memorandum and recommendation...

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL GRANTTO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN FOR THE

EMERGENCY HORTICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT (H226-AF)

1. This project paper seeks the approval of the ARTF Management Committee of an additional grant of US$ 15 million, and a one-year extension of the project closure to December 31, 2012, for the Horticulture and Livestock Project (HLP), implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock (MAIL).

2. The grant would help finance the costs associated with scaled-up activities to enhance the impact of a well-performing project. While the project development objective remains unchanged, the PDO indicators have been revised to reflect new targets and to improve their conceptual consistency with the main thrust of actual project activities.

3. By the proposed closing date, it is expected that over 50 to 60 percent of target producers would adopt improved practices in horticulture and/or poultry production with the support of the project extension services; 3,500 ha of new orchards would be established (17 percent increase from the current target); and a 15 percent increase in hen productivity would be achieved by target producers. These would be supported by continued strengthening of extension services, including: (a) increases in the numbers of extension workers of 25 percent in the case of horticulture, and a 127 percent for livestock; (b) 38 percent more Veterinary Field Units (VFUs) privatized, equipped and trained; and (c) 50 percent more extension materials produced on key aspects of horticulture and livestock production. The proposed grant would also allow MAIL to consolidate these activities, refine, and develop new models of intervention for the planned next phase of the project based on pilot activities and experiences gathered so far, and design and develop the proposed follow-on National Horticulture and Livestock Program.

1

Document ofThe World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No:

PROJECT PAPER

ON A

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL

IN THE AMOUNT OF US$ 15 MILLION EQUIVALENT

TO THE

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN

FOR THE

EMERGENCY HORTICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK PROJECT

November 15, 2011

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS(Exchange Rate Effective September 23, 2011)

Currency Unit = Afghani (AFN)AFN 48 = US$ 1

US$ 1.56 = SDR 1

FISCAL YEARMarch 21 – March 20

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSAIAREDP

Artificial InseminationAfghanistan Rural Enterprise Development Project

ARTF Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust FundDAB Da Afghanistan BankDASPS District Agriculture Service Provision SystemESMF Environment and Safeguard Management FrameworkFFS Farmer Field SchoolFOD Farmer Organization DevelopmentFM Financial ManagementFMA Financial Management AgentFP Facilitating PartnerGoA Government of AfghanistanHLP Horticulture and Livestock ProjectIAIDS Improving Agricultural Input Delivery System projectICB Institutional Capacity BuildingIMST Implementation Management Support TeamIPM Integrated Pest ManagementJSDF Japan Social Development FundLFPLNP

Lead Facilitating PartnerLiquid Nitrogen Plant

M&E Monitoring and EvaluationMAIL Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and LivestockMC Management CommitteeMoF Ministry of FinanceMRRD Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and DevelopmentNADF National Agriculture Development FrameworkNCB National Competitive BiddingOFWM On-farm Water Management projectPG Producer GroupPICU Program Implementation and Coordination UnitPMP Pest Management PlanSBD Standard Bidding DocumentSDUSM

Special Disbursement UnitSanitary Mandate

VFU Veterinary Field Unit

Vice President: Isabel GuerreroCountry Director: Nicholas KrafftCountry Manager Josephine BassinetteSector Manager: Simeon Ehui

Task Team Leader: Alvaro Soler



CONTENTS

Project Paper Data Sheet

Project Paper

I. Introduction

II. Background and Rationale for Additional Financing

III. Proposed Changes

IV. Appraisal Summary

Mandatory Annexes

1. Revised Results Framework and Monitoring Indicators

2. Operational Risk Assessment Framework

3. Detailed Description of Modified or New Project Activities

4. Revised Estimate of Project Costs

5. Procurement Plan



ADDITIONAL FINANCING DATA SHEET

Basic Information - Additional Financing (AF)Country Director: Nicholas KrafftSector Manager/Director: Simeon Ehui / Jack SteinTeam Leader: Alvaro SolerProject ID: P128039Expected Effectiveness Date: January 1, 2012Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan (SIL)Additional Financing Type: Scale Up

Sectors: Central government administration (32%); Crops (23%); Animal production (19%); Agro-industry, marketing, and trade (16%); Agricultural extension and research (10%)Themes: Other rural development (25%); Conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction (25%); Export development and competitiveness (24%); Rural services and infrastructure (13%); Gender (13%)Environmental category: BExpected Closing Date: 12/31/2012

Basic Information - Original ProjectProject ID: P098256 Environmental category: BProject Name: Emergency Horticulture and Livestock Project

Expected Closing Date: 12/31/2011

Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan (SIL)

Joint IFC:Joint Level:

AF Project Financing Data[ ] Loan [ ] Credit [ X ] Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other: Proposed terms:

AF Financing Plan (US$ m)Source Total Amount (US$ m)

Total Project Cost: Cofinancing: Borrower: Total Bank Financing: IBRD IDA ARTF New Recommitted

15.0

15.0

15.015.0

Client InformationRecipient: Islamic Republic of AfghanistanResponsible Agency: Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock (MAIL)Contact Person: Assad Zamir, Director, Program Implementation and Coordination UnitTelephone No.: (93-707) 112-847Fax No.:Email: [email protected]

AF Estimated Disbursements (Bank FY/US$ m)FY 2012 2013Annual 6.5 6.5Cumulative 6.5 15.0

Project Development Objective and DescriptionOriginal project development objective: To assist the producer households in adopting improved practices so as to increase horticulture and livestock productivity and production in focus areas.

Revised project development objective: Unchanged.

Project description: The project supports MAIL in developing the horticulture and livestock sub-sectors by focusing on adoption of production and productivity increasing technology by target producers. The project has three components: (a) Horticulture Development, (b) Livestock Development, and (c) Project Management and Institution and Capacity Building.

(a) Horticulture Development. The component supports: (i) the rehabilitation of existing orchards and the development of new ones to increase productivity and production; and (ii) strengthening of horticulture extension services to targeted smallholder producers by: a) training extension workers; b) developing extension materials on improved practices in orchard management, integrated pest management, and on-farm water use; and c) training producer groups (PGs).

(b) Livestock Development. The component supports: (i) smallholder poultry production; (ii) improved livestock extension services delivery to PGs to promote increased production and productivity; and (iii) improvement of veterinary services delivery through privatization and increased technical capacity of Veterinary Field Units (VFUs) for better animal health care.

(c) Project Management and Institution and Capacity Building. This component supports: (i) MAIL in project management; and (ii) key elements of the project implementation strategy, including farmer organization development (FOD), institution and capacity building (ICB), communication, and project and MAIL staff training.

Safeguard and Exception to PoliciesSafeguard policies triggered:Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) Forests (OP/BP 4.36) Pest Management (OP 4.09) Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60)

[x]Yes [ ] No[ ]Yes [x] No[ ]Yes [x] No[x]Yes [ ] No[ ]Yes [x] No[ ]Yes [x] No[ ]Yes [x] No[ ]Yes [x] No[ ]Yes [x] No[ ]Yes [x] No

Does the project require any waivers of Bank policies?Have these been endorsed or approved by Bank management?

[ ]Yes [x] No[x]Yes [ ] No

Conditions and Legal Covenants:Financing Agreement Reference Description of

Condition/CovenantDate Due

I. Introduction

1.1 This Project Paper seeks the approval of the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) Management Committee (MC) to provide an additional financing in an amount of US$ 15 million to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for the Emergency Horticulture and Livestock Project (P098256). Upon the ARTF MC's approval and the Bank's South Asia Regional Vice President's endorsement, the ARTF Grant Agreement for TF 91885 will be amended to increase the grant amount, extend the grant closing date from December 31, 2011 to December 31, 2012, and modify the project's results framework.

1.2 The proposed additional grant would help finance the costs associated with scaled-up activities to enhance the impact of a well-performing project. The PDO remains unchanged, but the PDO indicators have been revised to reflect new targets and to improve their conceptual consistency with the main thrust of actual project activities. It is expected that over 50 to 60 percent of target producers would adopt improved practices in horticulture and/or poultry production through project extension services; 3,500 ha of new orchards would be established (17 percent increase from the current target); and 15 percent increase in hen productivity by target producers. These would be supported by continued strengthening of extension services, including: (a) number of extension workers increased by 25 percent in horticulture and 127 percent by livestock; (b) 38 percent more Veterinary Field Units (VFUs) privatized, equipped and trained; and (c) 50 percent more extension materials produced on key aspects of horticulture and livestock production. The proposed grant would also allow the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Livestock (MAIL) to consolidate these activities, refine, and develop new models of intervention for the next phase of the project based on pilot activities and experiences gathered so far, and design and develop the proposed follow-on national horticulture and livestock program.

