Fact-sheet 8 - Bosnia-Herzegovina - 2550-03/2009
4.1
Ultimate beneficiaries (including gender, ethnic origin, religion,
language, if relevant)
(xi)
4.2
Estimated number/ real number
(xi), (xii) p. 5
4.3
Intermediate beneficiaries / intermediaries
4.4
Estimated number/ real number
5.
Findings ‐ output level
Sources
5.1
What are the planned outputs of this intervention?
(xi) p. 9‐11
6.
Assessment of outcome level
Sources
6.1
What are the planned outcomes of the intervention?
(xi) p. 9‐11
6.2
Did the intervention achieve its planned outcomes?
(xiii) p. 3, (xiv), (xv)
and (xvi)
6.3
Were the outcomes formulated in a realistic and achievable
manner?
(xi)
6.4
Were there unexpected positive or negative outcomes of the
6.5
On which assumptions were the outcomes based?
(xi)
6.6
Which risks for the achievement of outcomes were formulated?
(xi)
• Growing international demand for pomegranate products.
• Readiness of farmers to integrate into establishing value chain.
• Smooth cooperation with governmental institutions.
• Strong commitment of individual key personalities.
Explanation
Available documents (progress reports only until 4/11 with a project duration until 4/12) suggest, that planned outcomes could be reached partially.
Outcome 1: The association to join collectors and farmer has been established and good progress has been made in promoting cultivation and collection.
However, the planned extension in collectors and production seem not to have been reached.
Outcome 2: Collection, processing and exporting is being initiated and, organic certification has been provided for wild collection and for parts of the
producers. Structures are in place but as well here the ambitious figures have not been reached.
Outcome 3: The university has established a 2 ha plantation already in 2009. Thereafter there is no more mentioning of research cooperation in the reports to
be found.
Outcomes and even more outputs were formulated on a very technical background, without a realistic picture of the socio‐cultural background of
pomegranate production. Traditional knowledge and experience in pomegranate production was overestimated, thus the quantitative figures could not be
reached.
Not reported
Political instability was formulated as potential risk.
University of Mostar as institution, students of the university.
Explanation
• Establishment of an Info‐Center on Pomegranates for smallholding farmers.
• Integration of 1.000 smallholder farmers into an Agriculture Cooperative for collection of pomegranates.
• Planting of 1.000 ha land with wild pomegranate species.
• Contracts on collecting rights for wild pomegranates with 1.000 smallholder farmers concluded.
• About 200 smallholders plant pomegranates on 100 ha.
• 15 professionel plantation owners increase pomegranate cultivation on from 50ha to 500 ha.
• Increase of income for 500 smallholders by about 2.000 Euro/a.
• ECO‐Certification with 80% of plantations and cooperants.
• Establishment and equipment of a collecting and processing centre.
• 5 staff for the center trained and contracted.
• The trademark „bosnian pomegranate“ ist renown on local markets.
• 500.000 litres of juice and derivates are produced, 80% of which are exported.
• 10 ha experimentation area is under cultivation with the Mostar university.
• 10 students participate in pomegranate related research.
• Publication of relevant research results on pomegranate cultivation in BiH.
Planned outcomes were:
1. Cultivation and wild collection of organic pomegranates is established and organized through an association.
2. Pomegranates of adequate qualities and quantities are processed for the local and the export market. A trademark „bosnian pomegranate“ is established.
3. The agricultural faculty of Mostar University optimizes adequate breeds for pomegranates.
Pomegranate plantation owners, 1.000 smallholding families who collect wild pomegranates and plant small quantities of trees.
15 plantation owners, up to 1.000 smallholding families – real number 100 collecting women, number of plantation owners not reported.
Page 7
Fact-sheet 8 - Bosnia-Herzegovina - 2550-03/2009
6.7
Is the intervention exemplary/ a model for other interventions,
does it form structures and can it be up‐scaled?
(xi)
7.
Assessment of the impact in general
Sources
7.1
Which is the most important positive impact of the intervention?
(xiv)
7.2
Which is the most important negative impact of the intervention?
8.
Assessment of the impact in relation to the key environmental
criteria
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
8.1
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes in the key criteria
ʺenvironmental protectionʺ, and which external factors
contributed to these changes?
5
8.2
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes in the key criteria for
“sustainable management of natural resources”, and which
external factors contributed to these changes?
5
8.3
… ʺreduce conflicts about the use of resourcesʺ
5
8.4
… ʺimprovement of standard of livingʺ
5
8.5
… ʺimproved access to energy and resourcesʺ
8.6
… ʺcontribution to climate change adaptation and mitigationʺ
8.7
… ʺstrengthening of governmental institutions and civil societyʺ
5
8.8
… ʺimproved possibility to implement multilateral
environmental agreementsʺ
8.9
… ʺothersʺ
9.
Assessment of the impact in relation to the thematic
operational fields for environment and development
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.1
Sustainable natural resource management and preserving
biodiversity
Assessme‐nt
1‐7[1]
Sources
9.1.1
How, and to what extent, did the intervention (positively and
negatively) plausibly contribute to changes regarding the key
criteria ʺpropagating ecologically appropriate, diversified
agriculture and promoting organic farmingʺ? Which external
factors contributed to these changes?
5
9.1.2
… ʺadvocating precaution in the use of genetically modified
organismsʺ
Explanation
With the creation of a collectors/producer association a body of self‐governance is established that can help rural people to express themselves.
The intervention aimed at a combination of intensive cultivation and extended wild collection. This can be exemplary, if wild collection is not only meant to
provide a “natural” image for the intensive cultivation.
Establishment of a production, processing and marketing structure for pomegranate. Building up awareness for the value of the wild pomegranate tree.
With the “up‐grading” of natural forests through planting pomegranate trees, there is a non‐timber product, which can provide income to the local
population. This can lead to a protection of the natural forests it can as well on the long run lead to a replacement of the non‐pomegranate trees and thus to a
destruction of the natural forest. The project does not yet foresee the necessity of a management concept to guide a sound development.
The concession to collect pomegranates is provided to the project implementing organization which in turn provides clearly determined rights to collectors.
Thus conflicts between collectors should be minimized.
With production, processing and marketing of pomegranates a considerable number of families (100 + in 2011) can top up their income and thus their
standard of living.
With the establishment of processing and marketing structures of a relatively extensive and organically certified production and collection, the grounds are
prepared to provide an income to rural people, that is gained environmentally sound.
According to ADA information the Bosnian business partner became insolvent and the project could not be completed. The documents give no indication.
Explanation
Explanation
The project established production‐, processing and marketing structures for an organic value chain which can be taken into the portfolio of products of
existing farms. It thus extends economic options for organic farming. Thus it provides an incentive for conventionally producing farmers to switch into the
organic modus.
Explanation
Page 8
Dostları ilə paylaş: |