports Project and Additional Financing for this Project. The Government of the Republic of Tajikistan is interested in objective independent assessment of the results of implementation of these projects in order to learn lessons from the experiences of projects and scale –up the best practices. Ensuring food security is a priority objective, set by the Republic of Tajikistan. Achieving this goal is also indicated the National Development Strategy of the country until 2015. In this regards, the development of agricultural sector and rural areas, where reside about 64% of the population of the Republic of Tajikistan, is a priority for the economy, given its contribution in ensuring food security and improving the welfare of the population. Emergency Food Security and Seed Imports Project was designed as an emergency measure to support the most needed stratum of population in rural areas in response to the global food price crisis in 2008. The situation in Tajikistan in the above period was also significantly complicated by the harsh weather in winter 2007-2008. The Government of Tajikistan (GOT) made an urgent plea for support from the international community in order to stabilize food security in the country. Based on the experiences and realities of the time period associated with the food price crisis, the design of the project required the simplicity and ease of execution for timely delivery of seeds for the poor. The implementation of Emergency Food Security and Seed Imports Project has made a significant contribution to the increase in the production of wheat and improved agricultural production without significant interventions in agricultural practice and in the provision of options for decision-making. The initial project focused primarily on the most food insecure regions for about 25 % of the poorest rural households in Khatlon Oblast and Rasht Valley. The initial project was implemented through FAO and laid a solid foundation for the continuation of the project implementation with additional financing, provided in 2010 by the Russian Federation Trust Fund to respond to the food price crisis. The continuation of the project with this source of financing allowed to make changes in the design of the project and to develop a mechanism to ensure the sustainability of project interventions based on restructuring of the project, taking into account the longer duration of the project, cost savings due to its direct implementation through the Project Management Unit under the 41 Government of the Republic of Tajikistan, as well as the involvement of local NGOs in the selection of beneficiaries and the monitoring of their activities within the framework of Community Production Groups. Implementation of the project followed activities on awareness rising among communities, jointly with local NGOs and local authorities at the field. The given project covered about 25,000 direct beneficiaries. If in the framework of the initial project, beneficiaries of the project mainly received wheat seeds and fertilizer, the second project was aimed at diversification of agriculture by providing beneficiaries the choice of crops to be cultivated, and also additional measures were introduced in order to improve the ability of poor households to cope with the lack of seeds in case of crop failure. To this end, the project set up 24 district Community Seed Funds, registered at the level of local governments in all districts of Khatlon Oblast. These organizations will continue to work with involved Community Production Groups on a contractual basis, and will also provide seeds cleaning and chemical seed treatment services in order to help to support their activities and cover expenses. These structures are established to continue activity of the project related to supplying population with quality seeds and providing other services (seed cleaning, seed treatment) and to be used as a framework for integration and support of existing Community Production Groups. In addition, one of the achievements of the project was the provision and introduction of a mechanism for financing Fertilizer Revolving Fund and improved Fertilizer supply networks and implementation through agro-dealers. Based on project financing, the Center to support agricultural production was established under the Executive Authorities of Khatlon Oblast and Oblast Department of the Ministry of Agriculture. This Center became responsible to supervise Fertilizer Revolving Fund, with 1,860 tons of certified fertilizer for the amount 1, 33 million dollars USA. This structure is under the direct control of the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan. It is also necessary to note the role of the project in increasing the capacity of local authorities, as well as the contribution of the project to support development of farming by providing training courses and individual trainings in the field. Demonstration plots, arranged in the field by some agro-dealers, and the results, achieved by the Community Production Groups