II. Background and Rationale for Additional Financing in the amount of $ 15 million.

2.1 Agriculture is central to Afghanistan’s economy. The sector accounts for about half of the GDP, and provides employment to over 60 percent of the labor force. Over 70 percent of the population lives in rural areas, where the incidence of poverty is the highest. Afghanistan's agriculture has suffered from more than 30 years of conflict and unrest. Despite exceptional development experienced by the global horticultural industry since 1977, Afghanistan has not been able to benefit from it. Orchard management systems in Afghanistan are traditional and productivity is low. However, the climate and soils in Afghanistan are well suited to perennial horticulture and have great potential both for increased productivity and growth. Intensive orchard systems based on good practices in neighbouring countries with agro-climatic and social conditions similar to those prevailing in Afghanistan, show fivefold higher yields for fruit and nut trees. Meanwhile the livestock sub-sector, which accounts for about half of the agriculture GDP, converts natural vegetation, lower quality grain and crop by-products into meat, milk and fibre and constitutes a major source of livelihood.

2.2 Development of the agriculture sector is one of the pillars of the Government's strategy for economic growth and poverty reduction1. In 2009, the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, 1 Increasing productivity of wheat for food security and developing perennial horticulture and livestock for growth and poverty reduction are key elements of the government strategy.

1

and Livestock (MAIL) prepared the National Agriculture Development Framework (NADF), which encompasses the following four inter-related program areas or pillars: (i) Natural Resource Management; (ii) Agriculture Production and Productivity; (iii) Economic Regeneration; and (iv) Program Support and Change Management.

2.3 The Horticulture and Livestock Project (HLP) supports MAIL in developing the horticulture and livestock sub-sectors; thus, it is fully aligned with the NADF through its direct support to the pillar II (Agriculture Production and Productivity). The project was approved by the Board in May 2006 with an estimated cost of US$ 50 million over a three-year period, supported by an IDA Grant (XDR 14 million, equivalent of US$ 21.4 million2) that became effective in October 2006. The project is co-financed by the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), which approved a total allocation of US$ 34.3 million between 2008 and 20103. The current total project cost, without the requested additional financing, amounts to US$ 55.7 million. As of September 2011, the project has disbursed approximately 85 percent of the funds available; the IDA allocation has been fully disbursed, while about 80 percent of the ARTF grant has been disbursed. Since June 2011, the project has disbursed more than US$ 4.6 million. Given procurement commitments made and regular operational costs to be incurred, this trend is expected to continue and HLP to fully disburse the balance of US$ 8 million by December 31, 2011.

2.4 HLP’s original PDO was “to stimulate marketable output of perennial horticulture and livestock in focus areas by: (i) improving the incentives framework for private investments and (ii) strengthening institutional capacity in agriculture”. The project, however, became a problem project due to a combination of ambitious as well as complex project design and sub-par performance of the implementing agency and the Lead Facilitating Partner (LFP). In November 2008, a Mid-term review was carried out to review the project performance and design. This was followed by a restructuring mission in June 2009, which re-designed the project to: (a) flesh out a model and build the necessary capacity at different levels for future development of horticulture and livestock; (b) make the project targets realistic; and (c) focus project activities in 11 selected focus districts in 11 provinces to enhance its impact. The PDO and results framework were revised to narrow down the project focus, and the project was extended by two years. The three components, which are Horticulture Development, Livestock Development, and Project Management, remained unchanged; however, within the latter, the scope of institution and capacity building (ICB) was broadened to strengthen technology adoption to be delivered through farmer organization development (FOD). The level 1 restructuring was approved by the Board in December 2009.

2.5 Since the restructuring, the project performance has improved substantially. HLP has been rated satisfactory for both PDO and IP for the last 12 months. Most of the targets associated to PDO indicators have been met or surpassed. Concerning horticulture technology

2 XDR 14 million was equivalent to US$ 20 million at the time of approval. Due to XDR appreciation, additional US$ 1.4 million was available to the project. The total IDA financing, thus, is US$ 21.4 million.3 This surpassed the original ARTF plan of US$ 20 million. In March 2008, an initial allocation of US$ 11 million was approved, followed by US$ 9 million in February 2010 and US$ 14.3 million in May 2010. ARTF has allocated more than originally planned amount of funds. The original financing plan was: US$ 20 million from IDA, US$ 18.9 million from ARTF, US$ 10 million from the Japan Social Development Fund (JSDF), and US$ 1 million from beneficiaries.

2

adoption, 50 percent of the target farmers have fully or partially adopted improved practices in horticulture development, thus meeting the current intended target (50 percent). Achievement of this target has been supported by the production of 31 extension materials covering, inter alia, improved orchard management practices, integrated pest management, and on-farm water use; in addition, 170 extension staff (18 percent women)4 were trained on new production technologies and extension instruments. In livestock development, 66 percent of women producers have adopted improved poultry raising practices, thus exceeding the target technology adoption rate of 60 percent. Moreover, in the horticulture component the average increase in productivity was 49 percent, which has substantially exceeded the target of 15 percent. As of September 2011, HLP has supported the planting of 3,187 hectares of new orchards and vineyards with an average sapling survival rate of about 70 percent, which surpasses the target of 60 percent. Substantial achievements have also been made concerning livestock development activities related to smallholder poultry production and livestock services delivery. A total of 25,000 semi-intensive layer poultry units have been established as of August 2011, which is substantially more than the original end-of-project target of 11,000 units. In 2010, the project-supported layer poultry units produced about 12.1 million eggs, thus surpassing the annual target of 12 million. In addition, livestock services delivery has been greatly enhanced by meeting the target set for the privatization, equipping and training of 120 Veterinary Field Units. Meanwhile HLP has supported capacity building at the local level by promoting the establishment of 782 male and female producer groups (PGs) in 11 focus districts (46 percent are women PGs), and providing them with horticulture and livestock extension services through the Farmer Field School (FFS) methodology.

2.6 The proposed additional financing, therefore, would allow MAIL to consolidate these key achievements in developing and implementing an underlying integrated service delivery model in the focus districts. It would also help MAIL to evaluate the overall performance and impact of the project and gather and feed value information into the design and development of the proposed follow-on national horticulture and livestock program, by which the model would be scaled up.

III. Proposed Changes

3.1 The PDO remains unchanged, which is “to assist producer households in adopting improved practices so as to increase horticulture and livestock productivity and production in focus areas”. It is proposed to revise several PDO indicators to better align them with the PDO, and consequently to restructure the project, to: (a) ensure their consistency with the PDO by highlighting technology adoption among target producers; and (b) adjust targets realistically. As a result, a new category, which is technology adoption, was set up, and two current PDO indicators are converted into intermediate results indicators. The below table 1 summarizes key changes in the PDO indicators (the revised Results Framework is attached in Annex 1). In addition, the closing date of the project will be extended by one year to December 31, 2012.

4 This consists of two Regional Horticulture Coordinators, two Regional Gender Coordinators, 14 Provincial Coordinators, and 152 Extension Workers.

3

Table 1. Key changes in PDO indicators

Indicator Changes with AFTechnology adoptionAt least 50% of target farmers adopt at least two best suitable horticulture practices in focus districts

“Technology adoption” has been created as a new category of PDO-level indicators to ensure consistency with PDO. Existing indicators related to technology adoption are moved, unchanged and with the same targets, under the new heading.

At least 60 % of target producer households adopt improved poultry raising practices in focus districts

Horticulture Development3,500 ha of new orchards established with at least 60% of saplings surviving

Target ha of new orchards increased by 17%.

At least 10% increase in producer price for the products where the value chain pilot is implemented

To make it consistent with the main focus of the PDO, contribution of value chain pilot to DO was revised as an intermediate result indicator and re-phrased to better account for project results.

Livestock Development10% reduction in mortality of poultry Target revised downwards to 5%, as small flock

size does not provide enough incentive for producers to invest in poultry health care.

Institution and Capacity BuildingFunctioning horticulture and livestock extension and other services in place

Revised as an intermediate results indicator. Functionality of service delivery would be assessed through technology adoption rates.

3.2 The project continues to be implemented through three components: (a) Horticulture Development; (b) Livestock Development; (c) Project Management and Institution and Capacity Building. The proposed changes are as follows:

(a) Component A. Horticulture Development (US$ 4.36 million). HLP would: (i) expand the area of rehabilitated and new orchards by 17 percent (an additional 450 ha, for a new total of 3,500 ha); (ii) install trellises in an additional 25 ha vineyards; (iii) expand the delivery of extension services to all new orchards established by the project, including those in 42 non-focus districts, where the orchards were established before restructuring; (iv) develop 10 additional training modules on integrated pest management, on-farm water management, and farm planning and orchard management; and (v) conduct a feasibility study to incorporate the value chain approach in the extension service model as well as a needs assessment of government extension workers.

(b) Component B. Livestock Development (US$ 3.85 million). The component would (i) expand access to quality animal health services by 37 percent (an additional 40 VFUs privatized); (ii) expand poultry extension by 80 percent (an additional four districts); and (iii) strengthen livestock extension support by doubling the number of extension workers (additional 28 workers) and training 40 more VFUs on artificial insemination services5; and (iv) undertake economic analyses on small-holder backyard poultry and VFUs.

(c) Component C. Project Management and Institution and Capacity Building (US$ 6.79 million). In addition to the project management costs, the component would finance

5 This is approximately 60 percent of privatized VFUs. About 60 VFUs will be trained and equipped by the end of December 2011. The component would expand such support to an additional 40 VFUs during the extension.

4

general capacity building at producer level through, inter alia, Farmer Organization Development (FOD) and Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) activities. FOD is to (i) consolidate phased mobilization to support PGs throughout the value chains; (ii) pilot commodity associations at cluster level6; and (iii) establish, on a pilot basis, credit linkages with the Bank financed Afghanistan Rural Enterprise Development Project (AREDP)7. ICB would further develop the District Agriculture Service Provision System (DASPS) model by piloting farmer service centers, adapting existing infrastructure through minor civil works, as one-stop shop for producers on extension and marketing resources. Gender mainstreaming will continue to be supported and further developed to be fed into the design of the next phase of the project, by conducting a needs assessment of female beneficiaries to further understand their skills and interests. The component would also finance a training needs assessment and a HLP impact evaluation.

3.3 Table 2 portrays the cost breakdown for the additional financing.

Table 2. Horticulture and Livestock Project – Additional Financing Costs

Total CostsSub-components (US$ '000) (%)

A. Horticultural Development 4,360 29%B. Livestock Development 3,850 26%C. Project Management and Institution and Capacity Building 6,790 45%

- Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) 670 4%- Farmers Organization Development (FOD) 840 6%- Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) 770 5%- International TA Team (GIZ) 1,980 13%- National TA Team 275 2%- Operations, Finance & Procurement 1,875 13%- Project Preparation of HLP2 380 3%

Total 15,000 100%

3.4 The entire proposed additional financing of $15 million would be added to the existing one catch-all disbursement category. Because minor civil works are anticipated, the ARTF grant agreement would be amended to include these. This would make the agreement in line with the IDA financing agreement.

IV. Appraisal Summary

4.1 Project implementation arrangements remain unchanged. To manage project implementation, MAIL has established an Implementation Management Support Team (IMST) and contracted Lead Facilitating Partner (LFP). International project and component coordinators provide support for day-to-day management, procurement, financial management, monitoring and evaluation, and horticulture and livestock technical specialist services. IMST is overseen by the General Director of MAIL’s Program Implementation and Coordination Unit (PICU). Implementation of project components in the field is supported by various facilitating partners under separate contracts with MAIL.

6 This is to build on the round table between producer groups (PGs) and traders in Khulm. 40 PGs shipped 30 mt of pomegranates to India in 2010. The commodity association pilot is planned in three focus districts: (i) Khulm (140 PGs in pomegranate), (ii) Ayback (90 PGs in almonds), and (iii) Mir Bacha Kot (140 PGs in grapes).7 The Bank financed project, implemented by the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD).

5

4.2 Procurement. Procurement arrangements also remain unchanged.8 The World Bank’s Standard Bidding Documents, Requests for Proposals, and Forms of Consultant Contract would be used. Civil works and goods following National Competitive Bidding (NCB) procedures shall be procured using the agreed Standard Bidding Documents (SBDs) for Afghanistan. In case of conflict/contradiction between the World Bank’s procurement procedures and any national rules and regulations, the World Bank’s procurement procedures would take precedence as per the Article 4(2) of the Procurement Law July 2008 (Amendments in January 2009 incorporated) of the GoA, the IDA Procurement/Consultant Guidelines shall prevail. The procurement plan during the proposed extension is attached in the Annex 4.

4.3 Financial Management, Disbursement, and Audit Arrangement. Project financial management has been generally satisfactory. The current financial management arrangements for the project have been reassessed by the Bank for the additional financing; it was found to be adequate. The FM assessment also indicated that the overall financial management risk rating for the project remains substantial. There are no overdue audit reports for this project and for other projects being implemented by the implementing line ministry (MAIL). The audit report for the project for the year ended March 20, 1389 (2011) was received before the due date of 22 September 2011 and the auditors issued an unqualified (clean) opinion.

4.4 Monitoring and Reporting. The IMST/LFP and its M&E unit, in close collaboration with the other Facilitating Partners (FPs), is responsible for the overall monitoring of the project’s development and intermediate results. The revised Results Framework attached to this proposal in Annex 1 is the basis for monitoring the project results and outcomes. Progress in implementing the key project activities are monitored against annual work plans (that show quarterly targets and milestones) prepared by each FP and cleared by the LFP. The progress of each sub-component is monitored and reported by the FPs to the IMST. In addition, an innovative geo-location monitoring is being implemented, mapping physical project achievements on the ground. The MAIL/IMST submits quarterly progress reports to the Bank.

4.5 The achievement of project development objectives and project implementation performance is independently reviewed by the Bank’s task team during their periodic and day to day reviews using the performance indicators of the results matrix and agreed annual/quarterly work plans, procurement plans and quarterly progress reports. The donors co-financing the project through ARTF and other sources as well as representatives of the donors implementing complementary programs in the sector are invited to participate in the Bank’s review missions.

4.6 Environmental issues. The project remains in Environmental Category B as originally envisaged. Project activities are not expected to have any significant negative environmental impacts. On the contrary, developments proposed for perennial tree crops are likely to have a positive impact by promoting nursery development that would lead to an increase in orchard areas. The promotion of perennial horticulture might increase the use of chemical insecticides and fertilizers in the project areas. However, strict Integrated Pest Management (IPM) measures 8 Procurement for the project would be administrated in accordance with the World Bank’s “Guidelines: Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits” dated January 2011, “Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers” dated January 2011and the provisions stipulated in the Financing Agreement. In addition, the World Bank’s “Guidelines on Preventing and Combating Corruption in Projects Financed by IBRD Loans and IDA Credits and Grants” dated January 2011 also applies.

6

are being incorporated with inputs from an international IPM specialist and by developing and adopting crop-specific plans, training of farmers in the planning and application of IPM practices and monitoring of these activities in project areas. Since MAIL has two other ARTF-financed projects9, MAIL is to establish or appoint a coordinating body in mainstreaming IPM.

4.7 During the proposed extension, the project is to develop sanitary and vector control mechanisms for the livestock sector, by strengthening the pest management plan (PMP) for the horticulture component. This would require incorporating lessons learnt during the preparation and implementation of the Environment and Waste Management Plan of the Bank-financed avian influenza control project.10 Also, the validity and lessons learnt during the implementation of the ESMF and the PMP would be analyzed and updated, including legislation and regulation regarding the pesticides importation, storage, marketing, utilization and application. Both the MAIL and the project have also started a modest level of environmental monitoring like pesticide residue analysis and the development of related capabilities.

4.8 Social issues. Project activities are not expected to have any significant negative social impacts but would result in long term social benefits to target beneficiaries. HLP provides horticulture and livestock extension services to a broad range of farmers in the project districts through group mobilization and FFS. Moreover, progressive efforts have been made in mainstreaming gender across the components, in particular, the poultry sub-component (beneficiaries are 100 percent women) and producer group development (46 percent women).

9 These are the On-Farm Water Management project (OFWM) and the Improving Agricultural Input Delivery System project (IAIDS).10 The project was financed by IDA and the Avian and Human Influenza Facility (AHIF). It closed on March 31, 2010.