due to the use of quality seeds, certified fertilizers and the use of the necessary technology for cultivation had a positive impact on the dynamics of agricultural production in the project areas. The project has achieved significant results, taking into account the adjustments that have been made in the design in the course of its implementation, through close cooperation with the World Bank, timely decisions, implementation of activities and the carrying out of monitoring. Unfortunately, the project did not have enough time to provide necessary assistance and support in the development of the Community Seed Funds and the Center for support of agricultural production for the post- project sustainability and preservation of the obtained results, as well as the development of the agricultural input supply market. Implementation of this project has brought significant results for both beneficiaries at the local level and for the implementation of reforms in the agricultural sector. Taking advantage of this opportunity, I would like to thank the World Bank and its Country Office in Tajikistan for the support and assistance, provided to the agricultural sector of the Republic of Tajikistan, and express my hope for continued fruitful cooperation. Head of Agriculture and Land Use Department, Executive Office of the President J. Piriyev 42 of the Republic of Tajikistan (signature) Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders 43 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents EFSSIP, Project Appraisal Document, Report No. 43890-TJ, May 27, 2008. EFSSIP Integrated Safeguards Datasheet Appraisal Stage, Report No. AC3696, May 27, 2008. EFSSIP TF Grant Agreement, July 17, 2008 EFSSIP, Project Restructuring Paper, July 23, 2009. EFSSIP, Project Restructuring Paper (second), December 21, 2010. EFSSIP, Implementation Status and Results Report, Numbers 1 to 8, May 2008 to May 2013. EFSSIP, Aide Memoires of Implementation Support Missions, May 2008 to April, 2013. EFSSIP, Project Information Document, Report No. AB4781, June 10, 2009. Government/other Documents Project Completion Report, Trust Fund Programme, FAO, July 31, 2009. Status of Implementation of EFSSIP, Report No. UTF/TAJ/004/TAJ, Svetlana Livinets, Abdusaloh Rasulov, Davlatmo Usufbekova (FAO Tajik Office), November 2008. Tajikistan: EFSSIP, Project Evaluation and Impact Assessment, 2009, Tajikistan EFSSIP Preliminary Project Evaluation, June 8, 2009. Impact Evaluation of EFSSIP, Dushanbe, 2013. Final Report on EFSSIP’s Implementation of the Agro-Inputs Support Market Development Program, LLC Agro-Service Khovaling, Dushanbe 2013. 44 68°E 70°E Rayons KAZAKHSTAN 1 2 Tursunzoda Shahrinav 20 21 Murghob Nosir Khusrav 39 Kulob 40 Baljuvon 41 Hamadoni TAJ IK ISTAN 3 Rudaki 22 Shahrituz 42 Shurobod CITIES AND TOWNS 4 Hissor 23 Qabodiyon 43 Khovaling AUTONOMOUS OBLAST CENTER* 5 Varzob 24 Jilikul 44 Muminobod 6 Fayzobod 25 Khuroson 45 Pandjakent OBLAST CENTERS To 7 Vahdat 26 Qumsangir 46 Ayni Tashkent NATIONAL CAPITAL TAJIKISTAN 8 Roghun 27 Bokhtar 47 Shahriston 9 Nurobod 28 Rumi 48 Zafarobod MAIN ROADS To 57 Andijon 10 Rasht 29 Jomi 49 Istaravshan RAILROADS Fergana 11 Tojikobod 30 Vakshs 50 Ghonchi To Valley Dary UZBEKISTAN 51 Spitamen JAMOAT (SUB-DISTRICT) BOUNDARIES a 12 Tavildara 31 Yovon Tashkent Taboshar r 52 Sy To 13 Jirgatol 32 Sarband 52 Mastchoh Andijon RAYON (DISTRICT) BOUNDARIES 55 14 Darvoz 33 Panj 53 Jabor Rasulov Kayrakkum 15 Vanj 34 Danghara 54 Kuhistoni Mastchoh AUTONOMOUS OBLAST BOUNDARY* Khodjand Reservoir Konibodom 16 Ishkoshim 35 Farkhor 55 Ghafurov Chkolovsk 56 OBLAST BOUNDARIES 17 Roshtqala 36 Norak 56 Konibodom To 48 51 53 58 18 Rushon 37 Vose 57 Asht INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES 40°N Bukhoro 49 19 Shughnon 38 Temurmalik 58 °N 40 Isfara Ura- To * Area with no oblast-level administrative divisions, SOGD Tyube Kyzyl-Kiya 72°E where rayons are under direct republic jurisdiction. To REGION 50 KY RGY Z REP. Bukhoro 47 74°E To To Sary-Tash Osh 0 20 40 60 80 Kilometers an Pendzhikent Zeravsh Ayni 54 45 ge 46 i- Ran Jirgatal' 13 Pik Lenin 0 20 40 60 Miles Ala (7134 m ) 10 Tr ans Rasht Pik Imeni Lake 11 Ismail Samani Karakul' (7495 m ) Komsomolabad 5 7 9 12 Region under 4 8 direct Republic Obigarm GHORNO- 1 DUSHANBE 14 subordination 2 6 BADAKHSHAN Rangkul' 40 Kalaikhum Pik Revolution Nurek 43 Vanj 15 (6,974 m) A.O. CHI N A UZ B E K IS TAN 36 P ng Rukhch 20 3 a ta Murgab Murgab r 31 m Ba j Pan 44 25 38 i Lake Sarezskoye 38°N 38°N 34 18 r 29 Kulyab 39 s 32 42 Ak 27 Kurgan- 37 su To Tyube Alichur Qarshi 41 24 30 Moskovskiy 22 19 Garavuti 35 Pamir 28 Khorog 23 KHATLON Shahrtuz 26 33 REGION h Pyanj Vakhs 21 Andarob Pik Karl Marx (6723 m ) 17 Vrang nj To Pa Baghlan 16 IBRD 33493R1 Ishkashim AF GHA NISTA N This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. MARCH 2013 The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information PAKISTAN shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any 68°E 70°E 72°E endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.