7

Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring

AFGHANISTAN: Emergency Horticulture and Livestock ProjectResults Framework

Revisions to the Results Framework Comments/Rationale for Change

PDOCurrent (PAD) ProposedTo assist producer households in adopting improved practices so as to increase horticulture and livestock productivity and production in focus areas

Unchanged

PDO indicatorsCurrent Proposed change*Technology adoption (newly created category )At least 50% of target farmers adopt at least two best suitable horticulture practices in focus districts

At least 50% of target farmers adopt the introduced improved horticulture practices in focus districts

The indicator has been moved up from “Horticulture” subject to newly created “Technology Adoption” subject. It has also been re-phrased for improved assessment of project results

At least 60 % of target producer households adopt improved poultry raising practices in focus districts

At least 60% of target farmers adopt the introduced improved poultry husbandry practices in focus districts

The indicator has been moved up from “Livestock” subject to newly created “Technology Adoption” subject. It has also been re-phrased for improved assessment of project results

Horticulture Development15% increase in productivity in target farmers orchards

15% higher productivity in target farmers orchards

No project control over all variables involved. Indicator has been re-phrased to better account for project results vis a vis control groups.

At least 50% of target farmers adopt at least two best suitable practices' in focus districts

Moved up to “Technology Adoption” and re-phrased

“Technology Adoption” Introduced as main PDO-level indicator, to make it consistent with the main focus of the PDO

3,000 ha of new orchards established with at least 60 % of saplings surviving

3,500 ha of new orchards established with at least 60 % of saplings surviving

Target raised by 500ha (17%) for the extension period; sapling survival rate kept unchanged.

At least 10% increase in producer price for the products where the value chain pilot is implemented

Contribution of value chain pilot to DO revised as an intermediate result indicator and rephrased to better account for project results

To make it consistent with the main focus of the PDO

Livestock DevelopmentAnimal Health5% reduction in mortality among large ruminants

Unchanged

10% reduction in small Ruminants

Unchanged

20% reduction in mortality of Decreased target: “10% reduction in Lingering issues with access and

8


poultry mortality of poultry” costs of veterinary services, and HLP’s small flock size, does not provide enough incentive for producers to invest in poultry health care. The target, thus, has been reduced.

PoultryAt least 60 % of target producer households adopt improved poultry raising practices in focus districts

Moved up to “Technology Adoption” and re-phrased.

“Technology Adoption” Introduced as main PDO-level indicator, to make it consistent with the main focus of the PDO

Incremental production of 15 million eggs and 450 tons of meat per year achieved

Rephrased as: 15% increase in hen productivity (eggs/hen/yr) by target producer households.

Iindicator re-phrased for improved assessment of project results

DairyComprehensive feasibility study of dairy development completed, providing recommendations for the way-forward

Unchanged Current target already achieved; no follow up activities for the task planned for 2012

Institution and Capacity BuildingFunctioning horticulture and livestock extension and other services in place

Revised as an intermediate result indicator

Functionality of service delivery would be measured by PDO-level technical adoption rates indicators

Intermediate Results indicatorsCurrent Proposed change*Horticulture ComponentOrchard management:Increased productivity of existing orchards through assistance in input supplies and technical services on best suitable practices for orchard production 10,000 farmers achieve 10 %

increase in production as a result of applying improved technologies (IPM, canopy and on-farm irrigation management principles) in focus districts introduced by project

10% increase in total fruit production for the average beneficiary orchard household

No project control over all variables involved. Indicator re-phrased to better account for project results

Four suitable intercrops introduced by project

Dropped Problems in purchasing good quality seeds led to the discontinuation of this activity

Extension service:Horticultural extension service developed that can reliably provide information to 15,000 producer households in focus districts 120 extension workers Increased target: 150 Target increased by 25%

9


trained (additional 30 extension workers). Extension material produced

for 6 tree crops and 4 intercrops

Rephrased and increased target: “15 horticulture extension materials produced for diverse kinds of fruit trees and grape vine farming”

Target increased by 50%. The text has been clarified to give more flexibility to the assessment of relevant results.

15,000 producer households districts confirm receiving horticulture extension services in focus districts

Rephrased: “at least 80% of target beneficiary farmers receive useful extension services on improved orchard farming.”

Improved definition of relevance of result sought (coverage and quality)

Value Chain Development:Improve marketable production and returns to farmers by targeted interventions in the value chain pilot activity At least 100 farmers and 30

traders/merchants participate in the value chain activities

Unchanged

5% increase in production of two marketable crops Dropped No project control through this

activity over all variables involved in the indicator

5% increase in returns of two marketable crops

Rephrased: “Producers participating in value chain activities achieve 5% higher returns for marketable crops involved in the pilot due to improved post harvest handling and marketing linkages”

No project control over all variables involved. Indicator re-phrased to better account for project results

Livestock ComponentAnimal Health:Improved access to animal health services through privatization At least 120 government

veterinary clinics transferred to private sector operation

Increased target: “At least 165 government veterinary clinics transferred to private sector operation”

Target increased by 38% (additional 45 VFUs).

Number of households receiving animal health interventions from VFU's increased by 5% yearly

Unchanged

Poultry:Semi-intensive layer and broiler poultry units established, generating sustainable income for rural women Around 11,000 semi

intensive layer-poultry units established

Increased target:”Around 25,000 semi-intensive layer poultry units established”

The target has been increased by 127% increase (14,000 additional units).

Around 7,000 broiler poultry units established

Rephrased: “Around 241 broiler poultry units established on a pilot basis “

Appropriate model of intervention for broiler production support, not yet fully developed. Reformulated pilot intervention planned for

10


extension period. At least 60% of established

layer-poultry and broiler units adopt the second cycle of poultry production

Rephrased;”At least 60% of established layer-poultry units adopt the second cycle of production”

Rephrased indicator better reflects actual activities carried out by the project

Dairy: Inception phase of dairy

sector study completed by December 2009

Dropped This is already measured by the PDO indicator

Livestock Extension:Livestock extension servicesdeveloped that can reliableprovide information to 15,000producer households in focusdistricts 22 livestock extension

workers trainedIncreased target: ”50 livestock extension workers trained”

The target has been increased by 127% (28 additional trainees).

Extension materials produced for dairy, small ruminants, and poultry

Rephrased; “15 livestock extension materials produced on relevant aspects of livestock farming, including animal health care”

Rephrased due to the need to quantify and more accurately define the result sought

15,000 producer households confirm receiving livestock extension in focus districts

Rephrased: “At least 60% of target beneficiary farmers receive useful extension services on improved livestock farming”

Improved definition of relevance of result sought (coverage and quality).

Institution & Capacity BuildingEnabling environment:Institution & Capacity BuildingFunctioning horticulture andlivestock extension and otherservices in place

Unchanged description; indicator moved from PDO level to Intermediate Results level

“Technology Adoption” Introduced as main PDO-level indicator, to make it consistent with the main focus of the PDO. Functionality / Operational capacity of extension services measured through improved technology adoption rates.

FOD Village based producerorganizations (male and female) established and strengthened in 11 focus districts Around 750 male and female

producer groups operating Increased target: “Around 780 male and female producer groups operating

Target raised by 30 groups (4%) for the extension period.

FOD /Service AccessMale and female producer groups have an improved access to services in nine clusters in five selected focus districts 40 % of the members of

male and female groups confirm having an improved

Reduced target:”10% of the members of male and female groups confirm having an improved access to the

New indicator introduced during 2009 re-structure now formalized; target adjusted to real conditions

11


access to the supply of production inputs

supply of production inputs” on the ground and the amount of time available

20 % of male and female groups confirm having an improved access to marketing services

Reduced target:”5% of male and female groups confirm having an improved access to marketing services”

New indicator introduced during 2009 re-structure now formalized; target adjusted to real conditions on the ground and the amount of time available

Institutional capacity: Strengthened capacity of MAIL and district level agricultural institutions to ensure efficient implementation of HLP and other projects 60 % of the relevant

institutions at district level confirm the establishment of coordination and collaborative arrangements

Re-phrased:” 15% of the relevant institutions participating in PASPS and DASPS are supporting producers groups at district level”

Re-phrased to make it closely related to PDO; previous 60% target was binary, but current one is qualitative, more meaningful and harder to achieve

80 % of beneficiaries of horticulture, livestock and FOD trainings confirm satisfaction with the trainings

Unchanged

* Indicate if the indicator is Dropped, Continued, New, Revised, or if there is a change in the end of project target value

12

REVISED PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Project Development Objective (PDO): To assist producer households in adopting improved practices so as to increase horticulture and livestock productivity and production in focus areas

PDO Level Results Indicators11

Cor

e UOM12

BaselineOriginal Project

Start(2008)

Progress To Date

(2011)13

Cumulative Target Values14

Frequency Data Source/Methodology

Responsibility for Data

CollectionComments2012

Technology adoption1. At least 50% of target farmers adopt the introduced improved horticulture practices in focus districts

%

Orchard productivity: 0 67%

50%Annual and at

the end of Project

Annual Outcome

Monitoring

M&E Department

Orchard management: 0 42%Plant protection: 0 48%

Average 52%2. At least 60% of target farmers adopt the introduced improved poultry husbandry practices in focus districts

%

Production: 7.6% 80%

60%Annual and at

the end of Project

Annual Outcome

Monitoring

M&E Department

Health care: 12.5% 52%

Average 66%

Horticulture

3. 15% higher productivity in target farmers orchards %

Area productivityAlmond: 214 kg/jerib (target); 224 kg/jerib (control)

25%

15%Annual and at

the end of Project

Annual Outcome

Monitoring

M&E Department

Apricot: 1,061 kg/jerib (target); 1,195 kg/jerib (control)

21%

Grape: 1,683 kg/jerib (target); 1,723 kg/jerib (control)

31%

Pomegranate: 384kg/jerib (target); 229kg/jerib (control)

70%

Average 37%Tree productivityAlmond: 2.98 kg/tree (target);

12% 15% Annual and at Annual M&E

11 Please indicate whether the indicator is a Core Sector Indicator (for additional guidance – please see http://coreindicators).12 UOM = Unit of Measurement.13 For new indicators introduced as part of the additional financing, the progress to date column is used to reflect the baseline value.14 Target values should be entered for the years data will be available, not necessarily annually. Target values should normally be cumulative. If targets refer to annual values, please indicate this in the indicator name and in the “Comments” column.

13

http://coreindicators/


PDO Level Results Indicators C or UOM BaselineOriginal Project

Progress To Date

Cumulative Target Values Frequency Data Source/

MethodologyResponsibility

for Data Comments

3 kg/tree (control)

the end of Project

Outcome Monitoring Department

Apricot: 13 kg/tree (target);15 kg/tree (control)

46%

Grape: 5.61 kg/vine (target);4 kg/vine (control)

29%

Pomegranate: 4.8 kg/tree (target)4.61 kg/tree (control)

55%

Average 36%4. 3,500 ha of new orchards established with at least 60 % of saplings surviving

ha / %

0 ha / 0 %

3,187 ha / 73%

3,500 ha /60%

Annual and at the end of

Project

Annual Outcome

Monitoring

M&E Department

Livestock5. Animal Health: 5% reduction in mortality among large ruminants (cattle)

% 4.91% Reduced by 59.3% 5%


Project

Annual Outcome

Monitoring

M&E Department 2.9% mortality in 2010

6.Animal Health: 10% reduction in small Ruminants (sheep and goats)

% 11.87% Increased by 68.5% 10%


Project

Annual Outcome

Monitoring

M&E Department 2% mortality in 2010

7. Animal Health: 10% reduction in mortality of Poultry % 5.87% Increased by

2.21% 10%Annual and at

the end of Project

Annual Outcome

Monitoring

M&E Department 21% mortality in 2010

8.Poultry: 15% increase in hen productivity (eggs/hen/yr) by target producer households.

% 80 eggs/hen/yr 60% 15%Annual and at

the end of Project

Annual Outcome

Monitoring

M&E Department 128 eggs/hen/yr in 2010

9.Dairy: Comprehensive feasibility study of dairy development completed, providing recommendations for the way-forward

Y/N No Completed

Beneficiaries 15

15 All projects are encouraged to identify and measure the number of project beneficiaries. The adoption and reporting on this indicator is required for investment projects which have an approval date of July 1, 2009 or later (for additional guidance – please see http://coreindicators).

14

http://coreindicators/


PDO Level Results Indicators

Cor

e UOM

BaselineOriginal Project

Start(2008)

Progress To Date

(2011)

Cumulative Target Values

Frequency Data Source/Methodology

Responsibility for Data

CollectionComments

Project beneficiaries,Number

0 39,374 39,374Annual and at

the end of Project

Annual Outcome

Monitoring

M&E Department

Of which female (beneficiaries)Number

0 19,278 (49%) 19,278 (49%)


Project

Annual Outcome

Monitoring

M&E Department

15

ANNEX 2: OPERATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK (ORAF)AFGHANISTAN: Horticulture and Livestock Project

Stage: Board

1. Project Stakeholder Risks Rating LowDescription : 1. MAIL may not have enough capacity to fully implement

the proposed activities, including a few pilot activities.2. Not enough buy-in from producers

Risk Management: 1. For more than five years, MAIL has implemented HLP with support from a Lead Facilitating

Partner (LFP), and this implementation arrangement would continue during the extension.2. Good buy-in from producers as production and productivity in supported orchards have

markedly increased. The commodity associations and farmer center pilots would help establish market linkages for their products.

Resp: MAIL/HLP Stage: Due Date : Status: On-going

2. Operating Environment Risks (not disclosed) Section to be removed when the PAD is (i) sent to the client for negotiation or (ii) sent to the Board for approval2.1.2.2.2.3. Country (description and rating are not disclosed) Rating: High

Description : (this description and rating are not disclosed)Politics, Security & Governance: Escalating insurgency-related violence has increased the level of fragility in the political and governance environment, while also impacting ability of the government to deliver services & programs. Key risks include impact on project implementation and ability to supervise in parts of the country.

Environment: Environmental/Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) are required under an Environment Law, but no regulatory policies and procedures have been developed to

Risk Management : Mitigation of this risk is outside the scope of WB – however WB will continue to monitor developments closely and will modify program if necessary. Third party monitoring and remote sensing/GPS used increasingly for monitoring & supervision.

Bank adopts a pragmatic approach to project design & implementation involving a Environment & Social Management Framework (ESMF) and ESIAs.

16

guide agencies.Key risks include long term environmental & social impact of extractive industries.

Systemic Fraud & Corruption: Corruption continues to be widespread and pervasive. Afghanistan’s ranking in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index has slipped from 176 out of 180 countries surveyed in 2008 to 179 out of 180 countries surveyed in 2009. Key risks include weakening of government commitment to maintaining sound fiduciary environment.

Fiduciary Management: Approval of a modern Public Finance and Expenditure Law (2005) and its regulations (2006), together with the checks and controls built in the computerized systems, provides a good control framework, especially for budget monitoring and control Key risks include changes in government policy towards PFM framework.

Economic Management: Key risks include high reliance on foreign assistance to finance budget deficit. However, large inflows of money from donors, remittances and drug-related activities are likely to create upward pressures on the real exchange rate reducing competitiveness in the future.

WB will continue to work on governance and anti-corruption work, supporting the High Office of Oversight.

WB has a major program of TA on the core PFM functions. WB also reinforces TA through policy conditionality on DPG series and ARTF Incentive Program. The WB also has significant leverage on government through its administration of the ARTF, which channels significant funds towards the budget.

WB & IMF monitor economic & fiscal management closely through HIPC, DPG and PRGF programs.

Resp: Bank Stage: Due Date : Status: On-going

2.4.2.5.2.6. Sector/multi-sector (description and rating are not disclosed)

Rating: Medium-I

Description : (this description and rating are not disclosed)The relevant MAIL Departments, such as Horticulture, Livestock, and Cooperatives, do not have enough capacity to implement the project.

FOD activities, in particular, social mobilization and savings and credit, require better convergence with other Bank-financed projects in ARD, such as the National Solidarity Project (NSP) and the Afghanistan Rural Enterprise Development Project (AREDP).

Risk Management : Implementation arrangements remain unchanged. The project would continue to have a dedicated PIU, and the implementation would be supported by a lead facilitating partner.

The two projects are implemented by the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD). NSP-developed Community Development Councils (CDCs) have been used by FOD as entry point for communities. During the extension, HLP would pilot collaboration with AREDP in facilitating credit linkage for HLP producer groups in Balkh province.

Resp: MAIL Stage: Due Date : Status: Completed

17

3. Implementing Agency Risks (including fiduciary)3.1.3.2.3.3. Capacity Rating: Medium-I

Description : Although a number of other Bank-assisted projects have helped to build capacity, MAIL is still weak in terms of implementation capacity (procurement, contract management, and FM) and ability of timely decision making. There is a general lack of technical and managerial capacities in MAIL at the Central, Regional and Provincial levels.

Weak internal controls may lead to misappropriation of funds and delay in preparation and submittal of acceptable financial reports, and these will have consequent effects on disbursements and implementation progress

Risk Management : The LFP has been providing support in implementation, FM, and procurement, and local capacities are being developed at the national level. The proposed extension would start developing regional, provincial, and district level capacities.

There has been good compliance with WB FM requirements by MAIL/HLP. The use of centralized accounting and payments and processing of all transactions through the full set of Government budget implementation rules and systems lower the risk of misuse and mis-reporting. MAIL/HLP should minimize the use of the Designated Account, while maximizing direct payments to consultants. The risks are also reduced by the presence of: (i) a FM Agent at the Treasury of Ministry of Finance, which is responsible for processing payments, transaction recording and reporting; and (ii) an Audit Agent at the Control and Audit Office, which is responsible for external audit of the project.


3.4.3.5.3.6. Governance Rating: Medium-LDescription : 1. Insufficient transparency in personnel management and

insufficient accountability in procurement and contract management.

2. MAIL/HLP is yet to develop a social accountability mechanism in supporting producer groups and commodity associations.

Risk Management : 1. The project website at MAIL domain facilitates wider and transparent dissemination of

procurement processes. For personnel management, the Bank has been closely following recruitment processes in order to maximize transparency.

2. The extension would develop a social accountability mechanism through DASPS.


Fraud & Corruption (sub-category of Governance risk)Remove Risk Description and Rating when the PAD is (i) sent to the client for negotiation or (ii) sent to the Board for approvalRisk management measures below to be merged with those in 3.2 above.

Rating: Medium-L

Description : (this description and rating are not disclosed)MAIL lacks clear arrangements for strong accountability and oversight and fraud and corruption controls.

Risk Management : 1. LFP has an international FM specialist.2. Local capacity for procurement has increased, and further training of Ministry staff in

procurement and FM processes would be delivered. An international procurement consultant would be hired on a short term basis to oversee complex processes.

3. Continued heightened Bank vigilance.

18


4. Project Risks4.1.4.2.4.3. Design Rating: Medium-L

Description :During the restructure, the Farmer Organization Development (FOD) activity was added, and extension services have been successfully channeled through producer groups since then. The sequencing of group formation and extension service delivery requires better coordination among horticulture, livestock, and FOD components to make it effective.

Risk Management : During the extension, HLP is to consolidate the model by piloting the commodity association development. The components are increasingly working closely.


4.4.4.5.4.6. Social & Environmental Rating: LowDescription : The EMP has been prepared. The project IPM guidelines are developed, and training is delivered by extension services. IPM needs to be institutionalized. The pilot activities, which are commodity association development and farmer service centers, do not trigger any other safeguard parameters.

Risk Management : The Bank has requested MAIL to mainstream IPM.


4.7.4.8.4.9. Program & Donor Rating: LowDescription : The project is widely recognized in the donor community. This has been proven by ARTF approval of US$ 34.3 million, which exceeds its original commitment by 70 percent (US$ 20 million). The level of interest should be maintained in view of current project performance and the prospect of expanding the current successful model of intervention.

Risk Management : The Bank team continues to engage donors during implementation support missions.

Resp: MAIl/HLP Stage: Due Date : Status: On-going

4.10.4.11.4.12. Delivery Monitoring & Sustainability Rating: Medium-IDescription : 1. HLP has established a strong M&E team. However, results

framework was weak in capturing achievements towards PDO.

2. The procurement capacity is still weak. There is a risk of delay in FP contract extensions, in particular the LFP extension, which would be handled by MAIL.

3. The capacity of extension workers and PGs are still weak.

Risk Management : 1. The results framework has been revised, thus, is more consistent with the PDO.

2. MAIL would hire an international procurement consultant on a short term assignment to process major procurement.

3. The proposed extension would build their capacities through training, additional mobilization, and a commodity association pilot.


Nondisclosable Information for Management Attention (Optional)

19

Section to be removed when the PAD is (i) sent to the client for negotiation or (ii) sent to the Board for approvalComments:

5. Project Team Proposed Rating Before Review 5.1.5.2.5.3. Preparation Risk Rating: Section to be removed when the PAD is sent to

the Board for approvalMedium-I

5.2 Implementation Risk Rating: Section to be removed when the PAD is sent to the Board for approvalMedium-I

Comments: Section to be removed when the PAD is sent to the Board for approval


6. Risk Team6.1.6.2. Preparation Risk Rating Section to be removed when the PAD is sent to

the Board for approval6.2 Implementation Risk Rating Section to be removed when the PAD is sent to the Board for approval



7. Overall Risk Following Review7.1.7.2. Preparation Risk Rating: Section to be removed when the PAD is sent to

the Board for approval7.2 Implementation Risk Rating:

Comments: Comments:

Note : Include on average no more than 3 Risk Management Measures per Risk Category

20

Annex 3Detailed Description of Modified Project Activities

Introduction

1. The proposed additional financing would contribute to the PDO by supporting the consolidation of the achievements already made by the project and scaling up of key activities to improve actual outcomes. In addition, based on experiences gathered so far and pilot activities to be carried out, refined and new models of intervention would be developed to feed into the design of the proposed follow-on project. The preparation of the national horticulture and livestock program would also be supported by the grant.

2. No changes have been introduced to the Project Development Objective. However, the Results Framework has been updated to strengthen its conceptual consistency with the main thrust of actual project activities, improve the description of some of the indicators, and reflect new targets. With the support of the proposed additional financing, the HLP is to attain or exceed most of its PDO targets, and show a clear impact through a well balanced set of interventions providing the required support for targeted beneficiaries to improve their productive endeavors. This would allow HLP to consolidate its performance and become the government’s main program for the support of the poorer segments of Afghanistan’s population, which are concentrated in the rural areas.

Proposed activities and arrangements under additional financing

Component A. Horticulture Development

3. The component would consolidate current project achievements by delivering a range of extension packages, in particular, to those farmers who have received planting materials from HLP.

4. New orchards. Additional 450 hectares, including a replant of 50 ha, would be carried out during the extension. This would require the project staff to work with the facilitating partner to register additional farmers to receive saplings and cuttings and then accept their 25 percent contributions towards the investment. Actual location where it may be feasible to plant would be determined by security and other conditions on the ground.

5. It was also agreed to develop another 25 ha of trellising for grapes in the Northern Region, if security and other conditions remain feasible. All the trellising so far has occurred in the Central Region, because it was considered too difficult to launch the procurement of inputs in more than one region concurrently. However, there is considerable demand for trellising in the north as well. The agronomic advantages of installing these structures have been amply demonstrated, and farmers in the north would greatly benefit if similar technology is introduced.

6. Extension services. Successful extension training programs would be continued. This would include training in Integrated Pest Management, which has proved particularly successful, and on-farm water management. Delivery through HLP’s producer groups by Farmer Field School (FFS) methodologies would continue to ensure sustainable adoption of the extension messages. Focus would also be given directly to training DAIL staff in delivering the various extension messages piloted by HLP. DAIL staff would be trained in the focus and non-focus districts on issues related to the horticultural calendar. In addition, the marketing support would

21

continue in the north, developing linkages between producers groups and traders, including training on post harvest handling.

7. DAIL capacity building. In line with MAIL’s intent to see a gradual migration of the extension functions within HLP to the ministry, a process of sensitization of DAIL extension staff by including them more systematically in the current delivery of extension would be initiated. This would allow obtaining useful experience about the process, which would be a core theme in the design and implementation of the proposed follow-on national program.

Component B. Livestock Development

8. Having surpassed its main targets, this component would focus its activities in consolidating project achievements made thus far. Along with the consolidation of smallholder poultry units distributed, expanding the establishment and technical capabilities of independently operating privatized veterinary field units would be a key activity to be supported through the additional financing. This would provide greater impetus to an effective extension delivery which deals with the most serious constraints to smallholder livestock production.

9. Smallholder Poultry Production. HLP has invested substantially in smallholder poultry production with 25,000 households trained and supplied with packages of minor equipment and feed and improved egg-laying birds. These small flocks have produced millions of eggs and hundreds of tons of poultry meat since their distribution began early in 2009, and have conferred a substantial benefit to the households which received them. During the extension, the distribution of egg-layer poultry packages would be halted, while the experiences had so far are reviewed and evaluated to determine their potential for a more general rollout, possibly as an activity of the follow-on project. To this end, a consultancy would be carried out to evaluate the conditions under which small village households may best maintain improved poultry over the longer term, so as to develop the information needed to revise the type of support provided and the beneficiary selection criteria appropriately. The consultancy would evaluate the performance of the 25,000 flocks and answer questions as to the appropriateness of the package size (15 hens) provided so far as the basis for expanding the flock, and whether larger flocks might not increase the chances of success. It would also address the influence of family profile (poverty) and household economics, market access and village social factors on the ability of households to sustain their poultry raising over successive cycles.

10. In order for HLP to better understand the poultry sector in Afghanistan before support for poultry development is continued, another consultancy would also be fielded in early 2012 to identify development opportunities the sector may have. It is worth noting that broilers in small flocks were tried by HLP in 200 pilot households as an alternative to laying hens but, while technically successful, they demonstrated that when raised in small flocks they have unacceptably high risk and are also too seasonally-dependent. Thus, during the extension period, HLP would also establish a larger broiler and egg-laying pilot flocks (50 flocks each of 100 birds) on a pilot basis, in order to enable evaluation of the potential for the establishment of a larger, semi-commercial flock size. This information would position HLP and MAIL so as to define the nature and best direction of support for the poultry sub-sector in the future through the proposed national program.

11. Veterinary Services Delivery: VFU privatization. So far 114 government veterinary clinics (Veterinary Field Units, VFUs) have been fully privatized with HLP support, and the

22

process to equip, train and privatize a further 52 VFUs would be completed by December 2012 through the additional financing. HLP has recently surveyed the VFUs and found that most of them have established viable animal health services for livestock raisers, independent of the Government support. The absence of a properly functioning, government-supported animal health system with enough veterinary personnel in the districts makes successful functioning of these privatized clinics essential for the security of the livestock sector. With the training from HLP, they are able to provide strategic disease surveillance, reporting and vaccination work on behalf of the Government. They can do this under a Sanitary Mandate (SM) system, undertaking public-good animal health work under contract and on MAIL’s behalf. HLP would finance such SM contracts during the extension, as well as the selection, training and equipping of 50 additional VFUs in areas that would otherwise not have veterinary services. The EU-financed study into the private animal health services, estimates that 50 new para-veterinarians are needed each year to replace those who retire. Accordingly, 50 more VFU personnel would be identified, trained and equipped under HLP during 2012, and the project would continue to monitor VFU sustainability and performance this time.

12. Veterinary Services Delivery: Capacity Building. The continued strengthening of the technical capabilities of privatized veterinary clinics would be vital to the development of an effective livestock extension delivery system. Support for improved Artificial Insemination Capability in the VFUs would be a core activity of this process, directed to address a key problem faced in cattle raising by most small holders. These produce little milk, have low productivity and calving intervals are unduly long due to lack of available/suitable bulls. The momentum to improve cattle for dairy purposes has been developing for some time in recognition of this, but an Artificial Insemination (AI) service requires staff that are equipped and trained in the technique. Current constraints to an AI service are the cost and uncertain supply of liquid nitrogen and a shortage of AI technicians. HLP has supported the start-up of the liquid nitrogen plant (LNP) at Beni Hisar farm, so that LNP can now be supplied in greater quantity for transporting and storing semen. But in the VFUs, there is also opportunity to address the shortage of technicians. The VFUs are well positioned to provide AI services to their client base and, by doing so, can add substantially to their incomes. They need equipment and training to which end, HLP will induct the first tranche of 40 AI technicians (VFU staff) in 2011. They will participate under a cost-sharing that will require technician trainees to pay US$300 towards the cost of the equipment. A first training course has been contracted to Afghanistan Veterinary Association (AVA) and the technicians will be equipped before November. Since more AI technicians are needed and there is considerable interest, HLP would train and equip an additional 100 VFU technicians to provide AI during the project extension.

13. Livestock Extension. Livestock in most small households are neither well raised nor well fed so they contribute much less to household incomes than they could. When livestock extension messages are targeted to households such as these, incomes can be raised through improved livestock production. HLP livestock extension personnel currently work in the five focus districts where FOD has offices, providing livestock husbandry methodology through 502 groups to some 12,000 households. Extension for livestock raisers is being expanded to four more districts by the end of 2011, for which an additional 28 extension workers would be added. Also, more and better ways of delivering a more focused, updated and tailored extension message would be developed during the project extension, aiming at an extension thrust directed through some 780 groups covering almost 20,000 households in nine districts.

23

14. DAIL capacity building. As with HLP’s activities in extension relating to horticulture, MAIL’s objective of having the livestock extension functions within HLP gradually transferred to the Ministry is well recognized. This, which may be a central theme in the proposed national program, would be piloted during the extension period through the refurbishment of some DAIL offices and the inclusion of DAIL extension staff in the delivery of livestock extension, where possible.

Component C. Project Management and Institutional Capacity Building

15. Project Management. The process of reducing the LFP team in order increasingly delegate management functions to the national counterparts in HLP would begin during the extension period. Special emphasis would be given to the support of the Horticulture and Livestock Components Coordinators to the consolidation of the already formed producer groups, aiming at the improvement of their linkages to markets. The Financial Specialist would become temporary and be recruited for four backstopping missions during CY 2012, for a total of six months of work, since the local team is ready to begin handling the functions on their own. He would also back-up the national procurement team which is also in a position to completely assume procurement responsibilities after the extensive training received.

16. Farmer Organization Development (FOD). The FOD activities would consolidate the producer groups already established, with the emphasis on: (i) Producer Groups sustainability; (ii) value chain approach; (iii) formalization of PGs on primary level, as cooperatives or associations, (iv) federating formal primary level groups into secondary level commodity associations, and (v) partnership with private sector in post-harvest handling and marketing.

17. Institutional Capacity Building (ICB). ICB would consolidate its current activities by focusing on: (i) coordinating capacity building of DAIL in the nine HLP focus districts; (ii) supporting and strengthening District and Provincial Agriculture Service Provision Systems (DASPS and PASPS); and (iii) and the adaptation of existing infrastructure through minor civil works to pilot district Farmer Services Centers.

18. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). Beyond the continuation of its ongoing products, including the innovative geo-locational monitoring (GLM), the main output of the M&E activity for the extension period would be developing an implementation framework agreed between HLP and MAIL to mainstream and align the HLP M&E system to the MAIL M&E system.

19. Gender Mainstreaming. HLP would continue gender mainstreaming in close collaboration between the gender unit and all other components. In addition, during the extension, the Gender Mainstreaming Strategy would be reviewed and strengthened based on lessons learned through the project implementation.16 To this end, the gender unit, in close collaboration with the M&E and other technical components, would conduct a needs assessment of the female beneficiaries to understand their skills and interests, which would feed into the design of the follow-on project.

16 The reference would also be made to the AAA, “Understanding Gender in Agricultural Value Chains: the Cases of Grapes/Raisins, Almonds, and Saffron in Afghanistan” (May 2011).

24

Project Components by Year -- Totals Including Contingencies (US$ '000)

06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 Total

A. Marketable Horticultural Output1. Rehabilitation and Expansion of Perennial Tree Crop Cultivation 225 1,303 2,167 3,019 7,005 4,654 2,747 21,1212. National Union for Horticultural Development in Afghanistan 242 350 91 130 56 57 - 926

Subtotal Marketable Horticultural Output 467 1,653 2,258 3,149 7,061 4,711 2,747 22,047B. Livestock Output and Productivity

1. Animal Husbandry Department 106 293 209 195 342 1,402 1,314 3,8622. Marketing Initiatives

Dairy Initiative - - - 325 127 381 - 833Village Poultry Industry Initiative

- - 1,066 1,066 3,304 1,758 343 7,538Subtotal Marketing Initiatives - - 1,066 1,391 3,431 2,140 343 8,3713. Animal Health Services 125 456 721 1,197 1,320 2,699 1,134 7,652

Subtotal Livestock Output and Productivity

232 750 1,996 2,783 5,093 6,241 2,792 19,885C. Implementation Management Support UnitMonitoring and Evaluation (M&E) - 90 248 244 258 475 570 1,886

Farmers Organization Development (FOD) - - 389 600 648 1,016 644 3,298Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) - 32 32 57 469 862 513 1,966International TA Team (GTZ) 951 1,853 1,012 3,031 3,960 428 1,686 12,921National TA Team (GTZ Recruited) 75 283 436 603 716 862 746 3,721Operations, Information, Finance & Procurement 88 482 458 330 770 1,415 918 4,461HLP Project Evaluation and Preparation of HLP2 - - - - - 203 317 519

Subtotal Implementation Management Support Unit 1,114 2,740 2,576 4,866 6,822 5,262 5,394 28,774Total PROJECT COSTS 1,812 5,143 6,830 10,798 18,976 16,214 10,934 70,706

Annex 4Revised Estimate of Project Costs

25

Annex 5Procurement Plan

I. GENERAL

1. Country: Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.Borrower: Ministry of FinanceProject Name: Emergency Horticulture and Livestock Project (HLP)Grants No: TF091885Project Implementation Agency (PIA): Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL)

2. Bank’s approval Date of the procurement Plan Original: October 26, 20113. Date of General Procurement Notice: ………………..4. Period covered by this procurement plan: January 1 to December 31, 2012 (one year)

II. Goods and Works and non-consulting services.

1. Prior Review Threshold: Procurement Decisions subject to Prior Review by the Bank as stated in Appendix 1 to the Guidelines for Procurement: Procurement Method Threshold for Methods Comment

1. ICB Civil Works USD5,000,000 Equivalent or more2. NCB Civil Works USD5,000,000 Equivalent or less3. ICB Goods/None Consultant Service USD200,000 Equivalent or more4. NCB Goods/None Consultant Service USD200,000 Equivalent or less5. Shopping Goods/None Consultant

ServiceUSD 50,000 Equivalent or less

2. Prior Review Threshold: Procurement Decisions subject to Prior Review by the Bank as stated in Appendix 1 to the Guidelines for Procurement:

Procurement Method Prior Review Threshold Comments1. ICB (Goods & non consulting

services)All Contracts

2. NCB (Goods ) 200,000 Equivalent or more 3. NCB Civil Work 500,0003 Direct Contracting (Goods/Civil

Work)All regardless of value

3. Prequalification. Bidders for _Nil___________ shall be prequalified in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 of the Guidelines.

4. Proposed Procedures for CDD Components (as per paragraph. 3.17 of the Guidelines: Not applicable

5. Reference to (if any) Project Operational/Procurement Manual:

6. Any Other Special Procurement Arrangements: Not Applicable

26

7. Procurement Packages with Methods and Time Schedule

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ref. No.

Contract (Description)

EstimatedCost in USD

Procurement

Method

Prequalificatio

n (yes/no)

Domestic

Preference(yes/no)

Reviewby Bank(Prior / Post)

ExpectedBid-

OpeningDate

Expected

Delivery/Comple

tion

Comment

G.149

Manufacturing of 30,250 Grape Trellising Posts for the Northern Region

395,000 ICB No No Prior 1-Apr-12

31-Oct-12

Total Amount 395,000

III. Selection of Consultants

1. Prior Review Threshold: Selection decisions subject to Prior Review by Bank as stated in Appendix 1 to the Guidelines Selection and Employment of Consultants:

Selection Method Threshold Comments1. CQS for Firms US$ 200,000 equivalent or less2. QCBS,QBS, FBS, LCS depending on the nature and

complexity of assignment

2. Prior Review Threshold: Selection decisions subject to Prior Review by World Bank as stated in Appendix 1 to the Guidelines Selection and Employment of Consultants:

Selection Method Prior Review Threshold Comments1. Competitive Methods (Firms) $100,000 or more2. Competitive methods

(individuals)$50,000 or more

3 Single Source (Firms)/Individuals

All regardless of value

3. Short list comprising entirely of national consultants: Short list of consultants for services, estimated to cost less than $100,000 equivalent per contract, may comprise entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines.

4. Any Other Special Selection Arrangements: Not Applicable

5. Consultancy Assignments with Selection Methods and Time Schedule

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ref. No. Description of Assignment

EstimatedCost in USD

Selection Method

Review by

Bank (Prior/

ExpectedProposal Submission

Date

Expected

Delivery

Comment

27

Post) /Completion

S.106 FP Implements HLP’s horticulture extension service with the help of the DAIL/ES and 139 extension staff and 53 district of 11 provinces

1,800,000 SSS Prior 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

Currently we have contract with Root of Peace and for 2012 we will SSS or modify the new contract with them

S.107 Sanitary Mandate training for 200 private Govt Vets

182,000 CQS Prior 15-Feb-12 31-Dec-12

S.108 AI Training 100 Pravets

100,000 CQS Prior 29-Feb-12 31-Dec-12

S.109 Poultry Program follow up (25000 benef)

100,000 CQS Prior 1-Feb-12 31-Dec-12

S.110 Hiring of poultry expert

75,000 IC Prior 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.111 Pilot 50 small com broiler farms (150-200 brlrs)

100,000 QBS Prior 1-Feb-12 31-Dec-12

S.113Sanitary Mandate Contract for 20 provinces

500,000 QBS Prior 29-Feb-12 31-Dec-12

S.114 Contract with IP for pilot farms

120,000 QBS Prior 31-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.115 Development extension massages and video massages

104,000 CQS Prior 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.116 Training for 50 additional para-

325,000 QBS Prior 1-Feb-12 31-Dec-12

28

vetsS.117 Consultant for

SPSS training15,000 IC Post 1-Aug-12 31-

Dec-12S.118 Consultant for

report writing15,000 IC Post 1-Aug-12 31-

Dec-12S.119 GLM software

development for output monitoring

40,000 CQS Post 1-Aug-12 31-Dec-12

S.120 Impact evaluation

100,000 CQS Prior 1-Jan-12 30-Jul-12

S.122 International TA Team GIZ

1,980,000 SSS Prior 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

Currently GIZ has a contract with HLP and in 2012 the contract will be SSS or modify for 1 year

S.124 English Language Training in MAIL and 2 regional centers

90,000CQS

Post 29-Feb-12 31-Dec-12

S.125 Computer skills training in MAIL and 2 regional centers

60,000 CQS Post 29-Feb-12 31-Dec-12

S.128 PASPS and DASPS support in 9 provinces

50,000 CQS Post 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.129 Capacity building in 9 provinces

80,000 CQS Post 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.130 Radio Program 110,000 QBS Prior 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.132 Training for new extension workers

97,000 CQS Post 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

29

S.134 Delivery of services to producer groups facilitated by FP’s group formation and social mobilization and economic cooperatives or associations in Kabul Mirbacha Kot

88,000 QBS Post 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.134.1 Delivery of services to producer groups facilitated by FP’s group formation and social mobilization and economic cooperatives or associations in Kapisa Mahmood Raqi

50,000 QBS Post 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.134.2 Delivery of services to producer groups facilitated by FP’s group formation and social mobilization and economic cooperatives or associations in Samangan Aybak

70,000 QBS Post 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.134.3 Delivery of services to producer groups facilitated by FP’s group formation and social

87,000 QBS Post 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

30

mobilization and economic cooperatives or associations in Balkh Khulm

S.134.4 Delivery of services to producer groups facilitated by FP’s group formation and social mobilization and economic cooperatives or associations in Shibirghan

50,000 QBS Post 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.135 Recruitment of regional specialist (IPM specialist)

120,000 SSS Prior 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.136 Recruitment of Regional Specialist (On Farm Water Use specialist

120,000 SSS Prior 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.138 National TA Team recruitment by GIZ

275,000 SSS Prior 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

Total Amount 6,903,000

IV. Implementing Agency Capacity Building Activities with Time Schedule

10 In this section the agreed Capacity Building Activities (some items could be from CPAR recommendation) are listed with time schedule

No. Expected outcome /Activity Description

Estimated Cost in USD

Estimated Duration

Start DateClosing Date

Comments

S.140 Procurement training for procurement staff

10,000 TBP 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

31

S.141 3,000 TBP 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

S.142 Procurement training in India for procurement staff

11,000 TBP 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

Nil Procurement training in World Bank

No cost Nil 1-Jan-12 31-Dec-12

Nil Procurement training in PPU (MoF)

No cost Nil 1-jan-12 31-Dec-12

Total 24,000

Note:

1. Prior Review Consultancy Contracts for WB USD - 6,903,0002. Prior Review Goods Contracts for WB USD - 395,0003. Shopping under post review purchase orders/contracts USD - 3,740,9004. HLP staff salaries USD - 2,714,1005. Operational Expenses USD - 1,223,0006. Procurement Trainings USD - 24,000

Total = USD - 15,000,000

32